Heard both sides and perused the record v. POINT FOR DETERMINATION

sole defendant for recovery of Rs.5,70,500/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of this suit till realization and for costs. The Case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 1 A]<S,J&I9RKR,J AS_318 2013

24.04.2007, which was paid by way of cheque bea- rg No.210234 drawn on Andhra Bank, Sathupalli, and the sa ne was duly encashed. Thereafter, on 11.05.2007, the defendrrrt once again borrowed a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, which v.r s paid by the plaintiffthrough cheque bearing No.591236, and thr, ;ame was also encashed by the defendant. Thus, in total, the defencz nt borrowed a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Subseque,r tly, when the plaintiffdemanded repayment, the defendant, in di; harge of part of the liability, agreed to sell his mango garden admeasuring Ac.5.20 gunras situated at Rejerla viltage to the plair tiff. The sale consideration was mutually fixed at Rs.13.t9,3251_ and accordingly, the defendant executed an agreement or. ;ale in favour of the plaintiff on 10.07.2007. Thereafter, on 0| 09.2007, the defendant and his son executed a registered sal,: deed dated.

03.09.2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sathupall. , in favour of the plaintiff. Out of the total borrowal, the sum of )7;.13,29,3251_ was adjusted towards the sale consideration, leav r g a balance amount of Rs.5,70,625l, still due and payable by thr: defendant to the plaintifl. The plaintiff got issued a l:gal notice 3 AXs.,J&VRKR,J AS 316 2013 dated 04.12.2007 to both the present and permanent address of the defendant, but the same was retumed unserved' As there is no hope of recovery otherwise, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit'

4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement and contents that he is the absolute owner and possessor of tand admeasuring Ac.5.19 guntas in Sy' Nos'156/2lEE" 15612lA and l47lA situated on the eastem side of the Mother Theresa Institute of Science and Technology College (for short 'MIST')' of which the plaintiff is the Correspondent' The plaintiff' being well acquainted with the defendant, approached him in February 2007 and requested to purchase the said land, pursuant to which an agreement of sale was executed on 05'02'2007 for a total consideration of Rs.24,36,375/- at the rate of Rs'45'000/- per acre' under which the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs'5'00'000/- and later issued two cheques for Rs.12,O0,000/- and Rs'7,00'000i-' leaving a balance of Rs.5,00,000/-- The agreement was drafted by Varanasi BhavaniSankarandattestedbyBhimireddyMuthaReddyand Mangapati Chenna Reddy. The defendant contends that the plaintiff suppressed material facts and, in collusion with the Sub- 4 AJ(s,J&VRKR,J AS31a 2013 Registrar and the scribe, managed to obtain a regis ered sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant lodged a con plaint with the Sathupalli Police, resulting in Crime No. I1 0/200g dated

19.07.2008, and the District Registrar, Khammam also initiated action regarding undervaluation of the document fhe defendant also contends.that the suit lacks cause of action anc te is willing to refund the sale consideration and cancel the agreerr ( nt. Irurther, by way of additional written statement, the defendant ii rbmits that the plaintiff filed the suit in his personal capacity lt r recovery of Rs.5,70,500/-, whereas cheque No.591236 dated 1t.05.2007 for Rs.7,00,000/- was in fact issued not by rhe plaint ff but by the MIST. Since the Society has not been impleaded, r re underlying suit suffers fiom non-joinder of a necessary party, erd as there is no agreement between the defendant and the saic Society, the plaintiffhas no locus standi to maintain the underlyin ; suit. I ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL (] )URT:

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Corr t framed the following issues for trial: l. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit clainr 5 ARS,J&VRKR,J AS31a-2Ot3

2. To what reliefl

6. As per orders in I.A.No.225 of 2011 dated 26.07.2011 the following additional issues were arisen for consideration. l. Whether the cheque dated 11.5.2007 for Rs.7.00,000/- issued by the plaintiffin his personal capacity or not?

2. To what reliefl [L EVIDENCEONRECORD:

7. During the course of trial, Plaintiff was examined as PWI and got marked Exs.Al to 43 on behalf of the ptaintiff. On the other hand, defendant examined himself as DWI and got marked Ex. Bl to 83. IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:

8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013, dismissed the Suit and observed that the said amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- issued to the defendant by the plaintiffvide cheque dated. I1.05.2007 belongs to MIST, which was utilized by the plaintiff and obtained sale deed in his name. The above said act amounts to misappropriation of funds of MIST. Therefore, the MIST is a proper and necessary party to 6 AKS,J&I/RKR,J AS 318 2013 the suit. The Trial court held that the cheque dated 1.05.2007 for Rs.7,00,000/- issued by plaintiffis not in his personr I capacity and the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit claim.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the pres,: rt Appeal Suit to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. IO. IV. SUBMISSTONS OF TTIE PARTIES: A) i) Contentionson behalf of apoellanUplaintiff The leamed counsel for the appellant/plainti .l submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defendar( has admitted the receipt of a total sum of Rs. 19,00,000/_ under tw,r cheques, and it is wholly immaterial from which source the plaint ff mobilized the funds to pay the defendant. The Triar court faile r to consider that the deGndant is in no way concerned with thr: source from which the plaintiff procured the funds, and having recr ived the said amount, it is the obligation of the defendant to repay the same to the plaintiff. ii) The leamed counsel for the appellanVplaintifl ;ubmits that the Court below failed to note that even if the cons r eration was "q/ 7 AKS,J&VRKR,J AS 318-2013 alranged through a third party, such passing ofconsideration to the benefit of the plaintiff and ultimately to the defendant constitutes valid consideration in law and that the defendant cannot raise any plea adverse to the plaintiffon the ground that the funds originated from a third party. iii) The leamed counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the Trial Court erred in holding that IWs. MIST College is a necessary party; that the said institution did not advance any amount to the defendant. Further, the college only arranged funds to the ptaintiff, and it is the plaintiff alone who is accountable to the institution. Hence, there exists no privity of contract or direct nexus between the defendant and MIST College. On the contrary, in view of the close friendship between the plaintiff and the defendant, AS admitted, the plaintiff arranged the funds and advanced the said amount to the defendant. B) Contentions on behalf of respondenUdefendant: irr) The leamed counsel for the respondentidefendant submits that the cheque bearing No.591236 dated 1t.05.2007 for 8 AKS,J&VRKR,J AS_i18_2013 Rs.7,00,000/- was not issued by the plaintiff in his personal capacrty and in fact, the said cheque was issued by th, MIST, thus, the suit is not maintainable for excluding MIST as or: of the party to the suit. It is further submitted that there is r o agreement between defendant and MIST for an amount of Rs.' ,00,000/-, as such, the plaintiffhad no locus standi to file suit for re :overy of the alleged amount. I 1. Heard both sides and perused the record. V. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

12. The point for adjudication is: Whether there are any grounds to set i ide the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2013 in O.S. ],,1 r. 3l of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Srr hupalli, Khammam. VI. ANALYSIS:

13. There is no dispute that defendant is the owner rf land to an extent of Ac.5.19 guntas situated at Rejarla Villag,. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the said prop:rty is open land and even in the sale deed under Ex.A4 the said 1 roperfy was 9 ARs"J&VRKR,J AS 3ta_2013 shown as open land. On the other hand, the defendant contends that the said land is not vacant and in fact, it is a mango garden. It is further case of the defendant that the plaintiff in order to avoid paying the registration charges mentioned the subject Property as vacant land instead of mango garden. In this connection, it is appropriate to observe the admissions made by the plaintiff as PWl. PWl admitted that in Ex.A6 i.e., notice got issued by him to the defendant, it was averred that in the agreernent the purpose was mentioned for purchase of mango garden. He further admitted that in the plaint, it was recited that the sale of property is mango garden. There is no explanation from the plaintiff as to what prompted him to mention in the sale deed that the subject property is open tand but not mango garden. These admissions of plaintiffl PWI strengthen the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff intentionally to avoid registration charges mentioned the nature of the property as vacant land instead of mango garden. It is also appropriate to note that the defendant had made complaint to the Station House Officer, Sathupalli alleging that the plaintiff obtained registered sale deed by fumishing the false information in 10 AKS,JAVR]<&J AS_31a 2013 order to avoid paying the fee to the Govemment. t L this rega.rd, a suggestion was given by the leamed counsel for tl : defendant to PWI that on knowing about filing of the corr ptaint by the defendant, PWI created the srory and filed th,: suit with an intention to avoid future complications. Even as pr : the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 i.e., attestor and document writer re rpectively, the transaction between the parties to the suit is in rer;; ,ect of mango garden but not vacant land. The evidence of pw3 fu ther discloses that whitener was applied on the words of mango 1; ,rden and that on the date of agreement of sale under Ex.A5 the mir .go trees were on land. PW3 further deposed that defendant lo<11 ed complaint against him, plaintiff and Sub-Registrar alleging t ,at they have tampered Ex.A4 registration document. There is no t rplanation on the part of plaintiff as to what are the circumstances under which whitener was applied on the writings of the documer l. The above acts of the plaintiff amounts to suppression and mir; epresentation of material aspects.

14. There is no dispute that the plaintiff got issuec two cheques in favour of the defendant i.e., one cheque belonging t r the plaintiff 11 ARS,JAWKR,J AS 316_2013 and the other cheque relates to MIST College, to which the plaintiff is the correspondent. Though the cheque has been issued in the name of MIST Cotlege by the plaintiff, it is to be seen that the said college has distinct identity. Though the plaintiff is competent person to issue cheque on behalf of MIST College, the plaintiff is under obligation to make MIST College as one of the parties to the suit, more particularly, when the interest of the college is involved in the subject cheque. The plaintiff has not even explained as to what are the circumstances under which he was compelled to issue cheque to the defendant on behalf of MST College. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not even mentioned in the plaint that one of the two cheques issued by him to the defendant belong to MIST College. The plaintiff in his cross examination as PWI admitted that the defendant has to pay Rs.5,70,500/- to him but not to MIST College. In such circumstances, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff as to what prompted him to issue cheque to the plaintiff on behalf of MIST College. The Trial Court observed at paragraph No.35 of the impugned judgment that the ptaintiff failed to submit t2 .4'(S, J& YRKR, J AS-3 t 8_2013 any piece of document to show that he has adjuste J the amount to the MIST College or audit report of the MIST Colte6 :.

15. It is the specific case of the defendant thr t the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale under Ex.B I wittr rim in respect of mango garden and that the said cheques were issued by the plaintiff in connection with transaction under Ex.B On the other hand, the plaintiffcontends that the said two cheqrr s were issued in connection with Exs.A4 and ,A,5. The plaintiff gor registered the subject land in his name but not in rhe name of MIS I College. The defendant examined DWs 2 and 3, who are the atkl tor and scribe of Ex.Bl respectively. The Trial Court rightly ct served in the impugned judgment that if at Exs.Bl to 83 transr.< tions are true and correct, there is no necessity for the defenda rt to execute afresh agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in t .e presence of PWs 2 and 3 and parties to the suit covered under ix.A5. Thus, there is an ambiguity with regard to the purpose for vhich the two cheques in questions were issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, especially with regard to issuance of cr e of the two \ 13 AKS,J&VRKR,J AS_318 2013 cheques belonging to MIST College. The plaintiff failed to clear this ambiguity.

16. The plaintiff as PWI admitted in his cross examination that in Ex.A5 agreement of sale, the defendant alone subscribed his signature and whereas in Ex.A4 the defendant and his son subscribed their signatures. This veracity also creates any amount of ambiguity on the version of the plaintiff.

17. PWI deposed that he has not asked the defendant to fumish the security for acknowledging the debt. However, PWI admitted that for recovery of cheque amount, he obtained Ex.A5 document on request of the defendant. He further admitted that after sale consideration of Ex.A4 in pursuance of Ex.A5, the defendant has not passed any receipt or acknowledgment for the remaining balance under cheques amounts due to him. If at all there is any amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, ce(ainly the plaintiff ought to have obtained rec.eipt or acknowledgment for the remaining balance under cheques. The plaintiff got examined one K. Venkat Reddy, who is alleged to be attestor of Ex.A5 as PW2. L4 AKS,J&VRKR,J AS_31a_201i Though PW2 deposed that he was present at the li ne of mango thopu sale transaction between the parties to the suit, overed under Ex.A5 agreement of sale, he admitted that no cons deration was passed between the parties in his presence. An agftx ment without consideration is generally a void agreemenl, invalid and unenforceable under the provisions ofthe Indian Con ract Act. The Trial Court observed at paragraph No.30 of t re impugned judgment that at the time of passing of cheques, thr plaintiff has not obtained either receipt or acknowledgment or pr ,missory note from the defendant to show that the defendant has tc, epay the said sum to the plaintiff. It was firther observed in the se re paragraph that at the time of Exs.A4 and A5 no monetary t'r nsaction was held between the parties in the presence of eithel the scribe or attestor of the documents. Thus, the case of thr plaintiff for recovery of amount from the defendant weakens.

18. Even otherwise, the Trial Court observed the the amount belonging to the MIST College was utilized by thi plaintiff and obtained sale deed in his name and it amounts to mi: appropriation of funds of the MIST College for his own use but nc,t to the benefit I I 15 lrsJ&IlRIc,J AS_318_2013 of MIST Collegs. The plaintiffhas not filed any record much less audit report either before the Trial Court or before this Court to establish that the he had adjusted the amount to MIST College. Itr. CONCLUSION:

19. In view of tlre above discussions, it is manifestly clear that the Trial Court upon due consideration of all the relevant aspects, has rightly rendered the impugned judgment and decree by assigning valid reasons.

20. In the considered view ofthis Court the appellant has failed to prove and establish any tenable grounds so as t6 demonstrate that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing tlre suit of th€ plaintiff. We are, therefore of the firm opinion thaf no case is made out warranting interference by this appellate court. Consequently, the Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. TV. RESIILT:

21. [n the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby disrnissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 15 AKS,J&VRKR,J ASSra-2013 r- As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendin ; if any in the appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- NAYANI CHz\ rtrDRA SEKHAR RAO )EPUTY REGISTRAR { / lTRUECOPY/ / SECTIONOFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil |udge at Sathupalli, Khammam. 2. One CC to Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies. HIGHCOURT DATED:O7 /70/2025 JUDGMENT: AS.No.318 of 2073 --,,- - -:----:":\ ,,i, - ri"' . -\- i :i i :-. IJ \ I 3 t:c ro5 r:, ,? -r.* . - '- ,r,\f l.' '. , .. --=:]----l' Dismissing the Appeal Suit without costs. C {