Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Marri Srinivasa Rao vs Pathan Mastan Khan on 5 May, 2022
Bench: B S Bhanumathi
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.210 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
BSB, J
05.05.2022
Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants.
The suit is filed for specific performance
without an agreement of sale. The trial Court
dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiff
filed to prove the execution of the agreement,
mainly based on the advance taken that the
defendant does not sign in English and whereas
the documents in evidence also show that he
signs only in Telugu, but not in English. The
aggrieved plaintiff preferred appeal and the
appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted
decree for specific performance pointing out the
admissions of the defendant that he would sign
in Telugu as well as English and also to the
effect that the defendant studied up to
Intermediate as proved under Ex.A.7.
Having aggrieved by the judgment and
decree and decree in the appeal, the present
appeal is preferred on the following substantial
questions of law contended that the appellate
court has erroneously appreciated the evidence
on record contrary to the findings of the trial
Court.
(i) Whether the
Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff has
proved due execution of Ex.A.1 and has
right to seek specific performance of
contract under the impugned Agreement
of Sale dated 07.08.2006 i.e., Ex.A1?
(ii) Whether the Agreement of Sale
dated 07.08.2006 i.e. Ex.A.1 is valid and
admissible in law?
iii) Whether the First Appellate Court
erred in appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence in consonance
with the pleadings, and thereby the
Judgment of the Trial Court is perverse?
iv) Whether the suit is barred by
limitation and name is considered by
the First Appellate Court?
v) Whether the First Appellate Court
wrongly interpreted deposition of DW.1
as to DW.1 admitting in his cross
examination that he used to put his
English and also in Telugu?
(vi) Whether the First Appellate Court
failed to appreciate that Ex.A7 is
marked to subject to objection, and
wrongly observed that the defendant
failed to dispute Ex.A7 and also failed to
cross examine PW.1 on the said
document, while PW.1 is not the author
of Ex.A7 and Plaintiff failed to summon
the author of Ex.A7 to prove Ex.A7
inspite of the objection of the
Defendant?
(vii) Whether the First Appellate Court
failed to go through the contents of
Ex.A7 and also through the deposition of
PW.1, and as well as the entire record
of the Trial Court, as Ex.A7 is not filed
by Plaintiff but was received by the
Hon'ble Trial Court, which was then
marked in his favour as Ex.A7 on
objection of Defendant?
(viii) Whether the First Appellate Court
erred in coming to a conclusion that
Ex.A7 is proved upon the same being
merely marked as Ex.A7, though the
same is marked under objection by the
Defendant, and further when the
Plaintiff failed to summon the author of
Ex.A7 to adduce evidence regarding
Ex.A7 only when the genuinity of Ex.A7
can be tested?
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit
the appeal.
ADMIT.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 29.04.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellants is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondents through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to stay all further
proceedings including the execution of the
decree and judgment dated 11.03.2022 passed
by the I Additional District Judge,Guntur in
A.S.No.70 of 2014.
Notice to respondents.
Post on 28.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the respondents through RPAD and file proof
thereof.
Till then, interim stay is granted, as prayed
for.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
