THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD L.P.A.No. 48 of 1998 ORAL ORDER : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The appellant herein is the defendant, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A S No. 492 of 1990 dated 11.12.1996 confirming the judgment and decree in O S no. 80 of 1984 dated 18.1.1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nandyal, files this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In brief, the facts of the case which gave rise to these proceedings are that the respondents have filed the suit for specific performance seeking to enforce the agreement of sale dated 15.9.1965 and for recovery of possession along with damages of Rs.70,000/-. Initially, the suit was filed on 30.7.1981 as O S No.348 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif’s Court , Nandyal restricting the relief of specific performance alone on the basis of the aforesaid agreement, subsequently the reliefs were amended by adding for damages of Rs.70,000/-. Having regard to the increase in the valuation which exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaint was returned for presentation before the appropriate Court, hence, the same was presented in the trial Court viz, at Subordinate Judge Court, Nandyal on 3.4.1984 and same was numbered as O S no. 80 of 1984. The case in the plaint in succinct is that the plaintiff was in service with the defendant company since the year 1957. Having regard to the service rendered by the employees, the company through its Directors decided to purchase lands in the year 1957. Accordingly, the Directors purchased the land at Nandyal for their benefit which consists of the suit schedule properties and sale deeds were accordingly obtained in the individual name of the Directors. Later, on 15.9.1965 the suit agreement was brought into existence between the Directors on the one side and employees on the other, whereby, for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and delivered the possession. The sale consideration was to be paid in ten equal annual instalments either in cash and by delivery of 25 bags of paddy. Accordingly, the total consideration was paid by 15.9.1975 itself, yet, the sale deed could not be executed in view of the Land Ceiling laws, which resulted in showing the land in declaration filed by the plaint, where the Tribunal has upheld the said agreement of sale and excluded the land from the holding of the defendant. However, due to certain misunderstandings developed later, the plaintiff had to resign from the service on 3.7.1981 and he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property by force. It calls for a specific performance of agreement and for damages, hence the suit. Contesting the suit claim, the claim of the appellant as defendant was that of total denial and it was stated that it was only meant for Directors alone and not for the benefit of the employees and there has been no consideration. However, it is only in the Land Ceiling proceedings such recourse was taken by forcing the defendant to take advantage and therefore the sale transaction is a sham and not legal and suit is barred by time. The suit is also bad for non-joinder and further the question of damages does not arise. After framing of the issues initially, as pleadings which underwent variation, on the applications filed by the parties, they went into trial wherein the plaintiff examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and marked documents in Ex A.1 to A.18. On behalf of defendants D Ws 1 to 6 were examined and documents in Ex B.1 to B.4 were marked. On the appraisal of the evidence and material on record, the trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the suit agreement is valid and the defendant appellant has come out with a false plea and thus virtually answering of the issues in favour of the plaintiff including on the claim for damages for Rs.70,000/- On appeal, the learned single Judge of this Court on consideration of various pleas raised, on behalf of the defendant/appellant and framing the point for consideration as to whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to specific performance along with the damages has once again gone into the merits, pleas and evidence from both the sides and did not find favour with the appellant, rejecting the very plea of shamness and suit agreement not being acted upon. The plea that no possession was delivered was rejected relying on Ex.A1 and contents thereon and reiterating the possession of P W 1 and that he was illegally dispossessed. The objection raised as to the dis-entitlement on the ground of resignation was not accepted and it stood rejected. The plea of limitation as well, has been considered. On the facts and material on record, especially culling out of the deposition of D W .1, it was held that the same has no force, since the Land Ceiling declaration of the appellant was finalized before the Appellate Tribunal on 8.8.1980 and the suit was filed within time. Further, in regard to the claim of the damages, it was reiterated by the learned single Judge that the plaintiff is entitled to the same. Thus, there is conformity by concurrence with the findings of the trial Court by the learned single Judge of this Court in the said appeal. Thus, there is a consistence and concurrent findings arrived at by the trial Court as well as by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the crucial findings of fact and issues involved. Though considerable submissions have been made once again trying to take us through the pleadings, evidence and material on record, to which fact that the consideration is not adequate and there is no compliance of section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and unfair advantage being taken in view of the relationship of employee and employer, apart from the plea that under section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, since the plaintiff resigned from service, is not entitled to the relief as sought for. However, we have gone through the evidence and entire record, once again by in-depth reading of the same. We are of the view that the said plea is wholly unsustainable, especially in view of the findings as arrived by the Trial Court as well as by the learned Single Judge and with which we do not find any variance either in the ultimate conclusion or reasons given in support. Except arguing on facts and attacking findings of fact, no other valid substantial plea is submitted. Therefore, on all counts, we are in entire agreement with the findings and it does not spell out any such question or error to warrant interference at this second level, especially in the appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, where no question of law arises at all. Though, several decisions have been referred to from both the sides, having regard to the nature and scope of the appeal and questions involved, it is not necessary to go into the same nor it warrant any applicability on legal propositions to interdict with the findings of the trial Court or as well with that of the appellate Court. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE: 02-09-2009 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD L.P.A.No. 48 of 1998OF 1998 Date:02-09-2009