THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.727 of 1999 DATE: 07.02.2011 BETWEEN: Korukonda Rudrayya .. Appellant And Jyothula Suryakantham .. Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.727 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 22.02.1999 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in A.S.No.13 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge reversed the decree and judgment dated 28.03.1989 passed by the District Munsif, Prathipadu in O.S.No.111 of 1985. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondent, though served with notice. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as ‘the plaintiff and the defendant’. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant and he filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 25.03.1978 and was put in possession of the schedule mentioned land and that he filed the suit as the defendant did not respond to his request to execute the sale deed. It was contended by the defendant that Ex.A.1 –agreement to sell dated 25.03.1978 is a forged document and she did not receive any consideration. Before the learned trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and the attestor and the scribe were examined as PWs.2 and 3 respectively. They spoke about the execution of Ex.A.1- agreement to sell by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and receiving total consideration of Rs.6,000/- and putting the plaintiff in possession thereof. The learned trial Court believed the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and decreed the suit for specific performance. Subsequent to the decree, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.88 of 1990 and that the Court executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the decree. Subsequently, the defendant filed A.S.No.13 of 1991, which was heard and disposed of by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The learned Senior Civil Judge reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff filed the present second appeal. The ground on which the second appeal has been admitted is that the learned first appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court which is totally erroneous and the said finding is not based on the evidence on record and is totally perverse. If any substantial question of law is involved for consideration the second appeal can be entertained or this Court can interfere with the findings recorded by the first appellate Court if they are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record or based on no evidence. The following are the grounds on which, the judgment passed by the learned trial court decreeing the suit are reversed by the first appellate court. According to the plaintiff, who is no other than the brother of the defendant, the schedule mentioned land was gifted to the defendant by the father under a gift deed and the said document was not filed into the Court. Though another brother of the defendant and plaintiff were present at the time of execution of Ex.A.1-agreement to sell, the plaintiff admitted that his signature was not obtained on agreement to sell and that itself is a circumstance which raises a doubt as to the execution of Ex.A.1- agreement to sell and passing of consideration under the said document. It was also further held by the learned first appellate Court that the plaintiff was unable to state as to how he secured the amount of Rs.6,000/- which was said to be paid to the defendant as total sale consideration and he was also not able to explain as to why he did not obtain the delivery of the original gift deed executed by her father under which she acquired the title to the property. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court for reversing the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court are totally perverse and unwarranted. This Court, therefore, of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are contrary and totally perverse to the evidence on record, pleadings and thus this Court can interfere with the said findings in the second appeal. Therefore, the decree and judgment dated 22.02.1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in A.S.No.13 of 1991 is therefore, set aside and the decree and judgment dated 28.03.1989 passed by the learned District Munsif, Prathipadu granting specific performance of contract in terms of Ex.A.1-agreement to sell dated 25.03.1978 are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 07.02.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO S.A.No.727 of 1999 DATE: 07.02.2011