THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.575 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 17.01.2000 passed in A.S.No.275 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the decree and judgment dated 02.12.1992 passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada, in O.S.No.1004 of 1986. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The defendant is the appellant herein and the plaintiff is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant. The brief facts that are necessary for considering the second appeal may be stated as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.04.1984 – Ex.A-1 and in the alternative for refund of an amount of Rs.11,550/- together with interest, which was paid by her as advance to the defendant on the date of execution of the agreement. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell a residential quarter, which will be allotted to him by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), for an amount of Rs.68,300/-, for which the plaintiff agreed to purchase and she even paid Rs.11,550/- as advance. In fact, the defendant, by then, had not acquired the title to the said residential quarter and the understanding was that the remaining installments would be paid by the plaintiff after allotment is confirmed and the defendant has to take steps to transfer the quarter in the name of the plaintiff and that the defendant would repay the advance amount if allotment was rejected. However, subsequently, on a letter addressed by the defendant, APIIC sent a reply stating that as per its Rules, the defendant is not entitled to enter into any sale agreement in respect of the said residential quarter either before or subsequent to the allotment of MIG house after the construction is completed. The plaintiff, having come to know that the defendant was not entitled to sell the residential quarter, asked him to return the amount of Rs.11,550/- which was paid as advance, with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., as agreed under the agreement – Ex.A-1. It is the version of the plaintiff that the defendant failed to repay the said amount, she filed the suit. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff also filed a criminal case – C.C.No.24 of 1985 against the defendant, in which the defendant was convicted and on appeal, he was acquitted by this Court. The contention advanced by the defendant in the first instance is that Ex.A-1 agreement is forged and fabricated document and he did not receive any consideration under the said document. Subsequently, he filed an additional written statement stating that he and the husband of the plaintiff were closely associated with each other and under the pretext of transferring the residential quarter in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff’s husband obtained his signatures on some blank papers and the agreement was created on the said papers. Before the trial Court, besides examining herself and her husband as P.Ws.1 and 2, examined an attesting witness to Ex.A-1 as P.W.3. All of them had stated before the trial Court about the execution of the agreement and the plaintiff paying an amount of Rs.11,550/- to the defendant as advance under the said agreement. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B-1 on his behalf. The crucial documents are Exs.A-2 and A-5, letters addressed by APIIC. Out of the said two documents, Ex.A-5 letter addressed by APIIC to the defendant stating that the defendant is not entitled to sell the schedule mentioned residential quarter to anybody as per the Rules of APIIC. Ex.A-2 letter was addressed in response to the letter addressed by the defendant to transfer the schedule mentioned residential quarter in favour of the plaintiff. Considering the entire evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that Ex.A-1 agreement of sale is true, valid and binding and that the defendant had received the amount of Rs.11,550/- as advance from the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff by awarding interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The learned trial Court rejected the testimony of P.W.2, who is the husband of the plaintiff on the ground that in C.C.No.24 of 1985 in which he was examined as P.W.2 deposed that he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 agreement. Basing on the remaining evidence and the admission of the defendant of his signature on Ex.A-1, the first appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, however, modified the decree and judgment of the trial Court only to the extent of granting future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. instead of 24% p.a. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that having noticed certain discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff and totally discarding the evidence of P.W.2, the trial Court ought not to have passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff and the first appellate Court ought not to have confirmed the same. Since the defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A-1, the burden is on him to prove that no consideration was paid under the said agreement and that he never agreed to sell the residential quarter to the plaintiff. But, he failed to discharge the said burden. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence and reasoning, this Court is not supposed to upset the said findings only on the mere ground that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff. In fact, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. For the aforementioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 11th February, 2011 GHN