HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.839 OF 2010 Dt.3.9.2010 Between: Pullagura Venkata Rathnam ..Appellant And Gottigadla Chinna Appodu (died) and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH S.A.NO.839 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 10.7.2009 in A.S.No.6 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, confirming the decree and judgment dated 13.10.2006 in O.S.No.84 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur. Appellant herein is the plaintiff. He filed O.S.No.84 of 2003 against the defendants for execution of registered sale deed in his favour by receiving the balance sale consideration under the sale agreement. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court. It is stated that the said suit was filed by the appellant for specific performance of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale, dated 22.2.2002. It is stated that Ex.A-1 agreement of sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of an extent of Ac.2.00 for a sum of Rs.51,000/- and the defendants received Rs.41,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to receive the balance of Rs.10,000/- within one year before the Sub Registrar’s Office, Punganur. As the sale deed was not executed by receiving the balance of sale consideration, Ex.A-2 notice was sent which was acknowledged. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. It is the case of the defendants that the averments made in the plaint are incorrect and they never intended to sell their land and in fact the 2nd defendant purchased a tractor and trolley for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.2.2002 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the same day and the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff. At the demand of the plaintiff, the defendants executed Ex.A1 sale agreement for Rs.51,000/- and thereafter interest of Rs.2,000/- was paid and they admitted that the land is in possession of the defendants and the value of the land is more than Rs.1,50,000/- even on the date of the agreement and the agreement was executed as security and the same is for the purpose of repayment of Rs.40,000/- alone. In fact, the defendants also mortgaged the suit schedule property in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Punganur for a sum of Rs.1,78,000/-. Defendants also filed Exs.B-1 and B-2, which relate to the registration certificates of tractor and trailer. If the defendants did not purchase the tractor and trailer from the plaintiff, Exs.B-1 and B-2 are not in the custody of the defendants. The defendants purchased the said tractor through one Mohana of Madanapalle. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the said sale transaction is only intended for repayment of Rs.40,000/- for which the defendants ready to pay back the said amount to the plaintiff with interest and in fact the value of the land is more than Rs.1,50,000/- and therefore the defendants need not execute a regular registered sale deed only for Rs.51,000/-. The trial court held that Ex.A-1 agreement is only meant for security purpose in purchasing the tractor from the plaintiff by the defendants and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence confirmed the findings of the trial court holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of the agreement. In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the second appeal. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 3.9.2010 kpr