THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.280 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.187 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11-10-1985. The trial court vide its judgment, dated 18-03-2002, decreed the suit partly directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Ex.A-2 till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S.No.39 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The appellate court, vide its judgment and decree, dated 14- 12-2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Second Appeal is filed. It is the case of the plaintiff that it entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.65,000/- on 11-10-1985. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the defendants and the defendants executed Ex.A-2-agreement of sale, dated 11-10-1985 and balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff on the date of registration of the sale deed. It is stated that at the request of the 2nd defendant, the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 27-10-1998 and obtained a receipt. It is stated that the defendants having received entire sale consideration, failed to execute the registered Sale Deed and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1993. It is the case of the defendants that the defendants never agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and it was the practice of the plaintiff to get an agreement of sale, whenever it used to advance money. The plaintiff obtained the said agreement as security for the loan advanced by it to the defendants for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff never paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in the year 1998 as alleged by it. In fact, the plaintiff took the General Power of Attorney from the defendants as a precaution and in fact the said General Power of Attorney was cancelled after discharging the amount of Rs.50,000/-. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the defendants executed the agreement as a security for the loan obtained by them from the plaintiff. It is further held that the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was not discharged and, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was decreed partly directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Ex.A-2 till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed A.S.No.39 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and the lower appellate court by its judgment, dated 14-12-2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court, by observing as follows:- “… There was no explanation even offered as to why the plaintiff kept quiet for all these years and chosen to file suit after lapse of eight years even though the sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- was paid out of Rs.65,000/- and the rest of the amount was also paid under Ex.A- 3. Plaintiff also issued several notices, demanding the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in respect of some other properties, wherein the correct schedules are not mentioned. Moreover, they are not tallied with the plaint schedule. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of specific performance of contract in pursuance of the sale agreement, dated 11-10-1985.” A perusal of the judgment of the trial court goes to show that the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly decree the suit in part. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 20-08-2010 Prv