THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.676 OF 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Reddy Veera Manikya Satyavathi .. Appellant And Singampalli Manikyam and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.676 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The third plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Prathipadu (now Junior Civil Judge) is appellant. The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2009 in A.S.No.7 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Respondents 10 and 11 herein filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 04.07.1971. The suit schedule land is agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.75 cents in Survey Nos.324 and 325 of J.Annavaram Village of Yeleswaram Mandal against seven persons. During pendency of the suit, the second plaintiff died and the appellant herein came on record as her legal representative. Be that as it is, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant in order to discharge the antecedent debts, the defendants sold the suit schedule property under agreement of sale agreeing to execute the sale deed along with his sons. As there was a prior mortgage on the schedule property, the vendor agreed to get the property released and execute the sale deed. However, the vendor and his sons’ defendants 1 to 6 colluded and executed a sale deed in favor of defendant No.7 and threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The first defendant opposed the suit. He denied the execution of suit agreement and also possession of the plaintiffs. He also denied the Kararnamas dated 10.07.1971 and further selling an extent of Ac.1.00 to defendant No.7 in 1981 and remaining land is in his possession. The trial Court framed the lone issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of specific performance of agreement of sale. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and 16 documents were marked. Exs.X1 to X3 were also marked. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the sale deed - Ex.B12 subsequently executed by defendants 1 to 6 in favour of defendant No.7 is not a bona fide sale. The appellate Court reversed the findings. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed A.S.No.7 of 1996 and defendant No.7 (subsequent purchaser) filed A.S.No.8 of 1996. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant herein filed S.A.No.772 of 1996 against A.S.No.8 of 1996. This Court by judgment dated 27.08.2010 dismissed the second appeal holding that the same does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. As the second appeal is already dismissed in the connected matter, this Court does not find any reason to admit the second appeal. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 09.12.2011 KH