The plaint allegations were that the defendant respondent was allotted a plot in the State Government Employees Co operative House Building Society Colony in Kothapalli Village, that the defendant on 29.1.79 executed an agreement for sale in favour of the appellant that under the agreement the appellant was to pay respondent Rs.
1000/ due to the Society, that in accordance with the terms of the agreement the appellant paid these amounts, and, that on payment of the said amount and after the plot is transferred in the name of the respondent, the respondent had to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
The defendant respondent filed a written statement wherein he took the plea that prior to the agreement dated 29.1.79, he has entered into an agreement with one Venkataramaniah, who is also Government employee for sale of the said property.
It is also number disputed that on 3.5.79 the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant requesting the appellant to send travelling expenses for going to Proddatur for registering the sale deed in favour of appellant.
It is admitted that the appellant in companypliance with the said letter sent a money order of Rs.
The second ground on which the High Court has allowed the appeal was that the plaint allegations were companytrary to the companytents of the agreement for sale.
On 15.10.79, the appellant sent a numberice to the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement for sale dated 29.1.79.
It is number disputed that the respondent executed the agreement in his own hand writing for sale of the property in favour of appellant herein on 29.1.79.
However, the High Court in second appeal filed by the defendant respondent set aside the decree of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
This numberice was followed by another numberice dated 25.10.79.
200/ which amount was paid by the respondent to the Society and further the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs.
The appeal preferred against the said decree was dismissed.
Under such circumstances the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for specific performance for the sale of the property.
However, the defendant did number send any reply.
60/ , but the same was number acknowledged by the defendant respondent.
