The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dl:23-4-2013 passed in ASMP NO. 673 of 2013 in AS NO. 208 of 2013 until further order of this Hon'ble Court . t lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 ol cPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou'+ may be jescribed pleased to restrain Respondent no 4 and 5 in dealing with the property ' io an extent of Sy.No.197 and 198 a total extent of Ac 5-32 /' gts in any manner including alienation/creating third party interest/ encumbrances/changing the nature o-f the property which is more vivdly described in the annexed petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(ASMP. NO: 673 oF 2013) Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, changing or creating third party interest or charge or encumbrances over the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. UDAYA BHASKER RAO ( PARTY -lh- PERSON ) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : SRI JANARDHAN REDDY KOTHA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: The Court delivered the following Judgment : Page I of 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA"'ESHWAR RAO Appeal Suit No.2O8 of 2O13 JUDGMENT: (per the Honble Sri Justice P.SA Ko.SIrY) The instant appeal is frled by the appellant / plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2012 in O.S.No.471 of 2006 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar lfor short, 'the impugned Judgment'f

2.,Fleariir,..'.Mf,.B.Udaya *Bhaskel iRao (Party-in-Person) and '. .' ... ...--, '..- :.;rr- .'r.1,,,, ..,.t: ': ", 1;,.,,1, , '',' Mr. Jaiiardhah.Reaal,:'Xotha, learned counsel for the respondents / ' defendants

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court dismissed the above suit, v2., O.S.No.47l of 2OO8, which was filed by the appellant / plaintilf under Section 26 read with Order VII Rules I and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 19O8, seeking for specihc performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.07.2005 against the respondents / defendants in respect of the suit schedule property situated in Survey Nos.197, 198 and . 199 of Yadarpalli Village total admeasuring Acs. 17.18 gts. r

4. The brief facts of the care are that, the respondent / defendant Nos.1 ald 2 inave offered to sell their lands to the appeliant / plaintiff herein under a registered Agreement of Sale datt:d 1O.07.2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs.78,61,225/ , i.e., Rs.'l,50,500/- per acre. The appellant / plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh as advance to the respondents / defendants, and the balance sale consideration was to be paid u,ithin twelve (12) months so as to enable the respondents / defendants to register the sale deed in favour of the appellant / plaintiff. In the meantime, the appellant / defendant had a-lso paid a sum of Rs. 18,02.00O/- to respondent / defendan t No.3, and also a sum of Rs.1O lakhs more, to the respondent / defendant No.l. However, the respondents / defendants .failed to regiSter thb land in favour of the appellant / plaintiff.

5. l,earned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff contended that the appellalt / plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, but the respondents / defendants postponed the same on some pretext or the other. Even on the issuance of a legal notice also the respondents / defendants did not show keen interest in registered the sale deed which led to filing of the above suit for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated i0.O7.2005 seeking for relief of specific performance of the said agreement.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents contended that because the respondent / defendant No.t had to perform the marriage of his daughter which was fixed on 21.05.2006, and as the appellant / plaintiff had not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration, he had borrowed money frorn other person and performed the marriage of his daughter. He further submitted that had appellant / ptaintiff discharged his part of the contract and paid the balance amount, the respondent / defendant No.l would have performed the marriage of his daughter comfortably. But the appellant / plaintiff failed to do that which led to the oral cancellation of the agreemerit :of-sale. i'. :

7. ' . .ln support of his'iontentions, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Daivasigamani vs. S. Sambandan 1, wherein a learned Division Bench held as under, viz., "... ... h is sulficient for the respondents to establish that theg hqd the capacity to pag the sale ansideration. It is not necessary that they should alwags carry the moneg uith them from the date of the suit till the date of the decree. ... ..." 8 Having gone through the pleadings and averments made by the learned counsel on both sides, some of the admitted fact that is reflected is that so far as the payment made by the appellant / | 2023 (11 A.L.D. 49 (SCt ,'i' l:. .].: plaintiff to the defendants is concerned, as against the money received by the respondents / defendants they have alrcady executed and parted with Acs.4.OO gts. by way of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.7533 of 2005 executed on 11.11.2005. This fact substantiates the contention of the learrred counsel for the respondents / defendants that the respondents / clefendalts have got executed a sale deed to the extent of the money paid by the appe[ant / plaintiff to the respondents / defendants as \ .as agreed between them in the alleged agreement of sale.

9. It would be relevant at this juncture to also take note of the hnding given !y.,the Tlial ,,Co.yrl,,;.lnlolqr -qg lhe eyj{ence of pW.l (plaintiff himself) wherein he admitted that there was no material available with him to prove that he had sufficient means to discharge his part of the contract. 'I'he plaintiff (as pW. 1), in his cross- examination, had also admitted the fact that had had got Acs.4.OO of land registered in his name through the registerecl sale deed against the amount of money that the appellant / plaintiff had paid to the respondents / defendants. Further, a perusal of Ex.A. 1 (Agreement of SaIe) also reflects that it was agreed upon between the parties to register that portion of land proportionate to the amount of money paid by the appellant / plaintiff. Further, in addition to the aJoresaid finding, the contention of appellant / plaintiff that upon payment of I the advance amount, the respondents / defendants had in fact parted with the possession of the suit schedule property arrd it was in possession of the appellant / plaintiff, could not be substantiated by cogent proof and evidence. Further, it was also nowhere reflected in the documents that the appellant / plaintiff had been given possession of entire portion of the land that was agreed upon between the parties. 10, In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants relied on the following decisions, vtz Hemanta Mondal vs. Ganesh Chandra Naskar2, Killamsetty Eswari vs. Pedada Tulasi Raoi,.I,P. Builders yq. A..Rarnadas,!agf; agd : ... R. Shama l{aik yC. G.,Srlniyasiah5.

11. In Hemanta Mondal (2 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, viz., '16. In the present ca-se, it appears thaf possession LUas notgiuento the plaihtiff at the time of execution of the agreement, nor the area of Land agreed to be sold wo,s clear, as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has done substantiol a,cts or sulfered Josses due to expenditure in con-stntctions, etc., in consequence of a contract capable of speciftc perforflurnce. The direction giuen bg the High Court in tte impugned ord.er shotas that the measurements of land actuallg agreed to be sold, are not fi.nal." ) 2 (2016) I SCC 567 3 (2or7l 3 A.L.T. sso (D.8.) 4 (2O1r) t scc 429 5 2024 SCC Online SC 3586 L2. In the case of Killamsetty Eswari (3 supra), a learned Division Bench of this High Court held at paragraphs Nos.2l, 22 and 24 as under, viz., "21. Moreouer, as ightlg obserued. bg the Court belottr, the plaintiffs in o suit for specific performance, are obliged to auer a,rd proue that theA had perfonned or had alwags been ui ing to perfurm the cssenttal terms of contract u-thich are to be performed by them. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs, though auerred tleir read.iness ond_ uillingness to perJonn the essential terms of the contract, did not produce ang proof to shout their readiness. As pointed out earlter, the plaintiffs Jiled. 16 d.oa,tments. Ex.A.l was tlte ogreement of sale. Ex.A.l and Ex.A.3 are tlte legat notice and reply notice respectiuelg. Ex.A-4 utas the fin at decree in a suit for partition bettaeen the defendants and their father. Dxs.S and 6 u.tere the postul receipts and acknouledgment cnrd.s. Exs-A.7 ond A..8 tuere.the. eertifi.ea pgpA:,of_t4q grders;pgs.sed. pU tt?_ R9+t Controtter in tuo euiction petitions against the tenants. Exs.A.9 to A.l 1 are thte certified copies of the orders passed in the appeals 11Led agrLinst the orders of euiction passed bg the Rent Controller.

22. In other uords, th.ere tDas not a scrap of paper produced bg the plaintiffs to show their read.iness. We are conscrous of the fact that it ts neither necessary for the plaintiffs nor required of them to bing jingling coin s into the Court and establish their reodiness. The other req'uirements oJ' Section 16(c) of the Act are ttuo_fotd. The ptaintiffs stnuld estabLish both uillingness as welL a_s readtness. While u-tillingness is on animus of mind. tthtch can be established onlg through oral euidence, readiness k a foctor that should_ be establisfuid. bg something more than more oral euid.ence. unfortunatetu, the plaintiJfs tuho pleaded reodiness and uillingness, failed to proue their readiness through ang piece of paper or d.ocument. Page 7 of9

24. Once it is found that readiness on the part of the plaintiffs had not been established, the plaintiffs tuould not be entitled to a decree for s p e ciJi c p e rfo rmnnce. "

13. In the case of J.P. Builders (4 supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos.25 to 27 as under, viz., '25. Section 16(c) of the Specifrc ReLief Act, 1963 mandates .readiness and tuillingness" on the part of the ptainttff and it is a andition precedent for obtaining relief of gront of specific perforrnance. It rs also clear that in a suit for specifrc performance, tLrc plaintiff must allege and. proue a continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract. The onus is on the ptaintiff.

26. It has been rightly considered bg this Court in R.C. Chd.nd.tok us. Chuni La.l Sabhciranala that ,'readiness and uillingness', cannot be . ; treated a.s. o straltjdcket foitruila. Tllis lvis to: be, deietniruia. Jrbn. t\s, : .'. en!i.re[g. of thg fgcts and'.cirgaibgq.4ees rgteiant;'to W inteiliort aryd...;

27. It is settled laut that euen in the absence of specific plea bg the opposite pany, it is the mandote of the statute that the ptaintiff hrls to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and uhen there is non compliance uith this stafutory mandate, the court is not bound_ to grant specific performance and b lefi uith no other alternatiue but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be estabtished throughout th.e releuant points of time. "Readiness and wi ingness" to perform the part of the controct L;cs to be detennined / ascertained. from the conduct of the parties." L4. Similarly, in the case of R. Shama Naik (5 supra), a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph Nos.10 to 14, as under, viz., 6 (t970l 3 SCC 14O I 4 "10. The la u.t b uell settled. The plaintiff is obliged not onlg to make speciftc statement and ouertnents in the plaint but is olso obttged to adduce necessary oral and doanmentary euidence to shotu the auailabilitg of funds to make pagment in terms of tlte contract in time.

11. Th-ere is a fi.ne dtstinction betu.teen readiness ttnd u.tillinqness to perform the contract. Botlt the ingredients are necessary for the relief oJ specific performance.

12. While readiness meo.ns the capocitg of the ptaintiff to perform the contract wltich utouLd include his financial position, uillingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff.

13. The Hqh Court in fi.rst appeal upon dppreciatton of the euidence on record both oral end documentary has arriued at the cont:lusion that the plaintilf hos faiLed to establish that the tuas aluatls readg and. willing to perform his part of the contract.

14. rhb. peinq a.fq,ndlng ef fTct ayd..9q7ryot.-p9.te;rlyd;*1 .pe!/9.ri9t,, there is no good reason for us to interfere ufih the impugned. jud.Enent."

15. Having considered the legal position as it stands in the preceding pa-ragraphs and also from the aforesaid judicial precedents, and the factual matrix of the case narrated above, what is also evident is the fact that the appellant / plaintiff could not even produce his bank statement to shou, that at the relevant point of time he had sufficient means available with him to pay the balance of sale consideration to the respondents / defendants for completion of the contract.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons and judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the finding a-rrived at by the Trial Court cannot he fnunC lault with nor can it be in any'manner said to be PaBe 9 of 9 perverse or contrary to the evidence or law. The instant appeal, being devoid of any merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 17 . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this appeal shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. JA.YASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR A secn6#rrrcen 1 The lll Addrtionar District & sessions (FTC) , Ranga Reddy Districl courts at ^ L.B Nagar, Hyderabad. ( with recorcls ) 2. B. Udaya Bhasker Rao, ( party-in_peison; S/o. punnayya, R/o.plot No.62, ^ Defence Colony, Sainikpurui, Secunderabad. 3 One CC to SRt. V. HARt HARAN, Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC to SRt. JANARDHAN REDDy fOifrn Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies kul/l'SL HIGH COURT DATED:.2110512025 +DECR EE JUDGMENT AS.No.208 of 2013 Ro 115 o C) *.. r r-{1,..,1' DISMISSINGT I{E APPEAL SUil'WITI{OTJT COSTS 7 /.s //,/2 //<, IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 208 OF 2013 Between: B. Udaya Bhasker Rao, S/o. Punnayya, Occ Business, R/o.Plot No.62, Defence Colony, Sainikpurui, Secunderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/ Plaintiff

1. Mettu Yadi Reddi, S/o. Muthyam Reddy , Occ: Agriculture, Ri./o.Yadgarpalli Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2. Surikanti Achi Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Ocl: Agriculture, R/o.Ho.No.5-91, Old Alwal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

3. S.lndira, W/o.Achi Reddy, Occ Housewife, R/o.H.No.5-91, Old Alwal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

4. M. Mahender Reddy S/o. M. Yadi Reddy, age 35 years, Occ: Business, R:/o. Yadarapally Villae, Kesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. D. Ivlamata D/o. M. Yadi Reddy, Age 36 years, Occ: House wife Rl/o. H.No. 5- 2'l , Dammaiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, R.R.Dist. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 impleaded as per Court Order dated 21-05-2025 vide l.A.No.'1 o'f 20'18 in A.S.No. 208 of 2013 Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree Order daled 21-11-2012 in O.S.No. 471 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District & Sessions ( FTC) , Ranga Reddy District Courts at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/Defendants The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Udaya Bhasker . Rao, ( Party-in-person) for the Appellant and of Sri JANARDHAN REDDY KOTHA , Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 . -Y This Court doth order and decree as follows: l. That the Aplreal be and hcreby is dismisscd and 2. That there shall be no ordcr as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPYII Sd/-. T.JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR ) r_x*\'P SECTION OFFICER To 1 The rrl Additionar District & sessions (FTC), Ranga Reddy District courts at 2 L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Two C.D.Copies Kul/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:21l05/2025 DECREE AS.No.208 of 2013 4 I4. ///2/15 DISMISSING THE APPI]AL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS