THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.188 OF 2011 Dated:21.10.2011 Between: Kakara Rama Krishna Gangadhara Rama Rao and another .. Appellant And Smt. Yalamanchili Padmavathi .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.188 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: In this defendants’ appeal challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2010 in A.S.No.106 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, by which the judgment and decree in O.S.No.421 of 2001 dated 01.07.2005 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, was confirmed decreeing the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. The first appellant (hereafter, the first defendant) is the brother of the respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) and second appellant (second defendant) is the daughter of the first defendant. The plaintiff instituted the suit making the following allegations. Her brother executed an agreement of sale dated 12.06.1987 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of an agricultural land admeasuring Acs.02.02 cents in S.No.990/2 of Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District. The sale consideration was paid and the property was delivered to the plaintiff on the same day of the agreement. The plaintiff continued in possession and she also obtained pattadar pass book and title deed from the revenue authorities. In spite of making demands, the first defendant did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, a legal notice dated 02.08.2001 was issued demanding execution of sale deed. After receiving the legal notice, the first defendant executed a gift deed on 12.12.2001 in favour of his daughter – second defendant. The first defendant replied the legal notice making false allegations. He also filed a caveat alleging that he executed a gift deed in favour of the second defendant on 12.12.2001. Therefore, the suit was instituted for specific performance of agreement of sale. The first defendant filed a statement which was adopted by the second defendant. He denied the execution of sale agreement and alleged that his father Sathiraju used to attend the cultivation activities and in that connection contacted loans. For that purpose, the signature of the first defendant was obtained on blank papers, stamped and unstamped papers. The first defendant had lot of confidence in his father and did so. After death of the father, the plaintiff managed the properties in the Village. He denied the delivery of possession also. The trial Court framed seven issues. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined to prove Ex.A1 - sale agreement. She also marked 14 documents. Defendants 1 and 2 deposed as D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. Besides examining three other witnesses, Exs.B1 to B9 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and held that the suit claim is proved. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved her possession and accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants, the first appellate Court again considered the evidence and agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellants would submit that the case of the plaintiff is improbable and Ex.A1 – agreement of sale was not properly proved. She points out that in 1987 the plaintiff was minor and this itself improbablises her case that she paid Rs.1,00,000/- and obtained agreement of sale from her brother. She also submits that even the plaintiff as P.W.1 admitted that she is not aware of the source of amount paid under agreement of sale. Therefore, she would contend that the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and the suit ought to have been dismissed. This Court has perused the judgments of the Courts below thoroughly. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.2 and 3 to prove the agreement of sale – Ex.A1. They deposed that the first defendant executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff also marked Exs.A6 and A7 – pattadar pass book and title deed respectively, which would clinchingly show her possession and prima facie title to the property. Even in Ex.A1 it is clearly admitted by the first defendant that possession was delivered on the date of execution of agreement. No effort was made by the defendants to impeach these documents, which carry with them a prima facie presumption with regard to the title and possession of the suit schedule property. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are very well supported by cogent reasons. It is quite proper that the first defendant, who was admittedly staying away from the village for more than 25 years, would have executed agreement of sale in favour of his sister. There is nothing improper for such transaction. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 21.10.2011 KH