The High Court · 2025

HeardSriV.HariHaran,learnedcounselforth:appellantsand Sri B.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the responde r t' Perused the record.

2. This is an apPeal preferred by appellant/plal rtiff aggr-ieved by the judgment and decree dated O3'06'2(t 9 passed in o.S.No.3oof2018byt}relearnedVlAdditional)istrictJudge, Siddipet, wherein the Suit filed by the plaintiff s reking specihc performance of agreement of sale dated l:; 10'2017' \f,'as dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the ap1 ellant/plaintiff hled the suit for specific performance of agreemer t of sale dated l3.l}.2ol7 and for perpetual injunction against he respondent with respect to suit schedule property conr; sting of land admeasuring Acs.5.12 72 guntas out of total extent of dry agricultural land admeasuring Acs' 1 7 ' 37 I I Sy.Nos. 1750 and l75Ll2 situated at Pothiredcireta Village of €Srntas Dubbak Mandal, Medak District. The respondent 'defendant and three others have jointly purchased the land t ) an extent of \ \\ 2 Acs.S.L2Yz guntas out of total extent of Acs.17.3772 guntas in Sy.Nos.1750 and l75l/2 situated at Pothireddipeta Village of Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District under a registered sale deed document No.27l/2OO8, dated 26.03.2008. The respondent offered to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.2O,O0,OO0/- and executed an agreement of sa-le dated 13.10.2017. The appellant paid total consideration of Rs.2O,O0,OOO/- to ttre respondent and the same is acknowledged. Further, the respondent delivered physical vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the appellant and delivered registered sale deed No.271 of 2OO8 dated 26.O3.2008. The respondent also issued four undated cheques bearing Nos.OOOO29, O0OO3O, O0OO3 I and 0OOO32 for Rs.4,OO,OOO/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,OO,OOO/- and Rs.3.OO,O0O/- respectively and also executed four undated promissory notes for the aforesaid amounts in favour of the appellant towards security enabling the appellant to hold the same till the date of registration of sale deed. The respondent has to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant within 6O days, however, postponed the same. In the circumstances, the appellant got issued legal notice dated

19.05.2018 demanding the respondent to execute registered sale deed but there was no reply from the respondent. The appellant // I 3 learnt that the respondent is trying to alienate thr: suit schedule property to third parties by suppressing agreement r I sale' Hence' the appellant filed the suit for sPeciflc performance' 4 The respondent remained ex parte before the tr ial Court

5. The appellant got examined himself as I) W' 1 alrd got marked Exs.Al to A7.

6. The trial Court upon examining the oral anc documentarSr evidence dismissed the suit on the ground, that Er Al-agreement of sale is not proven, as tJre witness to the agreemel t of sale is not examined. It is held that mere marking of the dc :ument is not sufhcient but the contents are to be Proven' Accorc ing to the trial court since the entire sale consideration is paid arr,. possession is delivered, the document becomes a compuls'r'ily attestable docr-rment and to Prove such a document, witrt 'ss has to be examined. Therefore, the trial Court entertaine t doubt about legaliry and enforceability of the agreement 'f sale dated I3.lO.2Ol7. It is held that the remaining docunr:nts i'e' Ex'A2 original registered sale deed document No.27 l2OO8, dated 24.O3.2OOa, Ex.A3-original encumbrance cell ficate, dated lQ.06.2018, Ex.A4-original undated cheques, Ex.A5-original r.rndated promissory notes, Ex.A6-of[ce copy of le: rl notice dated \ 4

19.05.2018 and Ex.A7-original postal receipt are of no help to prove the case of the appellant. Further, it is held that until possession is not proven, permanent injunction cannot be granted. It is held that non-examination of witness to Ex.A 1 warrants an adverse. inference under Section 1 14 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such dismissed the suit.

7. In grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the trial Court erred in interpretation of Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the lndian Evidence Act in proper perspective as it is not mandatory to examine witness to Ex.Al-agreement of sale, dated 13. LO.2O|7 as it is not a compulsorily attestable document, Further, it is pleaded that Exs.A2 to A7 are not appreciated for their purport intent and contents. It is emphasized that tlle total sale consideration is paid and the same is proven and therefore, the suit ought to have been decreed. The appellant contends that the Court ought not to have insisted for examination of a witness to Ex.Al, when there is no I I l l' ! representation for the respondent and there is no case of forgery and fabrication of said document. There was no issue about genuineness of Ex.Al and therefore, its validity should not have been under question. 5

8. During a-rguments ln appeal, learned co rnsel for the appellant argued that the respondent remained ex.r drte before the trial Court. There is no contra evidence. The case c I the appellant is proven through oral evidence of P.W. 1 an J through the documentar5r evidence. However, merely on the 5p ound that the witness to Ex.Al is not examined, the suit has been dismissed

9. Referring to the trial Court questioning th: legality and enforceability of agreement of sale, learned couns :l relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Telangana and l\ rdhra Pradesh in Patha,n Sabircbi us. Shaik Rasooll. F\:rther, t he reference is made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rf India in the case between Alka Bose a. Panndtma fuai qnd others2, wherein it is held as follows: "All agreements of sale are bilateral contracts as promise:; both - the vendor agreeing to sell and the purchaser agreeirr( On the other hand, the observation in S.M. Gopal Chetl.\ unless agreement is signed both by the vendor and purchas valid contract is also not sound. An agreement of sale comes. when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees t{) an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can be oral exchange of communications which may or may not be sigrr by a single document signed by both parties. It can also be b in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchangi copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the cop) vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser. o are made by to purchase. (supra) that :r, it is not a nto existence lurchase, for It can be by d. It may be / a document 19 the signed ;igned by the it can be by ' zorslr;nLr rrs ' ArR 2oo9 sc 1527 ) \ 6 the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it. Section 10 of the Act provides all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a laMul consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void under the provislons of th€ Contract Act. The proviso to Section l0 of the Act makes it clear that the section will not apply to contracts whlch are required to b€ made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or any law relating to registratlon of documents. Our attention has not been drawn to any law applicable in Bihar at the relevant time, which requires an agreement of sale to be made in writinq or in the presence of witnesses or to be registered. Therefore, even an oral aqreement to sell is valid. If so, a written agreement signed by one of the parties, if it.evidences such an oral agreement will also be valrd ln any agreement of sale, the terms are always negotiated and thereafter reduced in the form of an agreement of sale and signed by both parties or the vendor alone (unless lt is by a series of offers and counter-offers by letters or other modes of recognized communication). In India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is, however, no practice of purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale."

10. On the basis of above citations, learned counsel or the appellant argued that once the appellant entered into the witness box as P.W.l and got examined himself to prove the execution of Ex.A l-agreement of sale, the same is sufficient. Further, there is no need to examine a witness to Ex.Al-agreement of sale as it is not a compulsorily attestable document as per Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act which requires a will to be proven by examining one of the witnesses. It is emphasized that the present /not based on a will deed which is to be proven by suit i+" 7 examining an attesting witness but is liled on tl e basis of an agreement of sale.

11. A perusal of the documents marked under l)xs.Al and A2 give rise to several questions which go to th: root of the maintainability of the relief sought by the a; pellant. The agreement of sale with possession is executed on y between the appellant and the respondent, whereas Ex.Al agr lement of sale shows that the suit schedule property admeasuri rg Acs.S.l2 Yz glrntas was purchased jointly by the respondent :r rd three others under a registered sale deed i.e. Ex.A2. The appel ant is claiming that physical vacant possession of tJle suit schec ule property is delivered on the date of execution of agreemerLt of sale. The appellant allegedly sold his share in the land I rr a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,0O0/- and the total sale :onsideration is paid. In agreement of sale, dated 13. lO.2Ol7, it is staterl that 'Whereas the vendor has jointly purchased 6n r xtent of dry agricultural land admeasuring Acs.S.l2Yz out of thr otal extent of dry agricultural larrd adrneasuring Acs.l7.37Yz ........ . Whereas the vendor offered to sell the said share o: his land free from encumbrances to the vendee for a total crr Lsideration of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/- and the vendee agreed to purchase tl e same...." 8

12. The above recitals in Ex.A l-agrement of sale show that the suit schedule propert5r is jointly purchased by the appellant and three others and the appellant intends to sell his share of land. There are no details as to what is the share of each of the vendee in Ex.A2 and whether there was partition arnong the vendees of Ex.A2-registered sale deed and which part of Acs.S.12 % guntas was delivered to tl.e appellant. 1 3. Further, execution of undated cheques for an amount of Rs.2O,OO,OOO l- and execution of undated promissory notes for the sarne Eunount give rise to suspicion about the genuineness of transaction between the appellant and the respondent. In normal course, execution of undated cheques and promissory notes tS prevalent in loan transactions, wherein promissory notes and cheques are taken towards security for payment of the loan amount. In the instant case, the agreement of sale marked under Ex.A 1 is sufficient to seek enforcement of said contract or for recovery of amount paid towards sale consideration. lt is strange that undated promissory notes and undated cheques are taken as security for execution of sale deed.

14. Be that as it may, there is no clarity about the share of the appellant in the suit schedule property. There is no clarity in the ,,/ 9 agreement of sale about the actual extent of tarrd 'r hich has fallen to the share of appellant of which allegedly possesr; on is delivered' F\rther, there is no clarity about the boundaries cf the share of ttre appellant within the total extent of Acs'5'1272 guntas of land which is jointly purchased by the respondent and I eree others' In the absence of such details as to extent and brr rndaries of the : deed can be land which is subject matter of Ex'Al, no sal registered. There is failure on the part of tl-e ap rellant to prove the partition of suit schedule property among tJre his three other co-owners, coupled with failure to :espondent and ;how delivery of possession with identifiable boundaries within lar .d admeasuring Acs.S.t2Y, guntas. The suit has been dismissed lr r the trial Court on a ground which is not tenable, i.e', the agreerr( nt of sale dated ls.to.2Ol7, is not a compulsorily attestable doc there is no need to examine the witness to -rment. Hence, ;aid document. However, the suit filed by the appellant is not mrr ntainable as no executable decree can be passed. Though on a lifferent footing, the trial Court has dismissed the suit and the 's rid finding need not be interfered with.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appr: tl lacks of merits and is liable to be dismissed J I i 10

16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vl Additionat District Judge, Siddipet. 2. One CC to SRI V HAR| HARAN Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI B. NARASTMHULU Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies ASR/PSL ry/ .1/-- 'rI' 1HE a 3 0 JAll 2026 I a C t). a HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 JUDGMENT AS.No.366 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPE,AL IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry F|VE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT NO: 366 OF 2019 Between:

1. Ghanta Ranga Rao, S/o Late Appala Narasimhulu Aged about 84 years, Occ. Retd. Govt. Employee R/o H. No. 32l3RT, SR Nagar, Hyderabad-SO0 038 2. Ghanta Sarala Kumari, D/o. Late Sri G.Ranga Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Kuchipudi Classical Dance Artist, R/o. PIot No.27, Flat No.401, NCL, Krishna Apartments, Madhapur, Sherilingamapalli, Hyderabad.

3. Ghanta Jhansi Rani, D/o. Late Sri G. Ranga Rao, Wo. Sri R. Baiasundar, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.L84, Bharathi Darshan Colony, Kalaignar, Karunanidhinagar, Chennaia, Tamilnadu - 600078.

4. Ghanta Chamundeswari, D/o. Late Sri G.Ranga Rao Wo. Sri K.Rajendra Kumar, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.14, H.No.2-22- 2 33/C, Aru na Society, Kukatpa lly, Hyderabad-7 2.

5. Ghanta Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Sri G.Ranga Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.7-1$21192, (32/3RT), Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad-500038. (Appellants Nos-2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Sole Appellant as per Court Order dt.11.09.2023 vide lA.No.1 of 2020 in AS.No.366 of 2019) AND APPELLANTS/Plaintiffs Mukka Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Chinnappa Reddy, aged about 65 years Occ. Retd. Govt. Employee, R/o H. No.272lC,UGH, SR Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 038 RESPONOENT/Defendant Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 03-06-2019 passed in O.S. No.30 of 2018 on the file of the learned Vl Additional Diskict Judge, Siddipet. ORDER: This appeal is coming on for hearing and upon perr- :ing the grounds of appeal,theJudgmentandDecreeoftheLowerCourtandtherraterialpapersinthe Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V' Hari Haran' a lvocate for the Appellants and of Sri B. Narasimhulu, Advocate for the Resporl( ent' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed by confirm'r g the iudgment and decree of the Lower Court.

2. That there shall be no order as cosls SD'- K.AMMAJI REGISTRAR t) c-f; \roru a4&tL9l- To

1. The Vl Additional District Judge, Siddipet 2. Two CD CoPies W HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 DECREE AS.No.366 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPE,AL LT) t'lt