The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the appellant 'aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.O1.2OO3 in O.S.No.29 of 2OO1 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon

The appellant herein is the defendant and tl-rc resoondent is the plaintiff in the above suit. O.S.No .29 of 2OO1.was filed by the plaintiff to grant decree for specihc perlormance of agreement of sale dated 07 .04.1999 and 24. .O7 .2OO 1 in favour of plaintiff and to execute a registered'sale deed by delivering possession of suit sc}-redule A'and B' properties in favour ol plaintiff, by the defendant. The defendant is the absolute o\ /ner and possessor of a vacant land admeasurirrg 30O sq. yards in Sy.No.164, comprised in part of H.No.6-2-6, situated at Hyderabad Road, Jangaon Town, Warangal District. The defendant sold an extent of 100 Sq.yards of land to the ptaintiff arrd executed a sale agreement on 07 -04.7999 , for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,O00 /-. T}le property covered by the sale agreement is "A' schedule property. Later, the defendant sold another extent of 50 sq. yards of land to the plaintiff on 2

24.O7.2OO1, for a sale consideration of Rs.i,25,OOO/-, which is the "8" schedule property and she paid an amount of Rs. 1,30,O00/- as earnest money, and the defendant agreed to execute a sale deed aftcr payment of th-e balance sale consideration. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,OO,O00/- under the hrst agreement, and Rs.20,0OO/- was paid towards earnest money under the second agreement. The plaintiff is willing to perform her part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward and sent a notice on 0 1 . 1 1 .20O 1 , with false allegations denying his liability to execute registered sale deed and plaintiff replied to the notice asking the defendant to execute a registered sale deed on or before 03.11.2OO1. The defendant received reply notice on O7.l1.2OOl, but did not respond further. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration under the second agreement and take a registered sale deed from the defendant.

3. The defendant filed a written statement contending that there was an oral understanding between the parties that time is the essence of contract. According to this understanding, the plaintiff was supposed to pay the balance consideration and I ,6 3 obtain the registered saie deed within three months, i.e., by

07.07.1999. The defendant never intended to se1l 'B' schedule property, he denied execution of sale agreement dated

24.O7.2OO1, for 50 Sq. yards of land, and alleged that it was a fabricated document created by the plaintiff. The <lefendant also denied receiving an amount of Rs.5O,O00 l- on 22.O3.2O01, and Rs.20,00O/- on 16.06.20O1, as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the plaintiff s husband, M. Srinivas Reddy, and others kidnapped him from the bus stand near the District Court premiscs, Hanamkonda on 26.O9.20O1, and obtained his signatures on blank papers forcibly under threat. The defendant lodged a complaint with the police, and a case was registered in Cr.No.373 of 2001 or 27 .O9.2OO 1 , under Section 365 of IPC, which is pending investigation. Further, the defendant accused the plaintiff of approaching the Court with unclean hands, guilty of fraud, forgery, and fabrication of false documents, and suppressing the truth.

4. The defendant further stated that subsequent to execution of the sale deed dated 07.O4.1999, there was interference by his own brothers, Md. Rafrque and Md. Rasool, which led him to hle a suit vide O.S.No.9S of 2OO7 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court at Jangaon, and obtained an ex- 4 parte interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the 30O sq. yards of land in Sy.No.163 and the plaintiff, on coming to know about filing of the suit, got the present suit filed based on fabricated documents. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues. On behalf of plaintiff, Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.8 are marked. On behalf of the defendant Dws. 1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present. appeal is filed by the defendant.

6. Heard Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the orai and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent- plaintiff, the trial Court has not considered the factum of kidnapping and hling of criminal case by the defendant and 5 erroneousiy put the burden on defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove execut.ion of Ex.A.2 even though it is not considered by the trial Court and erred in concluding that the defendant has not issued zrny notice specifying that time is the essence of contract. He further contended that lhe trial Court went on analyzingthe latches of defendant, while it is the basic principle that it is for the plaintiff to prove the case to the satisfaction of Court. The trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence on its proper perspective, more particularly while deciding issue No.4 as to rvhether Ex.A.S was brought into existence under threat by. kidnapping the defendant. It is the specific case of the defendant that on 26.09.2001 when h.e was standing in front of bus stop near District Court premises, Hanamkonda, plaintiff along with others came in TATA Sumo, kidnapped him and obtained his signature on blank papers. Immediately on the next day, he lodged a complaint in Subedari Police Station ald FIR was registered. He further contended that though the trial Court obsen,ed that no FIR was frled before the Court. Pw. 1 herself admitted that a case under Section 365 of IPC was registered against her. When there is an admission, the same need not be proved. The trial Court further observed that the date of alleged kidnap, was very much important and defendant \ ..1 6 got issued a legal notice marked as Ex.A.6 and through this notice, the defendant informed the plaintiff that as she failed to pay the balance sale consideration to a tune of Rs.7O,000/- under the agreement dated 07.04.1999, determined the .he contract and canceled the same and he appropriated the earnest money that was paid to a tune of Rs. 1,3O,00O/- and that particular notice is dated Ol .l | .2OO2. The incident of kidnap as contended by defendant is on 26.09.2OO1, a mention of the same ought to have been made in the legal notice, but there is no whisper. Further, there is no evidence to prove that on 24.O7 .2OO 1 another agreement of sale rvas executed and the amount was hxed for 5O Sq yards. There are interpolations in the agreement of sale dated 24 .O7 .2OO 1 which was not considered by the trial Court, there are sevcral inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 which is also not considered by the trial Court. The specific performance of agreement of sale is an equitable relief and the plaintiff is entitled for the same oniy when a clear case is made out as observed in V. Sudhakar Naidu V Smt M. Padrnavathamma and anotherr. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in Sandeep Lakra V Rajender2 'lzors1o ALT 216 2 20lO SCC online 4358 / 1 (-r and Gobind Ram Vs Gian Chand3. Hence, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

8. On the other hand, the iearned counsel for the respondent plaintiff would submit that the judgment of trial Court is well reasoned and legally sound. The time is not essence in sale of immovable property. The contention of learned counsel for the defendant that agreemer-rt became void after 07 .O7 . i 999 is legally incorrect and the defendant admitted existence of sale agreement, but falsely claimed that it is cancelled and continued to receive payments in March and June 2001 , u,hich shows that agreement was subsisting and the kidnap story created by the defendant is only to escape from the liability. Thc criminal case lodged against the plaintiff was closed after lhorough investigation proving that the allegations are baseless and unilateral forfeiture of earnest money is illegal and the appeal is frivolous and filed to delay execution of decree. As such, requested this Court to dismiss this appeal. L Basing on the said submissions now, the points to be determined is 3 AIR 2000 sc 3106 6 r))

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated O7.O4.1999 and 24.O7.2OO1 are valid and binding on the appellant herein? 2. Whether the judgment of the trial Court needs any interference ? POINT NOS.I AND 2

10. To prove the contention of the plaintiff in the trial Court, she examined Pws.l to 4 and relied on Exs.A. I to A.g. The defendant examined Dws. 1 and 2.pw. 1 is the husband of plaintiff and in his chief affidavit he reiterated the contents of plaint. In support of his contention he filed Exs.A. 1 to A.g. Ex.A. 1 is the agreement of sale dated 07.O4.1999, wherein the consideration of Rs. 1,3O,O00/- was paid to the defendant, Ex.A.2 is receipt of amount of Rs. 1,3O,O00/- which is an admitted document by both the parties. pw_ 1 admitted in his cross-examination that plaintiff has not paid baiance sale consideration within three months to the defendant. The dispute is with regard to Ex.A.3 and A.4, wherein the appellant herein is disputing receipt of amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- towards advance money of sale agreement dated 22.O3.2OO1 for sale of 10O Sq yards in Sy.No.164 situated at Hyderabad. There is a correction of date in the document. Initially it was mentioned as 22.01.1999, later it was corrected as 22.03.2O0i and the date of receipt and the date of agreement under which the 9 amount sought to be paid is one and the same Pw 2 is the businesspartnerofhr.landheisworkingintheshopof['rr'.1 for an amount of Rs 3OO0/- per month' Pw'3 is none olher than the father of Pw' 1 and he is one of the witness to Ex A 'i ' Pw.4 is an independent witness and he deposed that at ttle request of defendant, he accompanied the defendant to thr: house of plaintiff, where, the plaintiff paid Rs'50'0OO/- and defendant issuecl receipt under Ex A'3 and also statcd that ire is oneoftheu.itnesstotrx.A.S.ThedefendantfileclaSr-litvlce parle interim injtll)-l:')n O.S.No.9S of 2001 and obtained restraining his brothers from interfering with lhe peacciul possession of the subject property therein' 1 1. The defendant hirnself was examined 'as Dlv' 1 and Du' 2 admitted that the defendant signed on trx A 1 afl-er knowing the contents of trx.A.S and also admitted that trx'A l bears the signature of defenclant on al1 the pages He also admitteci that hewaspresentwhenthedefendantagreedtosell50sqyardsof land to the plaintiff and admitted that he signed as witness on Ex.A.5

12. The evidence on record shows that the defendant agreement of sale for 100 Sq yards and also executed an t 10 r, adnitted receipt of Rs. 1,30,OO0/-. The disputed question in Lhis case is whether subsequent agreement of sale for 50 sq .yard s is executed by the defendant. The evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 shou.s that the defendant executed the document for 50 Sq v:rrcis also but the agreement of sale dated 22.O3.2OO1 with r',<lrrd to 50 Sq yards is not showing the sale consideration. 'i'lri: recitals of the receipt shows that sale consideration has to r,i Lr:rid as per market ra[e on the date of execution of registered r;:r 1,. deed. When there is r-to clear recital with regard to 50 Sq i;rrcis in thc sccond agreement of sale, the Court cannot dircct 1 rr rcgistration of propcrty to thc cxtent of 50 Sq yards. Furthcr, (hc dcfendant admitted Ex.A. 1 and also admitted receipt of Its.1,30,000/ to the extent of execution of registered sale deed rrlrlcrl O'/.04.1999, can be considered. When there is no evidence irrrrl irlscr no proper recitals in the receipt da\ed 27.03.20O1 the spc'ltrc relief being an equitable relief, the same cannot be llairrrd. While granling relief, the Court has to direct the party lL) complcte his part of duty in clear terms for depositing of bal,.rnce sale consideration, whereas, there are no such terms in titc alleged agreement of sale. As such, to the extent of second agreement of _sale, the plaintiff is not entitled for specihc pcrlbrrnance. 11

13. The trial Court has rightly decided issue No.1 only u'it.h regard to agreement of salc dated O7.O4.1999 as there is zln admission by the plaintiff, whereas the contents of sccotrcl agree ment of sale, there are no particulars . with regard ttr consideration and also price for the same. As such, thc judgment of t)'re trial Court is set aside only to the exteirt ol agreement of salc dated 24 .O7 .2OO1 pertaining to 50 Sq 1'arri s. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

14. lN THE IiESULT, the appeal is partly allou'cci setling irsLrit' the judgment and decree rlaLed 27.O1.2O03 in O.S.lJo..r() i-,f 20O1 on the fite of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, to the extent of agreement of sale dated 24.07.2OO1 pertaining to 50 Sq yarcls. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitrons, pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR ISECTION OFFICER To, DUgh

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan.(With records) 2. One CC to Sri. C A R Seshagiri Rao, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Advocata tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies tF.- .'-- HIGH COURT DATED:10/06/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS.No.748 of 2003 riE- j r,1 1 01 UI 5 ? .C) * trlr :' .' -.'1 ( o 'h. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL 6 TIDI r4[ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 748 OF 2003 Between: Mohd. Abbas Miya, S/o Jamaluddin, Hyderabad Road, Jangaon, Warangal Dist Occ: Business R/o H.No. 1-2-143, ..Plaintiff/Defendant AND Narra Sunitha, Wo Srinivasa Reddy, R/o 1-2-36613, Siddipet Road, Jagaon, ...RespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 27.01 .2003 made in O.S.No.29 of 200'l on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribudal and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. C A R Seshagiri Rao, for the Appellant and of Sri. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : '1. That the Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27 .O1.2003 in O.S. No. 29 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, to the extent of agreement of sale dated 24.07.2001 pertaining to 50 sq. yards and;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// To, 't. The Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan 2. Two CD Copies M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER /I HIGH COURT DATED:10/06/2025 DECREE AS.No.748 of 2003 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL lLl +l2f