The High Court · 2025

K. Sripal Reddy, S/o ,ate K Narasimha Reddy, Age: 53 years. Occ: Busiress R/o H No.6-66-Chandanagar, UyOeraoio iS 'r i r,v vv K Srinivas Reddv. S/o. late K Narasrmha Reddy, Age. 56 years, Occ: Business R/o VirH No.35 Aparna rirr-p"ir cililrnrg", serilingampary, Rangareddy District. I ..Respondents/Defendants CROSS OBJECTION No.67 of 2024 Between:

1. K. Sripal Reddy, S/o late K Narasimha Reddy, Age: 5:i years, Occ: Business R/o H No.6-66 Chandanagar, Hyderabad TS

2. K Srinivas Fleddy, S/o. late K Narasimha Reddy, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business R/c Villa No.35 Aparna Hill Park, Chandanagar Serilingampally, Rangareddy District. ...Appellants/Defendants AND

1. N. Venkata llarsimham, S/o N Ramanaiah, Age: 44, Occ: Business R/o H No.2-22-9818 Vijay Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 50O 072.

2. l. Prasad, S/c, Kondaiah, Age: 4'l years, Occ: Business R/o H No.2-22-98lB, Vijay Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500 072.

3. l. Nageshwara Rao, S/o Subba Rao, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Business R/o Plot No.3, Flat Nc 401, Lake View Colony, SLN Lake Vierv Residency, Pragathi Nagar, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal District, Sd/-T. SRINIVAS.

4. A Shyam Pr;rsad, S/o A. Murali, Age: 52 years, Ortc. Business R/o Flat No.21 1 0 Panr:havati Complex, Pragathi Nagar, Bachucally Mandal, Medchal District, TS ... Res po nde nts/Plai ntiffs lA No: 1 ot 2024 in ,{S.No.427 of 2024 Petition und,:r 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 lnterim lnjunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating charge over the suit schedlrle property, pending disposal of the abov'e Appeal Suit. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that agricultural land bearing Sy No.292 extent Ac.'1 -06 gts and Sy No.437 extent Ac.1 08 gts total admeasuring Ac.2-14 gts situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal. Sangareddy District and bounded by: North. 1 00 feet road South Panta Kaluva East. Land irr Sy No.438 West. Panta Kaluva Counsel for the Appellants in A.S.No.427 ot 2024 & Respondents in XObjection : Mr. p. Venkat Reddy Counsel for the Respondents in A.S.No.427 ol 2024 & Appellants in X-Objection : Mr. A. Venkatesh The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT { I I I I i l i I j t I I l I / / I I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BITIATTACHARYA AND TH:E HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE} SUDHA APPEAL. SUIT No.427 OF 2 O24 & X-OBJ.No.67 of 2024 Mr. P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for t1-e appellants. Mr. A.Venkatestr, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. coMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hontle Justice Moushumi Bhattachar,va) The appellants before us are the unsuccessful plaintiffs in a Suit for specific performance. The Suit (O.S.No.125 of 2O17) was partly decree,l bt' the Trial Court by a judgment dated O3'O4'2O24 by directing the defendants (respondents before us) to refund the amount of FIs.2,6O,OO,OOO / - received by them as advance sale consideration to the plaintiffs along with interest @ l8'k pet annum. The czrse of the appellants as argued by learned counsel

2. appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, is that the Trial Court refused to grant specilic performance of tJre Suit on the sole ground of a Suit pending before the Additional District Court, Rangareddy District at Vikarabad (O.S.No.57 of 2018). Counsel submits that O.S.No.57 of 20 18 could not have had any bearing on the Suit hled by the appellants (O.S.No.125 of 2Ol7) for specilic performance since none ot the plaintiffs were parties to the other Suit. The 2 defendant No.2 in O.S.No.125 of 2OL7 was the sole plaintiff in the other Suit which was hled against third parties

3. Counsel places a few of the clauses from the Agreement of Sale executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 on

26.10.2016 to urge that the defendant No.l was in reach of those conditions and also unfairly alienated the Suit in favour of his brother, the defendant No.2.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendants/ respondents submits that the respondents have also filed Cross-objections against the impugned judgment on the ground that the Trial Court failed to consider the crucial aspect of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs in respect of the Agreement of Sale. Counsel places the second issue framed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment with regard to this aspect but submits that the impugned judgment does not contain any discussion on the aspect of readiness and willingness which is a determinant of whether a person should be granted specihc per[ormance of contract.

5. We have heard learned counsel and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We note that both the parties have a substantial ground for being aggrieved with the impugned judgment. The discussion as to how the other Suit filed by the JI // /i 4/ I I J defendant No.2 has any bearing on the plaintiffs'Suit and whether the plaintiffs -were at all ready and willing to perform their part of the contractual obligations under the Agreement of Sale is absent in the Trial Cou rt judgment. We hence deem it iit to remand the matter to the Trial court for a fresh decision on the merits of the case. Needless to say, none of the parties shall seek any adjournment and the Trial court is directed to make an effort to conclude hear.ing of the suit and pronounce its jr-rdgment within 12 weeks from 27.01.2025. This Order shall be produced before the Trial Court b5 27.O1.2O25 for a fresh hearing. We make it clear that the jurisdictional Court will hear the Suit.

5. Appeal Suit No.427 of 2024 and the Cross-objection No'67 of 2024 arc disposed of in terms of the above. Since we find that the Status quo or,1er granted in favour of appellant continued from 2017 to 2024, the parties shall continue to comply with the said order until further orders are passed by the Trial Court. There shall be np I order as to co sts //TRUE COPY// Scl/- K. SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REG TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lll Additional District and Sessrons Judge' Sangareddy' (with records' if any)

2. One CC to Mr. P Venkat Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. A Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies q{> kam/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 COMMON JI.'DGMENT AS.No.427 of 2024 & X-OBJECTION No.67 of 2024 r!. f. s 4! t" c o ltt] I !); { ia+rI'f APPEAL SUIT & CROSS OB.IECTION ARE DISPOSED OF. Q+ t> v' s cqs-> l l I I I 1 I I i t i i I I I I I f I I I I I