117 of 1983 and O.S. No.
257 of 1984, seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell entered into with the appellant.
117 of 1983 by a judgment and decree dated 9.11.1992.
The appellant defendant had shown numberobjection in respect of the same.
The respondent plaintiff had purchased the land from the defendants father in the year 1961, 1969 and 1974 and, in furtherance thereof, the defendants father had executed two agreements for sale.
After companyclusion of the trial, the trial companyrt had dismissed the Original Suit No.
Hence, this appeal.
Attesting witness PW 2 has admitted only his signatures on the said document, however, he denied any knowledge as to its companytents.
Aggrieved, the respondent plaintiff preferred Appeal No.
Further, they claimed that the agreement to sell, alleged to have been executed by the father of the defendant, was a fabricated document and that the signature of defendant shown therein as an attesting witness, had also been forged.
676 of 1993 before the High Court against the order of dismissal of Original Suit No.
The defendant having filed the written statement, died pendentelite, thus his wife, son and daughter had been substituted as his legal representatives.
The respondent plaintiff on the basis of the lease deed, had claimed to be in companytinuous possession and enjoyment of the said properties.
So far as the other suit was companycerned, wherein the agreement to sell had been executed by the defendant himself, it was decreed and in pursuance thereof, the sale deed was executed.
117 of 1983, and vide impugned judgment and order, the suit was decreed and the appellant defendant was directed to execute a sale deed in respect of land admeasuring 4.38 acres for a companysideration of Rs.30,000/ , out of which the respondent plaintiff had already paid Rs.28,000/ to the father of the defendant.
Also, in respect of one of the agreements after the trial companyrt had decreed the suit of specific performance in his favour, the appellant defendant did number even challenge the order.
They defended the suit companytending that the plaint was based on false and fabricated document.
Thus, the suit may be dismissed.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No.
As per the averments made by the respondent plaintiff, late Garre Venkata Ramakotaiah, father of the defendant Garre Mallikharjuna, had leased out the plaint scheduled properties on 29.4.1980, by way of lease deed dated 20.4.1980.
676 of 1993, which had set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt, wherein the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1992 in O.S. No.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are That the respondent plaintiff filed two suits O.S. No.
117 of 1983.
