Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Laxmana Sahu vs Swarnapathro Swarnalatha Patro on 27 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE : S.A.No.471 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
27.10.2022
SRS,J
S.A.No.471 of 2021
Defendant being the appellant filed the present
second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated
20.07.2022 passed in A.S.No.134 of 2019 on the file of the
I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam reversing the
judgment and decree, dated 27.08.2018 in O.S.No.4 of
2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothuru,
Srikakulam District.
Suit is filed by the plaintiff for i) specific
performance of the suit agreement dated 04.02.2000
directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of
the plaintiff in terms of the said agreement executed by
him in favour of the plaintiff or in alternative for refund of
Rs.57,000/- being the purchase money together with
subsequent interest at 17% per annum from the date of
the suit till the date of payment; ii) for granting
consequential permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from alienating the schedule lands to others
and restraining him, his men, agents and servants from
entering into or otherwise interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the
schedule lands and with costs of the suit and such other
reliefs the Court deems fit.
The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs.
Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred A.S.No.134 of
2019 and the same was allowed. Hence, the suit is
decreed. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is filed by
the defendant.
Heard.
ADMIT.
The following substantial questions of law arise for
consideration.
1) Whether, the reversal of the finding by the trial
Court in respect of Ex.A.1 document basing on
proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act,
when the Act was amended that any agreement
of sale coupled with possession requires
registration and the proviso endures to the
benefit of the plaintiff for upholding the Ex.A.1
document?
2) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate Court is vitiated by its failure to take
into consideration the admission of p.W.1 with
regard to execution of Ex.B.7 coupled with expert
opinion on the ground that the execution of
E.B.7 was not disclosed in the reply notice?
3) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate Court is vitiated by its failure to record
the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff
throughout to get the sale deed in his favour?
______
SRS,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Heard.
There shall be stay of all further proceedings
including execution of the decree dated 27.08.2018 in
O.S.No.4 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,
Kotturu, Srikakulam subject to condition of petitioner
depositing costs of the suit to the credit of the above suit
within a period of eight (8) weeks, pending disposal of the
appeal. If the petitioner fails to deposit the suit costs, the
interim order stands vacated without any further
reference.
______
SRS,J
KA
