The High Court · 2025

31. Smt. Palle Swapna, W/o. Satyavardhan Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.6-17l1, Road No.5, Buddhanagar Colony, Uppal, Medchal lt/alkajgiri District. (Respondents No.26 to 31 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 12.04.2023, vide I A.No.1 of 2023 in AS.No.149 ot 2017) Proposed Respondents Nos. 26 to 31

32.A. Deepthinandan Reddy, S/o Late Dr. A. Raghupathi Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner and Orthopedic Surgon, consultant to Yashoda Hospital Hitex City, Cyber Towers to JNTU Road, Hyderabad - 500084. Postal Address. Survey No 41114, JNTU to Hitech City Main Road, Khanamet Village, Sharilingampally, Kothaguda, Hyderabad - 500084., and having Private Clinic and Practice. Near Yashoda Hospital Hitech City, Kothaguda, Hyd - 500084. And also R/o Villa No.20, Legend Chymes, Kokapet, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, TS - 500075.

33.A. Mahathi, D/o. Late Dr.A Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, Permanent Rlo. 2-2-1 1O5121 lB, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad - 500044, Presently residing at 19006 Deer Point Place, Odessa, FL, USA - 33556 and also at 2955 Cypress Pointe CT, Tarpon Springs, FL 34688, USA (Respondent Nos.32 & 33 are brought on record as LR's of deceased Respondent No.1 as per Court Order dated 12.11.2024, vide lkA.No.4 of 2024 in AS.No 149 ot 2017) RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 'l OF 2017(ASMP. NO: 396 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant injunction restraining respondents from any way alienating the suit schedule property more specifically red colour plots shown in EX.A.38 Layout to third parties pending disposal of the above Appeal. lA NO: 3 OF 20't9 : Between: M.Satyanarayana, S/o. Rama Swamy, Age 54 years F. Jo.3B, Annanagar at Main Road, [Vadahavaram, Chennai, Tamilnadu. Petitioner/Proposed Re,; ,o rdent No.25 AND

1. Ch.Lingaiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged about 69 Years, Occ, Business, R/o H No. 12l3, Surya Saroja Apartments, HUDA complex, Sa', ornagar, Hyderabad. (Died per LR - Appellant No.2 already on record)

2. Ch. Sudhee Kumar Reddy S/o Lingaiah, aged about 3) yerars Occ. Business R/o H.No.12l3, Surya Saroja Apartments, HUDA (), rnpl"*, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ... Respondent No.1 & 2/,1 tpellants No.1 & 2

3. Dr A Raghupathi Reddy, S/o A arayan Reddy, Occ Doct rr (Died as per LR's RR 32 & 33

4. A Deepkara Reddy, S/o A Raghupathi REddy Occ Busi er;s Both are R/o H.No.2-2-1 10811111, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad

5. Prema Latha, Wo Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Occ Hc-;ewife R/o H.o.2-2- 1 10511O, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad

6. Sudi Sumalatha,, D/o S Narayana R/o Plot No.155 Rl t) Joloy Chengicherla Village Gahatkeshar ltrlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. P Ramanamma, Wo Late Venkatesh, aged t\4ajor, R/o F -101, Rekha Apartments, Kakatiya Nagar, St.No 3, Habsiguda. Hydlr rbad L M Laxma Reddy, S/o It/.Ram Reddy, aged [\/ajor, Agec r:jor,R/o H.No 2-2- 1 1 051 12, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad 9 Smt Pasham Nirmala, Wo Pasham Narsimha Reddy, z g ecl lr/lajor, R/o ll.No. 5-62, Uppal Bus Depgt, Budha Nagar Colony, Peezadiry di: Village, Ghatkeshar lt4andal, RR District.

10. Smt.R.Vijaya, W/o Sri R.Satyanarayana, Aged Major, F/ I Or lv4-37, pandT Colony, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad

11. Sri Kanugalti Venkateshwar Reddy,, Sio Raghupathi Fe Jc y, Aged [\Iajor, R/o H.No. 12-10-590/10/7 Warasiguda, Hyderabad

12. Kum.K.Viitha, D/o Venugopal Reddy Aged Major, R/o I rlc,. 12-13-677t100, Kmti Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad

13. S.Venkate_swara Rao,, S/o S-RanaRao, Aged Major, Rt: Flat No. 101 , Ragha Enclave, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad

14.lvlankare Kishan, S/o Mothi Ram, Aged Major, R/o H.No 3. 109, Bhemm Reddy, Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, R I roa Reddy District.

15.Smt. E.Hyrnavathi, Wo Baleshwar, Aged4ajor, R/o H.No.4-39, Budhanagar, Uppal Bus Depot Peerzadiguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

16. Begumpet Vishnumurthy, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged lValor, R/o H.No 11-03-327, Mailagada Seethaphalmandi Secunderabad '17.Sri G.Nagaraju, S/o Balraj Aged ti/ajor, R/o H.No.2-1-94, Raghavender Nagar Colony, Uppal Village, Ranga Reddy District. 1B Smt. Jitta Madhavi, Wo Jitta Malla Reddy aged Major, R/o H.No.4-67, Budhanagar, Uppal Bus Depot Peerzadiguda. Ghatkesar [r,4andal, Ranga Reddy District 'l9.KUm.P.Annapurna, D/o P Padma Reddy, Aged Major, Rio H.No.5-62, Budhanagar, Uppal Bus Depot Peerzadiguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

20.G.Bal Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy Aged Maior, R/o Bhongiri Nalgonda District.

21. Chettipally Srinivas, S/o Sreeramulu, Aged tVajor, R/o H.No. 4-59 Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

22.Konga Divya, D/o K.Ram [rlohan Rao aged tr/ajor, R/o C/o S.Rama Rao, Chiniaja Lanka Post, Kollur tr,4andal. Guntur District.

23. R.B. Ganesh Nataraj, S/o Balasubramanyam Aged tr4ajor, R/o Plot No. 20, Flat S.-1, Jai Bhavani Aparments, Saraswathi Colony, Nacharam Hyderabad.

24.Yedula Narai Reddy,, S/o Chella Reddy Aged Major R/o H No. 2-12-148, Uppal Beerappagadda, Ghatkesar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

25.G.Narshima, S/o Kondaiah, Aged fvlajor, R/o H No. 3-'122, Bheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar lt4andal , Ranga Reddy District.

26.A.K-Ramchandraiah, S/o. A Kistaiah, Age 66 year H.No 6-30, Gundala Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District ..... Respondents 1 to 23lProposed Respondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 14-08-2018 passed in lA No. 1 of 2017 in AS No. 149 oI 2017 . Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. A M RAO Counsel for the Appellant No. 2 : SRI G. KARUNAKAR REDDY Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 : M/S RESU LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI K RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.9 & 22 : SRI K DEVENDER Counsel for the Respondents Nos.6,17 ,24, 25,26,30,29,12,27 ,28,31, 32i RAVIKANTH K SRI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT a TI{E I{ONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SII TANA APPEAL SUIT NO.149 OF 2OI7 JUDGBIENT: 'l'his lri.rl--eal is filed by the appellanLs plair t fl,; aggricr.'cil b1, the clecrce rrnd judgment dated 01.12.21) p:rsse d ().S.No.49 ol :2005 br. the VII Additional Senio- Civil ,Jtrrlgc, Rang.r R,rr.l,.1i District at L.B.Nagar. The suit is 'i i I fol specific ilcrii)riil;ln(j(r ,rf Agrccmcnt of Sale for thc bal:rnct r-r:rr,rl 2(.).(lll2 S.l \,:ir.j ..r rv':Lill: includes roads etc, out of orir.i r:: I Ar:. 1 O.O0 glirrtas r;f srui. L:rnd agreed to be sold and Lo exc,rr 1c, r'cgisLcrrcci saie rit:cd fbr- ii-re said area. For the sakc oI corr e:ritnr:e, the parties herein a[ler- relerred to as arrayed in O.S.Nc 49 of 2005

2. i'hc piair-iilT Nos.1 and 2 claim lo be the lce: Ireirs ol la tc Smt. L:rxrni. i'iaintiff No.1 is the husband ancl 1,1, iririff No.2 is tire son o1'1;;:r iimt Laxmi. They entered into ar rt;reer-n(] n 1 oI :;ale '*rlh ,:lr,ir:ndants 1 to 3 on 08.09.1986. 1i e agr-ce men I perlained Lr, rhr: sale of land admeasuring Ac. 1( . )C gu rrtas in S.Nos.72, ,',1 :rnd 75 of Chengicherla Villil,r Marrclai, Rr,rrga Reddy District, @ Rs. 55,OOt) totalling to Iis.5,5O,000/-. It is alleged that t I . Cihzrt [<cs:rr . l)er acre, r delendzrnts rcccivecl Rs.78,OOO/- as an advance paynr n, of salc ;I 2 consideration and put Smt. Laxmi in possession ol the land. The plaintilfs contend that the defendant Nos. I to 3 rccr:ir.ecl thcr total balance consideration, including rvood u.orlh Rs.2O,OO01 used for construction of hospital, but they failt:cl r.t.r exer:utc thr: salc deed in the name of nominees o[ Smt. Lerxmi frrr a p,,r-tiorr ol thc land covered by the agreement of sale. The plaintilfs claim that the defendanl Nos.1 to 3 executed a salc clccd or-r 26-12.2OO3, in the name of Smt. Anasu_va- norlrincc ol larc Snti La-xmi. The plaintiffs therefore sought to enforce t he .igfecnclt t o[ sale for the balance of the land Lhat remau'rs nr-rso]ci_

3. Defendant No. I frled a writtcr-r statcmcnl, cle n1,ing :r1I allegations made by the plaintiffs. He sLated thal dclcndanL No_2 never signed the agreement of sale , ancl def'cncl:rnt l\io. 1 is tlrt: sole owner of the land in Survey No.74 of Chengrr--hci-ia Villagc. Delendant Nos.2 and 3 have no connection to the l:rnd agreed 1o be soid, and no part of the consideration rvas pard to thcm. Defendant No. 1 ciaimed that the balance arnoun[ of Rs.4,72,OOOl- was to be paid within 15 months from tire date of' the agreement, but only Rs.3,65,OOO/- was pzrid, incluciing ttrc advance amount of Rs.78,OOO/ . The agrecmcnt holdr:r expressed her inability to pay the balance sa [e consirlcration 3 l.] Lincl rcqlreste(l .lefendant No.1 to confine the agrr )rrrent to the crxtent o1- Ianrl in proportion to the sale considcr: tron arnount Jraicl. Defendant No.1 executed and registered r Lie cleeds in Iavor ol non'rineus of Smt. [-axmi to the exle; L of lartcl tn [)roJ)ortron i.r the sale consideration of ]l ,.:i,()5,00O/ -. Dele nclant No. L sl-ated that he had already sold ti'r: errtirc erl r:nL ol lirnd ire lorrging to him out oi Survey No. 74 tl tb ircl part ies iong bili:k, irnd thc properry had changed r r '.c retl ir:rr-ids thcr-r:aflr:r. Thc :r cged lavout is created and fabri'- t (i.1. irrl(l thc sLrii is not n-reintainablc. r+. Delerrdant No. i questioned the plaintiffs r illnt to scck cntirrccnrcnt crl- thc agrce ment of sale, as they h il o n()( sli]ted u.hcn Snrt. Liixrni clie d and thcir right to seek enfc - errnr:nt of thc .{greerncr)1. ilc further alleged that the agreement J o der har.rnq r:omn-ritted clc iarill in payment of balance sale con r Ct:r:r tion and having ccrnfirccl the agreement to the exten: c,f Iand in proportion to the sale consideration amount I aid are not cntitlcd to stck for specihc performance. The : uit schcdule proporl\ is ncL available for conveyance as it qis conveyed to various other' persons long ago, the plaintiffs havc iothing to do rvith the same and thev have no title to the s rit schedule 1 4 propcrty as on the date of filing the present suit. It is also allcged that the plaintiffs have not paid entire salc consideraticlr but have paid only Rs.3,65,000/ and in vieu. of rhc discrepancy, the plaintiffs are not entitled ttr thc etluitablc relicl of specific performance.

5. Defendants 4 to 23, who are the thircl partrr pr-rrc}-Lasers u,ere impleaded later, filed their written statemcr] [s rr.rclivicluallr.. Defcndant No. 4 alleged that the prescnL strrt is:r r:t.,llrrsrve ont. filed by the plaintiffs at the behest of Defenclant No. I. L)elencliinr No. 4 had purchased plot No.1O I admeasuring 2 t6 Sq r.arc{s in S),-No.74 of Chengicherla Village, from pasham Nirmala rhnrnglr a registered sale deed dated 18.),2.2O03 and is in possession o1' the said plot. The said Pasham Nirmala purchast'rl tile su icl plot from defendant No- 1.

6. Defendant No.4 contended that the surt against her rs barred by limitation, and there is no cause fcrr thc plaintilfs to filc lhe present suit against the imple:rded del'endants. Assuming that there is an agreement of sale, clel-enclant No. 4 submits that she is a bona hde purchaser frrr .r-,alue rn,ithout knowledge of the existence of agreement of salc in lavor of tht- plaintiffs. 5 '/. Ilt:tencl:rnt Nos.6, 9, 12, 73, 17 and 11 eilst i-iled rvriLten . purchased statemerts ol the samc lines stating that th: l)rolle rty ll-on, tix: rightfui owncr of the suit sche j 'i'l-re suit is i: r:oliusive one Illed by the plaintiffs ar 11j propcrLv. h: behcst of clcle rrd:rnt No L :rf1er t$,entv years of the alleged Lgreemer-rt of s:ile. As suclr, prayed thc trial Court to dismiss thc srriL. n. Basuti{ lrr Lhc pleadings of the respective p:r ie,s. tire trial (lour-t ltuncrl 1ir u- issues- On bchalf of the plainttf s, Pu's. 1 and -l r.r'cr-r' r:r:rrir,;icri rrnd Dxs.A.1 to A.50 u,ere marl<r:, On bclurlf ol'thc clcfcnci;rirts DE,s.l to 4 werc examined and li (s.8.I to R.5 .,verc markccl. () . Con siiilrins the argumcnts of both the pi .r ii<:s and the cvidcncc on rL-cord, the trial Court dismissed thr suit stating (ha1 ii is bzri-r e C b1- limitation and plaintiffs failed t r prove their iror-rrrfidr:s. l hc suit for speciiic performance is 1r e quiLable relief. it i'ras io Irc filed lr,ithin limitation. Asrr e\Ied b] the s:rme. llle pr( seni :rppcal is filed.

10. ilc.rrd Sn A.M.Rao, learned counsel for the rL rpollants, Sri K.Raghtrveer ltccldy, learned counsel for responck nr, No.1, Sri R.Rtrkesh Rr:c-[clv, learned counsel representing Re s u Law Office 6 appearing for respondent No.2, Sri K.Devender, icanted counsel appearing for respondent No.12, Sri K.Ravil<anrir, Iearncd counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6, g, I2,22,24 ro ll0 :urcl 3L 1 1. The contention of learned counsel for thc at)pcllants plaintiffs is that the trial Court failed [o appreciate that clelendant No. I has falsely denied the facts in h is r.r,rittcr.r statement, the entire written statement ougllt to itar,,c been cxcluded from consideration. The Court belou. failed Lo appreciate that defendant No.1 has given up thr: plczis se1 up [tr, him in the rvritten statement as regards the denia I .ol- exccution of suit agreement of sale and the amount received by him under .lgrcement of sale and sale of plots as per the lal.oui rnarke d as Ex.A.38. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 have not filcd anv r,r,rittcn sLatcment nor disputed the agreement of sale nor slatcd th.tt the layout is in anyway contrary to the existing r.igh Ls as pleaded by the plaintiffs. The trial Court failed to appreciate Lhe admission as regards the contention of plaintiffs, bJ. dcfendan! No.1 wherein he admitted that he along with defendant No.3 agreed to sell an extent of Ac. 1O.00 guntas only in Sv.Nos.72 and 74 and also failed to appreciate the admission of Dlr,. I in f 7 ..! hrs cro ss-cxzrr rin artion that he executed sale dec(: i:t favour of norninces of t-hc plaintiffs around 70 plots equi :rler-rt Lo the irmounl paid l)1 tI're pl:rintiffs and as per trx.A.36, Ire total ploLs :Lrr-: 158 anci tiri:l IDx.A.38 pcrtains to Ac.I0.OO gLLI:l 1s onlJ,' 1'2. Lcarneti r:ounsel further contended that :I e trial court ei roneously coirr:ludeci that the suit is barrcd by I r rilation. 1'he r.lcli nd:rnt No. i in his cross examination adn i.te d that he .]xcrr]rLled saie rlcccl in favour of one Anasuva ot'r -l '.12.2OO3 for ,r hich Prvs- 1 -Lr:d 2 are attestil)g w'itnesses in rc ;pcct of Plot No..19 u'hiclr is; part o[ Ex.A.38 layout. As the - gistered sale clcecl r.vas excc:rLtcd in tl-re year 2003, as such, ttx iuit is lt'ithin lirnit:Ltion . 'lire t riril Court has not appreciated tl r pleadings in i)roper pc'rsp.l:tivc as the defendant No.2 did r )t enter lnto s-itness iror, [r.'rrr:c his r:ontention of not signing t le agreeme n[ oi- sale is not r erlicl. He further contended tha - ,he u,ritte n statclnen t ol rii:icncl:rn L No. 1 and subsequent pur c -re-sers are in coilusion u'ith clefendant No.1. The trial Cc -rrt has not considcrcd lh,::irlmilted facts in the cross-examirr Ltion and not co srdcir:cl fl-i,: cvidcnce on record with proper pcrs rective. 8

13. I-earned counsel submitted that the agreement of saic dated 08.09-1986 vvas executed by dcfendants I to 3 in favour of late Smt. Laxmi. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of thc saitl Laxmi and basing on the said agreement ol sale they paicl Rs.3,65,000/ which includes Rs.78,O00/ advanr:e, ro defendant No.1 and to execute registered sale dced in favour of nominees of Iale Smt. Laxmi. As the defend:rnts 1 to 3 havr rcfuscd to execute registered sale deed for the rema ining pttrtiuu of land, they filed suit claiming specific performar-rce ol' .rgrecment of sa1e. According to the plaintiffs time is not thc essencc of contract which is mentioned in Clause No. lO o[ agreement of sale. As such, prayed this Court to set asidc thc judgment of trial Court by setting aside the same.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for lhe rcslrondents u,ould submit that the alleged agreement of salc is of thc year 1986 afld person who entered into agreement of sale died in the year 1999 itself. The suit is filed in the year 2O05, defendant No- 1 sold the property to various purchasers and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintifls are well aware of the alienations made by defendant No.1 in his individual capacit5r and they hled suit belatedly. Defendant .! ;i I I I I t i t 9 Nos.zl to 2ll arr: Lhe owners of about 4OO0 and od 1 srlu arc yards e-Lr-rcl tlrc rcrrrainiLrg olvners as apparent from Exs I . !, to B.5 are not adclr:cl irrr.rl nol impleaclecl. l'he defencl:rnts . ,r; 23 are the [i:rv olvncrs ,i:j there are mLrch more third pers( rs, u,ho have alreacl-r' purcha sercl tht: plots arrd eve n sold away tl l rlame. Thc saicl dor:umcn ts arc prior to filing of the suit an I t he plair-rtiffs are ver)' rr r:ii could have got the information I rnr thc Sub- Registrar offii:c u'lrich is evident from the entries l nrler Exs.B.3 to 8.5. '['hL'i'e are no spccific highlighting o ri ghts under trx.A. 1 !},c n il thc said lact of lhcre bci Lg registered ckrcunenLs cxccutecl by the dcfcndant No.1 ir lh e name of lrominees of plairrtiffs or third persons, it is v: 1' difhcult to scgregatc the snn're from the document executed I ], D$'. 1. The s:rme i:lpli,.::; th:rt, defendant No. i did not exec.l e n umber of rcgistered s:ilc dccds rn favour of third pcrsons vl- o werc not the norrjllecs ol plaintilf. It is further submitted hat when [he piaintiffs ar-e silerrt as to in what way and in whe : rnanner the nominecs u.crr: qiven the documents by defendat-r. {o. 1 then the plaintiffs are stopped by their conduct to questir r lh e right of clefendant No. I to execule registered sale deed in 1 rvrur of third parties rvho in turn sold away the plots to variou l porsons after zrbout 2O vears of Ex.A.1. The course adopted b1 the plaintiffs I I 10 .:l- "j is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, praved this Court to dismiss this appeal as there are no me rits.

15. Considcring the submissions made by the counsel and tl-re rnaterial on record, now the points to be determjned are : 1 ,) Whether Ex.A. I agreement of sale dated 0g.09.19g6 is true, valid and executed by defendant No.1 ? Whether the defendant No. I execute d registercd sale deed in the namc of nominees of plaintiffs ? Whelher the defendant No.1 sold the suit schedr_rle: property to various persons ? 4 Whether the judgment of trial Court needs al-rl, ) interfcrence ? POINT NOs. I To 4 i6- Going through the submissions made b1, the parties ancl the documents fiicd before the trial court, on behalt of ptaintiffs, Pu,s- 1 and 2 were examined and trxs.A. 1 to A.5O are marked. trx.A. I is the impounded agreement for sale dated: g.9.19g6. trx. A2 is the recerpr dated 16.7.1986 for Rs.43,0OO/_, trx,A3 is the reccipt dated: 9.8.1986 for Rs.35,00O/-, Ex .A4 is the receipt dated: 3.2.1987 for Rs. 1O,0O0/-, Ex.A5 is the receipt dated:

25.8.1987 for Rs.35,OOO/-, Ex.A6 is the receipt dated:

14.12.1987 for Rs. 5O,OO0/ , Ex.A7 is the receipt dated: 22.12.79a7 for Rs 37 ,OOO / , Ex- A8 is the receipt dated: I 11

28.1.1988 lirr I1s.40,000/-, trx.A9 is the r.r :eipt dated 23.3.1988 for lls 20,OO0/-, trx.A1O is rhe , ccipr datcd i4.4.1988 for [{s.35,000/ , trx.A1 1 is the -r cripr darcd - 5.1988 lrrr Rs. 2O,00O/ , llx.Al2 is tl-re -r cc ipr date d I:1.6- 1988 ior Rs, 1O,0OO/-, trx.A13 is thc - c(:ipt datecl ,2 1.7.1988 for i?s.20,000/ , Ex.Al4 is rhc r rcr:ipt clated 22.12.1!)88 lor Ils. 10,00O/ , u'hich shows thar lrcrein parci Rs 3.65,000/- b1, 22.12.1988 .rri rhe plaintiff the othcr ,locrtments Iilr:r1 br. the plair-rtiff :rre trx.Al5 is the rffice copy of icg;rl notice diire.l 6. ll.2OO1 , trx.A16 is thc repl-r )r.) 1.2OA1, Llx.A17 is the certificatc of encurrr:: roticc datcd: 'a lcc datecl:

4.12.2OO4, trx A18 is the certified copy o[ sal,r d:ed dated:

18.)2.2OO3. Flx.A l9 is the certified copy of s:l r c er:d dated 1 1 . 12.2C03, IJx.A,2O is tl're certified copy of sal,: rl:erl d:rtcd:

23.1.2003. Ifx, A2 I is the certihed copy of sal,r d:ed dated:

21.7.2OA3, 'tt-x. A22 is the certihed copy of salt 2-5.2OO3, [ix A23 is the certihed copy cf <|:ed datcd: r;ale dced ci.rted:2.5.2O0i], trx.A24 is the certified copy of sa t decd datcd:

17.O2.2OO3. trx. A25 is the certified copy of sal: d,:ed dated: 3O.IO.2OO2. trx.A26 is the certihed copy of sak: rlt-'ed dated:

17.72.2002. Ex.A27 is the certified copy of sah, cft:ed dated:

23.1.2OO3, trx. A28 is the certified copy of salr ck:ed dated: 1,2 14 .2.2OO3, Ex.A29 is the certified copy of sale decd dated: '25.3.2OO4, Ex.A30 is the certified copy of salc cleed dated: '21 .1.2OO3, trx.A3 1 is thc certified copv of s:rie rleecl datccl:

14.2.2OO3, trx. A32 is the ce rtihed copy of serle deecl datcd

74.2-2OO3, trx.A33 is the ccrtified copy of sale clecd clated:

21.9.2OO2, Ex.A34 is the certified copy of sale deed dated:

30.10.2OO2, Ex.A35 is the certihed copy ol sale dccd dated:

24.9.2OO5, Ex.A36 is the ccrtified cop_v of sale tir:ed dated: 3O.7.2O05, Ex. A37 is thc ccrtifted copy ol s.rle Cecd dateci: l'2.11.2OO2, trx.A38 is the layout plan, trx.A39 is tl-re paper containing registration numbcr of document and other particulars, (Ex.A39 is marked subject to objecrion that it does not bear the signatures of any person), trx.A.4o is thc death certificatc of Smt. CH. Laxmi daLed: 2O.4.2O05 lix.A..l 1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated: 6.8.2OO3, Llx.A42 is the certified copy of sale deed dated: 6.8-20O3, trx. A43 is the certificd copy of sale deed dated: 26.72.2003, ExA44 is the ordinary agreement of salc dated O9. 12. 1987, trxA45 is the ordlnary agreement of sale dated 09.12.1987, trxA46 is the ordinary agreement of sale dated O9. l2.l9A7 , trxA47 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.72.2003, ExA48 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.5319 of i993, ExA49 is 13 i1 tilc certifrecl copv ef sale dced document No.7t,i, cf 2013 ancl FlxA5O IS thc r:ertihecl copy of cancellatio I clc:d datccl ().j.1l.2t)Il ',7. Orr lr.:h..ill of defendants Dr.l's.1 Lo 3 wer,: xlLmined :rnd t'lrs.B.1 to [].5 zire marked. trx.B.1 is the copr of sale deed rlatcd 1,i.i)ll. i !,,t!15, trx.8.2 is the copy of sa i ,_leed dated 3 1 . 03. 1 9q 5. Dx. B.3 is the copy of Encumbr . r cc certifica ter riaLecl 19.(Ji.2015, Ex.ts.4 is the copy of ilcumirrzrncc (,r-1ific.rtc .1il[(]cl 19.01,2015 and trx.B..5 is -he cop1. rif Iincutl I;r;tr r<:r: certificate durted 20.01. 1995 i8. There is rro displrte with regard to executio: ol a-greement ol sale un<1i't- l;lx.A. 1 rn hcreas, the contention ol 1:t'cndaLr ts is tlr:rr, dcfcrrclant No.2 hils nol signed agreement r,l sr,tl: ancl t he suit rs filcd bv the plaintiffs stating that defc.r LanLs 1lo 3 cxr:r:rrtcrl ugrecfi'rcnt of sale. The document: fi. erl b1. the Jrlr.rir-rtiffs itself s;hows that it is only signed b1, r r ie eclant No. I ;lirc.l del-cndanL No.3, as such, they are rhc I rr.ics to the aqreemrlt. Ar:cording to the plaintilfs, defendant i or;. 1Lo3 hzrs to exccute rcgistcred sale deed in favour of Snri -axrni or her nominees. A<:cording to the piaintiffs, in the v,: r 1999 thcir mother l-axrui dicd in whose name the documenr l z-s executed I 74 bv derfendant Nos.1 to 3 and therealter on sever:Ll requests, the defendant Nos.1 Lo 3 failed to execute the registered sale deed tcr the extent of 29932 Sq yards. .lherefore, they rssuecl legal notice demanding deienclant Nos. i to 3 to exccute ttre registered sale deed t9 The main contention of the defenclants is that delendant No 1 executed a registered sare deecr to the extent of sarc r:onsideration receivcd i.e., Rs.3,65,000/_ front laie Smr LaLxnti and as Smt Laxmi \\'as not u,illing ro pay 1,hc balance sale consideration, she cannot claim it,r rcspect o[ f.,sl ol tht: lancl. Therefore, he had conveyed the remaining plots.on his own. The plaintiffs are claiming that the rast sale deed was executeci bv defendant No.l on 26.12.2003 in favour oi onc Arrasuya n,hich is denied by defendant No.1 as he had conveyed the plot in lavour of Anasuya who is not the trominec of Smt Laxmi. The sale deed executed in favour of Anasuya is marked as Dx.A.47, which does no[ contain anything that it u;as executecl in her favour as nominee of Smt La,xmi.

20. The averments in trx.A.47 shor.t,s that lhe venclor is Dr.A.Raghupathi Reddy i.e., defendant No.l and the vendee is Smt Anasuya D/o.G.Mallaiah. There is no mention about 15 Bx.A.1 agrccment of sale in the szrle deed and a : r ihcrc is no a\,crmenL rvrLh rcgard to nominees of plaintiffs i:r tl.e last s:rle clcecl. In Lhr: abseircc of the said averment in [r;<.J.J7 it i::tnnor be s:rid thirt delcndant No.1 executed Ex.A.47 rn t:rvour of nominees ol 1.>lainrllls. Pw.2 claims th:rt he ha s rb:a inccl sale clccd in t1'rc names of his r-rominees. Pw.2 is ] t [r l]arl\: to Dx.A. 1 agret:menl ol salc and no document is file I rc shos lhat dr:iendant No.I erecuted registercd sale dccds ir lavour of i':orninccs of i\i'.2 and defendant No. I had execL,: I ri sille (lee.ls lrom 19cl I to i 9()4 in lavour of nominees of Sn-rr I Lr:r-ni, b| the linc of issr-L:rnce ol legal notice dated 06. 11.20O.+. -l he clet'endant \o.t had exccutcd sale deeds in favour of variorL f,urchascrs, conr.cyccl all the plots in Sy.No.74 and there a - :rr:bscclue nt pLtrcherscrs fiom the said purchase. The ln,:l:mbrance certificates marked as Ex.B.3 to 8.5 shorvs tt'tr there are irttnrbcr o1's:rlc dccds for the subject land. trxs.:\. 5 an<1 36 are not execuLerl by defendant No. 1, trx.A.35 Sale dc: 1 is execute d lx. one N4r Hankare Kishan in favour of R.B.Cial:,it Nalar-aj in rcspect of Piot No.52, similarly Ex.A.36 sale deed i'as cxecutcd irr. one Mr Chilika Maila Reddy in favour of \. 'larsi Reddy. n dmittedlv, t hc said La-xmi died in the yea r 1 !)99. The docr-rmcnt lilecl bv the plaintiffs shows that r1e receipt of \ I 15 amount is up to 1988 and thercafter tl'rere is no document to prove that the plaintiffs paid anv amount towards sale considcration

21. The contention ol plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 execu[ed registered sale deeds in thc name of nominecs of latc Laxmi, but no document is filed to prove thc same. According to thc plaintiffs, till 2003 defendant No.I exccutcd salc deeds in Lrvour of nominccs of Laxrni, r,r1'rcreas Lhe documenl hled by the plaintiffs ilself shows tl'rat zrfLer 1988, I'ro palme[t w-as made Lo lhe def-endant No. 1. Ex.A.I shou,s thal it is executr:d for Ac.10.OO of land out of Ac-27.00 in Sy,No.72, 74 and 75, but thcre is no schedule o[ propcrt], to lhe said agrcement ol sale specif\''ing the boundaries and for n hich Ac. 10.0O o[ land, [he document was executed. Though the plair-rtiffs got the suit scheduLe boundaries amended ancl shown neu,, boundaries, thcre rs no specific boundary in trx.A.1 agreement of sale to suit the plaintiffs claim. Accorcling to thc plaintiffs, the area was tnade as lay out in 107 plots. Ex-A.38 does not mention about Sy.No.75 and Ex.A.39 is without any signature filed by plaintiffs to intercept the trx.A. 1 . t]

22. Thc plarntitis' contention that the defendz irt l{o.1 had alre:rdy excr:ute d rcgistered salc decd for 184 6'l S.l _r,ards in la'',our ol plirintri'ls, [hcrc is no evidcnce to sho,.r ,ir rt tire szrid ianci rr"-as rcgislen:rl in the name of nominees ol I-, L n. i. Thcrc rs no l-resh agreemcnt or contract to show that thc i,r rd q,a s rnade into plots and parllcular plot numbers were alre.l a ; ;old out by t}'rc plairriifls :rlonq r,r,ith dcfcndant No. I and rr r rainrng plots havr: to be sr,rlcl in i:rvour of nominee s of Laxmi. n Iix.A. l, Lr nronths' rrnc is spccified fcri performancc of aaf '(I n C nt, cvcl-l tl-.or-rgh ihert is a condition in clause No.10, rhat -i rc is not rhe essence of lr()ntritct. When thc'r'e is time stipt r 1t rd i.c., 15 months, the plaintiffs have to hle suit alter exl)rr .' )f thc said d:rtc or lrorL the ci:rtr: of denial. Thc contents o, rqrecmenL of sakr. the a\,( l'ltcrlls in thc plaint and the conterLri n ; raiscd b-r-- thc plaintills arc conlrary Lo each other and therc i , no cvidcncc orr r-ecord to shoir. that tiii 20O3, defendant i,l ) executed r-egisLcrccl sa le clccr-1 at thc instance of plaintiffs. I,, cri:tccording tr> clocumen r s lilcd bv plaintiffs no amoun t ..:rs paid to clelendanl No.I after 1988. Further there is n r e'riclence on lecord to shorv that after the death of wife of Pu.. l .e., Laxmi in Lhc year 199c1 thc],have taken any steps to briL-r: Lhe same to thc notice o1- delendant No.1 and the legal heirs .: ,rght- to have 1E inlormed the same to delendanr No- I for new contract or atleast madc defendant No.1 to bind himself for contrnuation of rights from 1986 to 1999. Though time is not the essencc of contr..rct, it must be in re asonabie time and suit is filed in thc l car 2OO5 wiLhoul valid explanation. Thereforc, the suit is barrecl by limitation and thc documenL under Ex.A. 1 cannot be said to bc enforccable nou, after lapse of so many _vears.

23. [n a sr-tit lor specific performar-rcc, the lis n,oulcl bc basing on thc agreement of sale and the burdcn u ill be on thc pl:rinti[s Lo proire that from the date ol execution of alleged agrccment of sale, he is ready to perform his part of contract for pa1'ment of balance sale consideration and that he is readv lor cxecurion o[ registcrcd sale deed in his favour. In the prescnt case, in thc itgreenlent of sale it is mentioned thaL property can be resisrered in thc name of plaintiffs or their nominees. According to plaintiffs, till 20O3, defendant No.1 executed regisLered sale deeds in the name of nominees but no such document is filcci to provc the same and there is no averment to show that after 1988 plaintiffs are ready to pay balance sale consideration as part of their duty and no payment was made. As plaintiffs are not ready and u,illing lo perform rheir part of contract, lhey are 19 noi cntitle(l lor ec1-ritable rclief of specific p c -lirrrnancc of :rqlcemcnl cl' sale .1,1 [ri i ie.,r' t',1 thi: abovc observ.rtions, i linci nc, i t:i1alit1. in the lLrd:lmenl ol ,.rial Court. 'lhc trial Court righfll :1Lrccl:rted the cirs.i on h:ritd u-itl'r rclevant case laws. There r:rt r.io rncrits in lite appeal and the appe:rl is liable to ]r r dismissed. ,\cc, rr<1i nglr'. thc 1;oinLs are ansr.l'ered.

25. IN THD I?lisLJLT, the Appcal Suit is clismiss: l. Therc sherll be iro o;-cler its lo costs. Misc.-ll:rneous pe titions, pending, if anv, shrrll siand r:losed. SD/- N.SRIHARI I'UTY REGISTRAR -E- -i \o //TRUE COPY// ttecrroru oFFrcER To,

1. One CC to SRI. A It/ RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. K RAGHUVEER REDDY Advocate [Ol] J(:l 3. One CC to SRI K DEVENDER Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s Resu Law Office (OPUC) 5. One CC to SRl. RAVIKANTH K Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri G. Karunakar Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies M" "AS R-/PSL a HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 JUDGMENT AS.No.149 of 2017 ,( tlE a iS ( tii r _ra \:_'J-r, 'i:..tr . ) il? J DISMISSING THE ,{PPEAL (LL IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA FIRST APPEAL NO: 149 OF 2017 Between:

1. Ch.Lingaiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged about 69 Years, Occu Business, R/o H.No. 1213, Surya Sarola Apartments, HUDA complex, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. (Died per LR - Appellant No.2 already on record)

2. Ch. Sudhee Kumar Reddy S/o Lingaiah. aged about 39 years, Occ: Busjness R/o H.No.12l3, Surya Saroja Apartments, HUDA Complex, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. (Appellant No.2, Ch. Sudhee Kumar Reddy is already on record as LR of deceased Appellant No.1 , Viz. Ch Lingaiah as per Court Order dt.20.0'1 .2023, vide l.A.No.1 ol 2021 made in AS.No.149 ol 2017) ... P Iai ntiffs/Appe I la nts AND '1. Dr A Raghupathi Reddy, S/o A arayan Reddy, Occ Doctor (Died as per LR's RR 32 & 33

2. A Deepkara Reddy, S/o A Raghupathi REddy, Occ Business Both are R/o H.No.2-2-1 1081111 I, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad

3. Prema Latha, Wo Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Occ Housewife Rlo H.o.2-2- 1 1051 1 0, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad

4. Sudi Sumalatha,, D/o S Narayana R/o Plot No.'155 RTC Coloy Chengicherla Village Gahatkeshar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. P Ramanamma, W/o Late Venkatesh, aged Major, R/o F-101, Rekha Apartments, Kakatiya Nagar, St.No.3, Habsiguda. Hyderabad

6. M Laxma Reddy, S/o M.Ram Reddy, aged Major, Aged major,R/o H.No. 2-2- 1 1 051 12, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad

7. Smt.Pasham Nirmala, Wo Pasham Narsimha Reddy, aged Major, R/o tt.No. 5-62, Uppal Bus Depot, Budha Nagar Colony, Peezadiguda Village, Ghatkeshar Mandal, RR District. B. Smt.R.Vijaya, Wo Sri R.Satyanarayana, Aged [Vajor, R/o Qr.M-37, PandT Colony, Chikkadpatly, Hyderabad a::. .i*+

9. Sri Kanuganti Venkateshwar Reddy,, S/o Raghupathi Re 1dy, Aged ttilajor, PJo H No. 12-10-59011Ol7 Warasiguda, Hyderabad '10. Kum.K.Viitha. D/o Venugopal Reddy Aged tVIalor, R/o l-. 'io. 12-13-6771100, Kmti Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 1 1 . S.Venkateswa ra Rao.. S/o S.RanaRao, Aged Major, R/: Flat No. 101, Ragha Enclave, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad

12.[r,4ankare Kishan, S/o tvlothi Ram, Aged l\4ajor, R/o H Nc, 3-109, Bhemm Reddy, Nagar Colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, R,r rg r Reddy District. 13. Smt. E. Hyrnavathi. Wo Baleshwar, Aged4ajor, R/o H ll r ,1-39, Budhanagar, Uppal Bus Depot Peerzadiguda, Ghatkesar l/andal, Rar Ea Reddy District 14 Begumpet Vishnumurthy, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged Major. R/ r Fl No 11-03-327, Mailagada Seethaphalmandi Secunderabad

15. Srj G Nagaraju, S/o Balraj Aged lvlajor, R/o H.No. 2-1-.(1, , fiaghavender Nagar Colony, Uppal Village, Ranga Reddy District

16. Smt Jitta [r/adhavi, Wo Jitta Malla Reddy aged Major, : 'o H No. 4-67. Budhanagar, Uppal Bus Depot Peerzadiguda. Ghatkesrr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

17. Kum. P. Annapurna, D/o P.Padma Reddy, Aged ti/ajor, t /o H.No. 5-62, Budhanagar, Uppal Bus Depot Peerzadiguda, Ghatkes;r lV andal, Ranga Reddy District.

18.G Bal Reddy, S/o Raji ReddyAged Major, R/o Bhongir 'lalgonda District. 19. Chettipally Srinivas, S/o Sreeramulu, Aged Major, R/o l-1. \o 4-59 Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

20. Konga Divya, Dio K.Ram Mohan Rao aged tt/ajor, R/o () o S.Rama Rao, Chiniaja Lanka Post. Kollur l\,4andai. Guntur District.

21. R B. Ganesh Nataraj, S/o Balasubramanyam Aged l\ilaj r , Ii/o PIot No 20, Flat S.-'1 , Jai Bhavani Aparments, Saraswathi Colony, llr ctraram Hyderabad.

22.Yedula Narai Reddy , S/o Chella Reddy Aged [,4ajor R/o : ^'1o 2-12-148, Uppal Beerappagadda, Ghatkesar Mandal Ranga Redcl D strict.

23. G Narshima, S/o Kondaiah, Aged lvlajor, R/o H.No 3-'l:1 , Ilheemreddy Nagar Colony, Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal ,Ranga R: idy District. Defendants / Respon i :n:s

24. A. K. Ramchandraiah. S/o. A.Kistaiah, Age 66 year, H No l-30, Gundala Village and [t4andal, Nalgonda District.

25. M. Satyanarayana, S/o. Rama Swamy, Age 54 years, F. rlc.38, Annanagar at Main Road, l/ladahavaram, Chennai, Tamilnadu. (Respondents Nos, 24 & 25 are impleaded as pe r Crrurt Order d1.30.01 2023, vide l.A.Nos.1 &2of 2019 made'r AS.No.'149 of 2017) .... lmplead [i,:;p,:ndents 24 &25

26. Lakavath Venkanna, S/o. L. Bhanu, Aged about 45 years, Rlo.3-124187, Prashanth Nagar, chengicherla, Ir4adchal It/alkajgiri Diskict. 27 K. Vishvarupam, S/o. K.Jagannadam, Aged about 38 years, Rl/o. H.No.1- 38/35, Rasulpura, Begumpet, P-Line, Hyderabad.

28.K Varalaxmi, Wo. Krishnama Chary, Aged 41 years, R/o. H.No.7-77, Edulabad Village, Ghatkesar (M), Ranga Reddy District. 29 Rajaboina Laxman Prasad, Sio. R.Yadagirr Yadav, Aged about 31 years, R/o H.No.4-'1 53, Prashanth Nagar, Chengicherla, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

30. Sunku Chandrakantha Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Aged about 49 years, R/o. H.No.4-1-1 01, Prashanth Nagar, Chengicherla, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 31 Smt. Palle Swapna, Wio. Satyavardhan Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.6-17l1 , Road No.5, Buddhanagar Colony, Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. (Respondents No.26 to 31 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 12.04.2023, vide l.A.No.1 ol 2023 in AS.No.149 of 2017) Propiosed Respondents Nos. 26 to 31

32.A. Deepthinandan Reddy, S/o. Late Dr. A. Raghupathi Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner and Orthopedic Surgon, consultant to Yashoda Hospital Hitex City, Cyber Towers to JNTU Road, Hyderabad - 500084. Postal Address Survey No 41114, JNTU to Hrtech City Main Road, Khanamet Village, Sharilingampally, Kothaguda, Hyderabad - 500084., and having Private Clinic and Practice. Near Yashoda Hospital Hitech City, Kothaguda, Hyd - 500084. And also R/o. Villa No.20, Legend Chymes, Kokapet, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, TS - 500075.

33.A. Mahathi, D/o. Late Dr.A Raghupathi Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, Permanent Rlo 2-2-1105121lB, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad - 500044, Presently residing at 19006 Deer Point Place, Odessa, FL, USA - 33556 and also at 2955 Cypress Pointe CT, Tarpon Springs, FL 34688, USA (Respondent Nos.32 & 33 are brought on record as LR's of deceased Respondent No.1 as per Court Order dated 12.11 2024, vide lkA.No.4 of 2024 in AS.No 149 of 2017) RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 96 RAN Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated02.12.2016 in O.S.No,49 of 2005 on the file of the Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B. Nagar. ORDER: This appeal eoming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lon'er Court and the material papcrs in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.M. Rao, Advocate for the appellant and ofSri K. Raghuveer I{eddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri R. Rakesh Reddy, Advocate representing Resu Law Office for Respondcnt No.2, Sri K. Devendcr, Advocate for Rcspondent No.9 & 22' and of Sri K. Ravikanth, Advocate for Respondent No.s.6,17' 22,24 to 30. 'fhat this Court Doth Order and Decree as follorvs: I. That this appeal is be and herebv dismissed

2. That there shall bc no order as to costs. To SD/- N.SRIHARI ll:F'Ury REGISTRAR \ ,I l:r_-,rrN ol-{ ILEL l. The VII {dditionlrl Senior Civil .Iudge, Ranga Reddy I) ric t r t l,.ll. Nagar.

2. Trvo (- I) Copie s t,)A.t')/ ?SL HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 DECREE AS.No.149 of 2017 DISMISSING'THE APPEAL 1\ ,\