THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.Nos.678, 713 and 720 of 1999 DATE: 27.01.2011 S.A.No.678 of 1999 BETWEEN: Mohd.Taher and others .. Appellants And Mrs Hafeeza Bee .. Respondent S.A.No.713 of 1999 BETWEEN: Mohd.Taher and others .. Appellants And Mrs Farzana Begum .. Respondent S.A.No.720 of 1999 BETWEEN: Mohd.Taher and others .. Appellants And Mrs Hafeeza Bee .. Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.Nos.678, 713 and 720 of 1999 COMMON JUDGMENT: S.A.No.678 of 1999 is filed against the judgment dated 04.11.1996 passed in O.S.No.89 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Medak as confirmed by judgment dated 24.11.1998 in A.S.No.39 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. S.A.No.713 of 1999 is filed against the judgment dated 04.11.1996 passed in O.S.No.90 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Medak as confirmed by judgment dated 24.11.1998 in A.S.No.37 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. S.A.No.720 of 1999 is filed against the judgment dated 04.11.1996 passed in O.S.No.88 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Medak as confirmed by judgment dated 24.11.1998 in A.S.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. The aforementioned second appeals are filed by the defendants in all the suits. I have beard the leaned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as ‘plaintiffs and defendants’ as arrayed in the suits. All the suits are filed for specific performance of draft sale deeds dated 30.05.1991. The plaint averments and the contentions urged in the written statements in all the suits are one and the same. The suits relate to different extents of vacant sites. The issues framed in all the suits are also similar and the questions of fact and law which had arisen for consideration are also same. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule sites in all the suits at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. yard, the draft sale deeds were prepared and were presented to the Sub-Registrar for registration, but the defendants demanded sale consideration at Rs.100/- per sq. yard, contrary to the understanding between the parties and when the plaintiffs did not agree, they left the Sub-Registrar’s Office without signing the draft sale deeds and the said draft sale deeds were returned to the plaintiffs. The version of the defendants is that on 24.06.1999 the defendants issued Ex.A.2 legal notice in each case stating that the consideration under the draft sale deeds was not paid to them and therefore, the draft sale deeds are not valid in the eye of law. The plaintiffs however, did not issue any reply notice, but they filed suits for specific performance of the draft sale deeds dated 30.05.1991. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the schedule mentioned sites at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard, but did not keep their promise and the defendants therefore, did not register the draft sale deeds in their favour. In all suits, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs paid sale consideration to the defendants? 2. Whether the defendants delivered vacant possession to the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for specific performance as prayed for? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked on their behalf. The learned trial Court having gone through the pleadings and evidence, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suits for specific performance of the draft sale deeds dated 30.05.1991. In the appeals preferred by the defendants, the appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Both the courts below in support of their decision recorded concurrent findings viz. that the defendants admitted their signatures on the draft sale deeds, but denied receiving of any consideration and therefore, the burden that they did not receive any consideration, lies on them, PW.2, one of the attestors of the draft sale deeds had categorically stated in his evidence about the defendants executing draft sale deeds and receiving total sale consideration from the plaintiffs supporting the evidence of the plaintiffs, who were examined as PW.1 in each case. The learned Courts below rightly held that the oral evidence adduced by the defendants cannot outweigh the documentary evidence, and that the defendants failed to prove that they did not, in fact, receive any sale consideration regarding the draft sale deeds. The defendants also admitted the fact of their going to the registrar’s office along with the plaintiffs. Though one of the attestors who was examined as PW.2 supported the version of the defendants by deposing that the defendants did not receive any consideration, the same was rightly rejected by both the Courts below believing the evidence of the plaintiffs, who were examined as PW.1 in each case. The evidence of PW.2 one of the attestors and the contents of Ex.A.1- draft sale deed in each case which show that the sale price is Rs.75/- per sq. yard as contended by the plaintiffs and the entire sale consideration was paid. Thus, both the Courts below recorded concurrent finding as mentioned above and as the findings are based on evidence and reasoning, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion. The said findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. While dealing with the second appeal, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. In these appeals, in fact, there is no substantial question of law involved which is sine qua non . For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no merits in the second appeals and accordingly dismiss them. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 27.01.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.Nos.678, 713 and 720 of 1999 DATE: 27.01.2011