The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 1 5'l of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of judgment and decree in OS No.1 2 of 201 3 dated 17.06.2015 on the file of Principal Diskict Judge, Kbrimnagar pending disposal of the AS No 630 of 2015 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(ASMP. NO: 1760 OF 2016) BETWEEN: Mitta @ Mittapally Kiran Kumar, Sio Rajamallu, aged 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2- 10-1058/4, Jyothi Nagar Locality, Karimnagar Town and District. ...Petitioner/RespondenURespondent AND Singireddy Jeevan Reddy, S/o Prathap Reddy, aged 42year, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o. Hyderabad Road, Opp to Petrol Bunk, Algunoor village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Appellant Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the order of interim suspension dated 27.06.2016 passed in ASMP.No.450 of 2016 in AS No.630 of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Riw Section 151 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 ad interim injunction restraining Respondents from alienating or mortgaging or conveying the suit schedule in favour of third parties till the pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI P GlRl KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent : SRI V SRIKANTHA RAO The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONO URABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA JUDGMENT: APPEAL SUIT No.63O oF 2015 The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2015 in O.S.No.l2 of 2O13, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for specihc performance of agreement of sare dated og. 1o.2 or2 in respect of the suit schedule property was decreed by directing the defendant to refund the advance sale consideration amount. 2- The appcllant hcrcin is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the main suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the defendant to file the present appeal, are as follows: The plaintiff hled the main suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated lg.1o.2or2 in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.0_15 gts., in Survey Nos.34g, 349 /A situated at Algunoor village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karminagar. It is stated that though the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount, the defendant refused the same. Hence, the present suit. pendente rite, the plaintiff frred I.A.No. 1374 of 2or4 and as per the orders dated 23.Og.2014 in the said I.A., amended the 2 SKS,J AS 630 2015 plaint seeking the alternative relief ol refund ol advance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/ -.

4. Before the trial Court, the defendant hled ivritten statemen[ denying the averments of the plaint and contendccl that since the defendant is in the need of money, he entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff and the plaintiff violated the terms of contract by not paying the balance sale consideration. The dc:fendant also hled the additionzrl written statement stating that the rlefendant has not executed the sale deed in favour o[ the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property as the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration amount.

5. Based on the above pleadings, [hc trial Cor-rt has framed the following issues on 16.O7.2013 and additional isst-tc on 28-lO.2Ol4:

1. Wlether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 18- i O.2012' as praged for?

2. To uhat relieJ? 3. Wlether the ptaintiff is entitled to ask for refund of Rs.7,5O,0O0/ -?

6. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examint:ci himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.A.l to A.4. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, however, no document was rnarked. 3 sl(s,J AS 630 2015

7. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, has decreed the suit and directed the defendalt to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,00O/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate ol 12Yo per annum from the date of decree till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant.

8. Heard Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.Srikanth Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. perused the material available on record.

9. l,e arned counsel lor the appellant submitted that the appellalt is about to provide MBBS seat to his daughter in management quota with the money received from selling the suit schedule property, however, the same is not accomplished as the respondent failed to pay the balance sale consideration. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal.

10. On the other hand, learncd counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the impugne d award of the trial Court stating that the trial Court has rightly passed decree after considering the evidence on record and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.. 1 t. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material evidence on record. It is apparent .SKSJ AS 630 2015 .- Y---{ \l that earlier the suit is iled ri. the year 20 l3 for sPecihc performance of agreement of sale dated Ia.lO.2Ol2, thereafter, the plaintiff made an alternate prayer for refund of advance sal,.: consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- and the same is amended as per the orders dated

23.09.2OI4 in I.A. No. 1314 of 2014. IL is noreu,or l-ry Lhat at the first instance, the respondent has already paid Rs.7,5O,000/- to the appellant. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no infirmity is discernible with the decree passed by the trial Court warranting interference. However, the rate of interest is modified from 72o/o to 7%o from the date of rrling of the suit till date of decree and 60/o from the date of this order till realization.

12. In the result, the Appeal Suit is disposcrl of directing the appellant to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.7,5 O,OOO /_ to the respondent along with interest at the rate <.tl 7oh from lhe date of filing of the suit till date of decree and 60/o fronr the date of this order till realization. There shall be no order as to ( osts. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. P.PAOMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The P-rrncipal District Judge, Karimnagar(With records, if any) ! One CC to Sri p Giri Krishna, Advocaie fbpiJCi-" 3 OneCC^to Sri V Srikantha Rao, Advocaie tOp-dCt 4. Two CD Copies ' gT:-:- 4A,s t{, HIGH COURT DATED:1 210312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS AS.No.630 of 2015 sTATE o-ii _):) 1\15 \ 5 I\\t (;) * S DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 6 a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 630 OF 2015 Between: Singireddy Jeevan Reddy, S/o Prathap Reddy, aged 42 year, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o. Hyderabad Road, Opp to Petrol Bunk, Algunoor village, Thimmapur Mandal' Karimnagar District ... petitioner/Appe[ant AND Mitta @ Mittapally Kiran Kumar, S/o Rajamallu, aged 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-10-1058/4, Jyothi Nagar Locality, Karimnagar Town and District. ... Res pon de n UResPon d en t Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 17.06.2015 made in O.S No.12 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of t6e Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI P GlRl KRISHNA, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V SRIKANTHA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is disposed of directing the appellant to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- to the respondent along with interest at the rate ol 7o/o from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree and 60/o lrom the date of this order till realization;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. P.PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 210312025 DECREE AS.No.630 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS a