IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.494 of 2010 Between: Sunkara Peddabba (died) per LRs ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Yanadapalle Balaiah and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.494 of 2010 ORDER: First respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.53 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, for specific performance of the Ex.A.1, agreement of sale dated 02.09.1996 said to have been executed by the appellant Nos.1 and 2 in his favour, and seeks to direct the appellant Nos.1 and 2 to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration and also to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to join in the execution of the sale deed and to put him in possession of the plaint schedule property. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the trial Court has by judgment and decree dated 18.02.2002 directed the appellant Nos.1 and 2 to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property by receiving the balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,250/- from the 1st respondent within two months and also directed to put the 1st respondent in possession of the plaint schedule property, with liberty to the 1st respondent to get the sale deed executed through process of law if they failed to do so. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.47 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. During the course of the first appeal, the 1st appellant died and his legal representatives, who are appellant Nos.3 and 4 and 4th respondent herein, were brought on record. By judgment and decree dated 08.02.2010, the lower appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for appellants. Perused the material available on record. The trial Court in its clear and categorical terms held that the Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 02.09.1996 is not forged, created or anti-dated as contended by the defendants i.e. appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further held that the same is also supported by consideration and that the 1st respondent has got the capacity to purchase the suit property and the said agreement of sale is true, valid and binding on the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The contention of the appellants that the suit property is ancestral property but not the self-acquired property and, therefore, they have no right to execute the regular sale deed is also not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to adduce any evidence in support thereof. In so far as the 1st respondent is concerned, the trial Court held that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, he is entitled to the decree of specific performance on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.60,250/- as pursuant to Ex.A.1 agreement of sale a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.4 who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale did not witness the payment of the advance sale consideration and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Ex.A.1 agreement of sale is supported by any consideration, cannot be accepted because P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the witnesses to the Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, have categorically supported the case of the plaintiff. In so far as the evidence of D.W.2, the Hand Writing Expert, is concerned, the trial Court, after considering the reliability of Ex.C.1 report, did not believe the correctness or validity of the said report. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence and considering all the contentions of the appellants, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appellants also failed to adduce any evidence in support of their contention that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property but not the self-acquired property. So also the receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- was established by the 1st respondent by adducing oral and documentary evidence. As both the Courts below concurrently held all the issues in favour of the 1st respondent and against the appellants herein, it cannot be said that the Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 02.09.1996 is without consideration and is fabricated and created for the purpose of the suit. Therefore, in view of the concurrent findings by both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law for adjudication by this Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 16th July, 2010 CVRK