THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No. 1058 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed in A.S. No. 63 of 2005 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2004 passed in O.S. No. 96 of 1995 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, decreeing the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.08.1993 and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 96 of 1995, before the trial Court, against the appellant herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.08.1993 and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was her case that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property to her for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and executed agreement of sale dated 07.08.1993, which was marked as Ex.A1, and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards part of sale consideration, under Ex.A2 receipt. At the time of execution of agreement of sale, original link documents and pattadar passbooks in respect of the suit schedule property were handed over to her. However, subsequently the defendant, in spite of repeated requests by her to receive the sale consideration and execute registered sale deed in her favour, dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and finally filed a caveat in the Court denying execution of agreement of sale. Thus, she filed the present suit for the reliefs of specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A.1 and for recovery of possession. The defendant resisted the suit, by filing written statement, denying execution of suit agreement of sale and receipt and stating that, with the help of certain documents executed by him for the purpose of security in a loan transaction between him and one Laxmaiah, the plaintiff fabricated the suit agreement of sale and receipt. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B16 were marked and Ex.C1 was also marked. The trial Court, after detailed consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant is contradictory, in view of the fact that on one had, the defendant is admitting the signatures on Ex.A1 agreement of sale and Ex.A2 receipt as of him and on the other hand he is denying execution of agreement of sale and receipt in toto, and so far as the plaintiff’s readiness to pay the balance sale consideration is concerned, it was held that as the plaintiff filed an I.A. seeking permission of the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court, it indicates the readiness of the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration, and accordingly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was able to establish that the agreement of sale is valid and binding on the defendant, and accordingly decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 20.12.2004, directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale consideration by 31.12.2004 to the credit of the suit and thereupon the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and put her in vacant possession of the suit schedule property by 31.01.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, the defendant preferred A.S. No. 63 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. During pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the suit agreement of sale and receipt are valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of specific performance of agreement of sale and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed the present second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C., raising the following substantial questions of law: a) Whether a document said to be agreement of sale on Rs.100/- Stamp paper having a total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- can be marked as Ex.A1 and taken in evidence in violation of Sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899? b) Whether the evidence of D.W.1 can be rejected on the ground that he tells lies frequently and is it not in violation of Sec. 52 of Indian Evidence Act? c) Whether or not the judgment in application delivered without considering the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal? d) Whether or not the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the case, but cannot depend upon the weaknesses of the defendants? e) Whether delivery of title deeds symbolizes delivery of possession of property? The contention of the appellant is that the agreement of sale dated 07.08.1993 to sell Ac.5.13 gts. of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.1 of Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, is not duly stamped and as such the same cannot be marked as Ex.A1 and it is in violation of the provisions of Sections 33 and 35 of Indian Stamp Act. The judgments rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court clearly indicate that the defendant did not raise any objection for marking the said document. For the first time, he raised the said objection in the present second appeal. In this context, it is relevant to state that there is a State amendment to Indian Stamp Act, by Act 22/1989, which came into effect from 01.04.1990 and A.P. Amendment Act 21/1995 came into effect on 01.04.1995, which clearly indicates that agreement of sale covering agricultural land does not require registration. In view of that, the contention of the appellant that the agreement of sale under Ex.A1 cannot be taken in evidence is not tenable and it does not amount to substantial question of law to entertain the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. As regards the other substantial questions of law raised in (b) to (e) are concerned, it is to be noted that both the Courts below merely appreciated the evidence on record in detail and recorded contradictions made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants. The Courts below did not indicate the character of any of the witnesses for drawing conclusions. In view of that, it is not correct to state that the judgment rendered by the Court below is in violation of Section 52 of the Indian Evidence Act. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court clearly indicates that it has re- appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence recorded by the trial Court. As such, it cannot be said that the first appellate Court rendered the judgment without considering the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. A perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below indicate that the trial Court, on detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the plaintiff is able to establish that the agreement of sale under Ex.A1 is executed by the defendant and Ex.A2 receipt has been issued by him on receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards part of sale consideration, and the first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence recorded by the trial Court, concurred with the findings of the trial Court. I am of the considered opinion that the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 31st December 2010 IBL