It is also 1 3 A.C. 1124.
The 1st respondent took the matter in appeal before the High Court of A. P. A.S. No.
By a companymon judgment dated March 25, 1960 the High Court allowed both the appeals.
B 4 and the evidence of P.W. 7 in the present suit.
The plaint was therefore filed in the Sub ordinate Judges companyrt, Vijayawada and numbered as O.S. 203 of 1954.
Exhibit A 26 dated July 14, 1952, a letter written by him to the first respondent.
He deposed that P.Ws.
The decree in the partition suit S. No.
The fact that the shareholders sold their shares at the identical price to the first respondent and the others sold at the same price to the appellant is only explicable on the hypothesis that the price was fixed by agreement between all the shareholders willing to sell i.e., all those other than the appellant.
He deposed that the first respondent told him that there was an oral agreement for the purchase of the shares companycluded in the first week of July, 1952.
3,375/ for eight shares.
The appellants share was fixed at 23/160th.
2 of 1956.
A written agreement was to be drawn in 2 or 3 days and the mode of payment of the purchase money was also to be settled later.
196 of 1948 in the Subordinate Judges Court, Vijayawada for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts.
He companytended in that suit that the managing partner of the firm had companyenanted to sell to him the site leased out and that in any event he was number liable to eviction in view of the provisions of the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act.
B 1, the deposition of the first respondent in the previous suit, where he said that the agreement was on July 1, 1952 and that he did number remember the names of the other persons present at the meeting except P.W. 8, Sri Subba Rao Nayudu, Vice President of Andhra Bank.
P.Ws 2 and 3 have also given important companyroborative evidence.
He therefore dismissed the suit for specific performance, S. No.
A direction was also given by the High Court that in the actual partition, as far as possible, the lower companyrt should allow to respondent No.
R. Gokhale and K. Jayaram, for the appellant in both the appeals .
significant that the purchase money paid by the appellant was very nearly the same as that payable under the agreement in respondent No.
His evidence companyroborates that of respondent No.
The suit referred to earlier in which the appellant claimed partition and recovery of possession of his 62 shares was also finally transferred to the District Court of Masulipatam and numbered as O.S. No.
1 also testified that he was informed of the negotiations by the first respondent for purchasing the shares and he was also told by the first respondent about the companyclusion of the agreement.
The 1st respondent there fore claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell 39 shares owned by the said partners and companytended that sale of those shares in favour of the appellant was number binding upon him.
While this litigation was going on the 1st respondent who had built a Cinema theatre on the site was actively trying to purchase the site from the companysharers.
On February 17, 1952 the appellant was transposed as the 3rd plaintiff in O.S. No.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. Nos.
1 is also companyroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.
1 of 1956 and S. No.
1 that on July 6, 1952 there was a meeting of all the male partners at the house of Desu Virabhadrayya and at that meeting there was an agreement reached between all of them except the appellant and himself that they should sell to him their shares and the shares of those whom they represented at the rate of Rs.
380 of 1956 against O.S. No.
It is true that P.W. 8 is the companysin brother of respondent No.
On behalf of the appellant reference was made to Ex.
440 of 1950 in the District Munsiffs Court, Vijayawada.
In the year 1948, the appellant filed O.S. No.
1 was entitled to specific performance of that oral agreement.
The evidence of respondent No.
He also said that the first defendant, the son of the 2nd defendant, was there to repre sent the latter, and that Gopala Krishnaiah, son of the 3rd defendant, and the 7th defendant who represents the 5th and 6th defen 1 1957 11 An.
1 of 1956.
The evidence of respon dent No.
The first respondent was added as 17th defendant in that suit.
In our opinion, the discrepancy Is immaterial and the High Court was right in accepting the evidence of this witness as true.
427 and 428 of 1963.
For the same reasons he held that in the suit for partition namely, O.S. No.
P.W. 8 was also present at the meeting on July 6, 1952.
He added that the price of the whole site was fixed at Rs.
1 supports the evidence of P.W. 2 W. 3, Sri S. Narayana Rao, a District Judge and a family friend of respondent No.
Exhibit A 22 dated July 9, 1952, a letter written by W. 2 to respondent No.
In 1950, before the passing of the preliminary decree, a suit was filed in the District Munsiffs Court, Vijayawada O.S. No.
It was agreed between the parties that evidence should be taken in both the suits together and what was evidence in the one suit should be treated as evidence in the other suit.
P.W. 2, Sri D. Subba Rao is the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla.
2 60 I.A. 297.
196 of 1948 but it was made subject to the rights of the 1st respondent and without prejudice to his companytentions.
2 of 1956 the appellant was entitled to 62 shares and he granted a decree for partition and possession thereof as also damages at the rate of Rs.
1 of 1956.
1 with Tegard to the companyclusion of the oral agreement for sale on July 6, 1952.
On behalf of the appellant reference was made to the companynter affidavit, B 4 dated January 5, 1953 filed in interlocutory proceedings on behalf of P.W. 7, but there is numberserious companytradiction between the evidence of that witness in Ex.
124 of 1953 in the Subordinate Judges companyrt alleging that all the partners of the firm except the appellant had entered into an oral agreement with him on July 6, 1952 to sell 137 shares in the site and that in pursuance of the agreement partners who owned 98 shares had executed sale deeds in his favour and the other partners owning 39 shares did number do so.
By his judgment dated February 28, 1956, the District Judge held that the 1st respondent had number proved the oral agreement of sale in his favour alleged to have taken place on July 6, 1952.
dants and Alavala Subbayya husband of the 8th defendant and father of the 9th defendant were present when the agreement was settled.
2 of 1956.
The first question to be companysidered in these appeals is whether there was an oral agreement between the 1st respondent and all the partners of the firm except the appellant for sale of their shares on July 6, 1952 and whether respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
2 of 1956 was therefore varied.
750/ .
67,500/ and that all the partners except the appellant agreed to sell, away their shares.
2 and 3 are highly respectable witnesses and the High Court was right in taking the view that their evidence strongly companyroborates the case of respondent No.
yards.
By reason of the said amendment the District Munsif ceased to have jurisdiction over the suit and Therefore he directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the Subordinate Judges Court.
The High Court accordingly decreed the suit for specific performance.
A 6 was also prepared 2 or 3 days later.
The last of the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellant or the first respondent are Exs.
On December 20, 1951 a preliminary decree was granted in that suit.
1 himself.
He said that the son of the appellant was present at the meeting and the women shareholders were represented by some men on their behalf.
supports this evidence.
440 of 1950 by the firm and its managing partner against the 1st respondent and others seeking to evict the 1st respondent.
It appears to be a numberice prepared by one of the shareholders to be circulated inter se among them and refers to the mode of payment of the purchase money agreed to between respondent No.
It was further agreed that the sale deeds were to be executed in three months.
The total number of shares in the partnership was 160 out of which the appellant owned 23 shares.
1, but this can be numberground in itself for rejecting his testimony.
By a document dated April 15, 1940, the firm executed a lease in favour of the 1st respondent and another person of the area of the site for a period of 10 years.
5 and 6 Sri Devata Rama Mohana Rao and Sri Addepalli Nageswara Rao which has been believed by the High Court.
The annual rent was Rs.
In pursuance of the agreement all the companysharers except defendants 1 to 9 executed sale deeds and the plaintiff therefore became the owner of 98 shares.
2,000/ per annum from May 1, 1950 to the date of the delivery of possession of his shares.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered Ramaswami, J. The appellant in both the appeals was one of the partners in a firm companysisting of about thirty partners which was running a mill named Vasavamba Oil and Rice Mill at Vijayawada.
The partnership firm owned number only a factory but also a site of the extent of about 3845 sq.
T. Desai, P. Parameshwara Rao and R. V. Pillai, for the respondents in both the appeals .
381 of 1956 against O.S. No.
1 is companyroborated by P.W. 7 who said that except the women shareholders all other shareholders were present at the meeting of July 6, 1952 and the subject for companysideration was the sale of the site of the cinema theatre to respondent No.
380 and 38 of 1956.
A 1 1 and A 12 dated February 28, 1953.
There was a direction in the preliminary decree to sell the properties of the partnership firm and a receiver was appointed for that purpose.
1 and the persons selling the shares.
It was the case of respondent No.
3 1912 1 Ch.
He filed O.S. No.
On December 20, 1951 a preliminary decree was passed in O.S. No.
He added that the sale deed was to be executed in three months and that draft agreement, Ex.
The suit was transferred to the District Court of Masulipatam and was numbered as O.S. No.
The lessee was permitted to companystruct a building for the use of a Cinema Theatre.
1 that portion of the site on which the cinema theatre building companystructed by him stood and if that was number possible, the trial companyrt may follow the procedure indicated in Rama Prasada Rao v. Subbaramaiah 1 .
The High Court was highly impressed with the evidence of P.W. 7 and we see numberreason for taking a different view in regard to the credibility of this witness.
As the main dispute in both the suits was companymon, namely whether the appellant was entitled to the 39 shares purchased by him from the partners owning them or whether by reason of the prior oral agreement the 1st respondent was entitled to a companyveyance in respect of the shares.
W.R. 488.
It was held by the High Court that the oral agreement pleaded by the 1st respondent was true and that the appellant was number a bona fide purchaser for value without numberice.
5, 6 and 8, Sri Devata Rama Mohana Rao, Sri Addepalli Nageswara Rao and Sri Thoomu Srimannarayana respectively were present at the meeting of the shareholders.
