HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.83 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant herein filed O.S. No.7 of 1994 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, against the respondent for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 25-06-1993. It was pleaded that both of them entered into an agreement with a person by name, Somakka, wife of original allottee of the Yemmiganur Weavers’ Cooperative Society on 20-05-1992 for purchase of the suit property, in equal shares and that thereafter the respondent had agreed to sell his share to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.80,000/- through the agreement of sale, dated 25-06-1997. The amount is said to have paid on that day itself and that possession was also delivered. It was alleged that in spite of repeated demands, the respondent did not cooperate for completion of the transaction. 2. The respondent filed written statement opposing the suit. He denied the payment of any amount by the appellant or the existence of agreement. He disputed the agreement of sale, dated 20-05-1992, and the conditions thereof. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment, dated 31-08-1999. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed A.S. No.62 of 2000 in the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was dismissed on 27-09-2003. Hence, this Second Appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. On the basis of the pleadings in the suit, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the sale agreement dt.25-6-1993? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for agreement injunction as prayed for? 3) Whether the agreement dt.25-6-1993 entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff is not voluntary and the same is getorture?” 6. On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were filed. On behalf of the respondent, DW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were filed. On dismissal of the suit, the appellant filed A.S. No.62 of 2000. The lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.25/6/93, or that it came into existence by threat? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for> 3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set-aside?” The appeal was dismissed. 7. It is a different matter that the respondent denied the very execution of the agreement of sale, dated 25-6-1993, marked as Ex.A-1 and that the appellant did not file the so called agreement, dated 20-05-1992. Assuming that Ex.A-1 is true, the fact remains that the respondent did not have any title to the property since no sale deed was executed in his favour by the Society, by the date of Ex.A-1. Further, the Society executed a sale deed, dated 16-2-1994, in favour of the respondent transferring the suit schedule property. The appellant did not take any steps vis-à-vis the said document. Further, the bye-laws of the Society marked as Ex.B-2 prohibit the sale of plots by a member to a non-member. The appellant is not a member of the Society. 8. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have examined the matter from the correct perspective and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts. 9. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 15, 2011. KTL