The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circLrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders passed in l.A.No.0'1 0f 2o1g dated.13-03-2020 in AS 655 of 2019 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section '1 51 cpc praying that in the circLrmstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court .nay be pleased to extend the interim orders passed rn l.A.No.l of 2019 dated 07-03-2022 in A.s. No. 655 of 2019 Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Peddapally Sai Kiran Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri B. Nalin Kumar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT No.655 of 2O19 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Pecldapally Sai Kiran, learned counscl for the appellanls/ defer-rdanl Nos.2 and 3 and Sri B Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / plait-rtiff- This is an appeal preierrcd by the appellants/ dcfendant

2. Nos.2 arrd 3 aggrieveC by the judgment and decree of the lcarned Judgc, Family Court-cum VII Arldrtional District Judge, Mcciak at Sangareddy (for short 'the learned Judge'), dated 19 09 2019 in O.S.No.55 of 201 1, whereby, the sui[ hled for directing thc appellants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 to execute registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff in respect o[ the property i.e. Plots bearing Nos 165 ancl 166r admeasuring an area of 366 sq.ycls. in Sy.Nos.249 ancl 25O situated at lsnapur Village' Patancheru Mandal, Medaik Distcict (for short 'thc suit schedule property' has been decreed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal arc referred to as thcy are arrayed in O.-q'No'SS of 201 l ' Fac ts of the case: The suit was filed bv the plaintiff seeking relief of specilic 4. performance crf Agreernent of sale rJ,ated' 26'07 2OO8/Ex Al and to \ \ .) declare the sale deeds i.e. clocumenr bearing No.339;j of 2O09, dated 23.O4.2OO9 /trx,A7 executed by defcndant No.l in favour of de fendant No.2 ar-rd document bearing No.9971 of 2O09, dated 05.11.2OO9/trx.A8 erecutecl by defendar.rt No.2 in favour of defenclanl No.3, as null ancl r,oicl. .) Initially the suit ri.as filed against defenckLnt Nos.l to 3 During the pendency of the suit, delendant No. 1 dit cl ar-rd his legal relrresen tatives were brought on record as defenclant Nos.4 to 6_

6. Defendant No.1 is Lhe cw.ncr of the suit schcdule property having purchased it from defendant No.2 under a registered sale clced vide document No.1o0g3 of 20og, d,aLcd 17 .(.t7 .2008/ Ex.A2. Defcndant No.1 due to financial nceds oflered k. sell the suit schcdule property for a total salc consideration of I.:s.1 l,o0,ooo/-. Consequently, defendant No.1 reques[ed thc plrrintiff to pay . On the basis of lhe agreement Rs. i 0,00,000/ to discharge loan reached betwcen thc plaintiff ancl defendant No. 1, a Sale Agrecrnent/trx.A 1 was executed on 26.07.2OOg on st:rmp papers on pavment of Rs. 1O,00,0O0/- to defendant No. 1 in tirc presence of wi[nesses. In the said Agreement, it ,"vas agreed th:rt tlre balance salc consideration rvas to be paicl at the time o1 execution of registercd sale deed. The plaintiff demanded executio-r of registered sale deed but defenclant No.1 postponed on one pretext or the other. '/ J While things stood thus, defendant No'1 got issued a legal notice dated 13.04.2010/Ex.A3 alleging lhat he rvas in need of money and took Rs.5,0O,OO0/ from thc plaintiff by deposit of title deeds' It is further alleged th.1t at that time, defendanl No' 1's signatures we re oblained on chequcs and promissory note by lhe plaintiff On receipt of the legal notice, the plaintiff approached defendant No 1 and questioned about the notice. When there was no reply, the plaintiff got issued a repl-1' notice dated lg 'O7 '2O1O / tr'x'A4 ' but' defendant No.1 did not give any rcply to the reply notice of the plaintiff' The plaintiff's case is that hc is ready and willing to perform his part of the conlracl, but, delenclanL No.1 is not ready and rvilling to perform his part of the contracl. When the plair-rtiff got issued reply notice' defendant No.1 inlbrmed the plaintiff that thc suit schedule property was sold in favour of defendanl No'2 Upon enquiry, the plaintiff learned that delendant No.1 exccuted registercd sale deed in favour of <lefendan[ No.2 on 23.O4.2OO9 vide document No 3398 of 2OO9 lEx.A7 and that delenclant No.2 in turn executed registered sale d.eed in favour of defendanL No.3 on 05 i 1'2009 vide document No.9971 of 2OO9/Ex.A8. Atter obtainrng the documents, when defendant No.3 was making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed the suit for specihc performance of Agreement of sale executed by defendant No 1 in his favour' \ 4 7 The defendant Nos.4 to 6 remained explrte. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed rvritten statemcnts. In sum and subslance, defendant No.2 denied execution of trx.A1 Agrcentent of sale by defendar-rt No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 purchased the suit schedule proper[r from delenclant No.1 un,-ler a registcred sale deed clocument bcaring No.339g oI 2OOg, dated 23'04 2oo9 ltrx.A7. Defendant No.1 assured to hardover the link documents but did not do so. Thereafter, defendarrt No.2 learned that in collusion with the plaintiff, thc Agreement ol sale is created and tl're same is not sustainable. Defcndant No.2 clairned to be a bonafide purchaser. Delendant No.3 sailed along ..i.ith defendant No.2 and claimed to be bonahde purchaser from defendant No.2.

8. On thc basis of rival pleadings, lhe learnecl Judge framed 1 l-io fr-,llou,ing thrce issues for trial: 1) 2) 3) 4) \Vhether the sale agreemcnt datccl 26.()7.2O0g is true,.ralid ancl bir-rding or.r the defendairt No.2? Whether the defenclant No.2 is absolutt: orvner of thc suit scheduie property by virtuc of registered sale deed executed by delendant No.1 on 23.O4.2OO9 vide document No. 339g of 2009? Whether the defendant No.2 in turn soll the suit schedule property in favour of del'enciar-rt No.3 under registered sale deed? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for direction Lo defendantS 1 to 3 to execute registered sale deed 5 in his favour property? 1n respect of suit schedule s) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No'1 in favour of the delcndant No.2 and also sale dced executed by dcfendant No.2 in favour o[ D 3 are null and void? 6) To what relicP g. During trial, on bchalf of the plainliff, witnesses PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.Ai to Al2 Defendant No 2 cxamined himself as DWI and got marked trx'B1 and 82' Upon examining both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plainliff' Aggricved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by defendant Nos'2 and 3' Contentions of the aPPellants/ defendant Nos.2 and 3: The learned counsel for defendanl Nos'2 and 3 in grounds

10. of appeal contended that the plaintiff faited to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the cont ract and that the plaintiff approached the Court t'ith unclean hands' The learned Judge failed to take into consideration the legal notice trx'A3, wherein, defendant No. 1 demanded the plaintiff to return back blank signed stamp papers and cheques deposited with him for obtaining loan. There is an erroneous finding on the part of the Nos.2 and 3 admitting the learned Judge about defendant sigAatures of defendant No.1 on trx.A 1 Agreement of sale dated t 6

26.07.2008. 'lhere is a further erroncous linding that defendant Nos.2 and 3 failed to aclduce evidence to prove exlstencc of a loan transaction belrveen thr:m and plaintiff. lt is allegeci that the plaintiff claimed to be an agriculturist and not involvecl in money lending business but the samc is proven to be lalsc Lrv the information secured undcr RTI frorn GHMC. There is an erroneous linding that trx.A 1 is not a forged or tampered document ancl that it is a genuine Aqrecmcnt of sale. Ilxcept pleading about the readiness and u.iliingness, there is no credible evidence on the part of thc plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. There is an er;.oneous Iinding that no borrower will cieposit title deeds rvhile taking lozrn that too without any proof of obtaining loan. 1 1 . The learned r:ounsel for the appellants <iur.ing argumcnts vchcrncnLly emphasizecl that thcre was no evidcr-rcc ad<1uced b-y the plaintifl to provc his readiness and willingness Lo perlbrm the oontract. [n that regard, learned counsel for Lhc appcllzrnts relied upon judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Courr. ol. Indi:i in K.S.Vidyanadam and others vs. Vairavanr, Alagammal and others vs. Ganesan and another2 and C.S.Venkatesh vs. A.S.C.Murthy (D) by LRs and others3. ' { rolr.1 : scc r ' 1:o:+.1 r scn lu+ ' (2029) 3 SCC 280 I ,, ,/ 1 Contentions of respondent No.1/ plaintiff:

12.LearnedcounselforrespondcntNo'1/plaintiffsupported the decree and judgment passed by the learned Judge allegrng that the findings are based on correct appreciation of facts and application of 1aw. The learned counsel emphasized that the total saie consideration for purchase of suit schedulc propertlr was Rs.11,00,00O/-, out of which, Rs iO,OO,OO0/- has been paid on the date of execution of Agrcement of sale and the baiancc sale consideration is only Rs.1,0O,OOO/- which is less than 1Oo/o of thc total sale consideratlon. The plaintiff who has paid Rs lO'00'OOO/ was always ready to pay the remaining Rs' I'OO'O0O/ Lrut it is the defendant No.l who reneged from performing his parl of Lhe contract. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon thc judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Ahmadasahab Abdul Mulla (Dl by proposed LRs vs' Bibijan and others4 and R. Lakshmikantham vs. Devaraji5

13. Analvsis of the Court: The main ground raised tbr challenging thc judgment and decree of the learned Judge is lack of proof ol readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract. In that regard, defendant Nos 2 and 3's reliance on Hon'ble SuPreme Court of India in judgment of the " (zoo9) s scc +oz '(zorq) t scc oz ( t tJ :: K.s.vidyanadam (1 supra) celllnot be taken int. r.nsrderation as thc fircts of tl're said r:ase sho,"v that thcre was cornl;lctt: inarction on the part of the plaintitf in paymcnt ol money for.a pcr.iocl o[ 2% years aftcr making a pa_vmcnt of sm:rll amount of ntoncl i.e. Rs.5,O0O/ out oI total s.rr: consicicratio, of Rs. 16,000/-, In r rrc i.stzrnt casc, Lhe icverse is tnre i.e. thc plaintiff hcrein has paid ntore than 9006 of Lhc salc consideratior-r i.c. Rs. 10,00,00O/ out of total sale considcration of Rs i l,OO,OO0/ Thercfore:, K.S.Vidyanadam [1 supral judgrncnt. dot,s not (]omc to thc aid o[ thc rlcfcndant Nos.2 ancl 3. Similarll,, in thc judgment o[ Alagammal ;rnd others (2 supra), 1he Asrcement of salc was cntered on,22..1L t99O for a sale considcration o1 Rs.21,0O0/_ and advance amounr of Rs.3,0O0/_ rvas paid. The remaining amount ol Rs.l g,OO0/- w:r:; to be pzrid in six months. Ilo$'evei., r,i,hcn therc ivas lto par,yntcnl, irttcr il pcriod of scvcn years, thc, r.endor sold tl-rc property to third I)arly. Ilr thaL ciise loo, lhe amoi tL paicl is onlv ;rbout 14o1, ol lhe total szrle c'ln s idcr:r tion. Also, thc time was essence o[ trrr: r:ontract in Alagammal and others (2 supraf . Whereas, therc rs no such lime stipLliatecl in the Agreement of salc oI the present casc.

14. Further, the judgment of the Hon,ble Supr.:mc Court of India in C.S.Vent atesh (3 supra) interprets the u,orrls ,reaclv, \villing' as thc preparcdness to carry out obligation under the to logical end depend on performancc. The r:r>ntinuous contPact / I 9 readincss and willingness on the part of the ptaintiff is a condition precedent to grant relief of performance and in case' the plaintiff farls to prove the same, hc is not entitled to any relief Whereas' in this case, there is no proof to show Lhat thc plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contracl' In view of the foregoing discussion, this Courl is of the 15. considered opinion that by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff had already paid more than 907o of the sale consideration of Rs.1O,OO,O0O/-, he was ready and willing to pay the remainitrg salc consideration of Rs- 1,O0,0O0/ -

16. A person who paid substantial amounL of thc serie consideration cannot be expected to be not ready for paying a smail fraction of the balance sale consideration ancl therefore' thc learncd Judge made no error in holding that the plaintifl rvas readv and willing to perform his part of the contract' The next ground raised by defenCant Nos'2 and 3 is that 17. the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands bv suppressing that he is a money lender' To prove said fact' they relied upon trx.B 1-Information given by the Deputl' Commissioner' Patancheru and GHMC, dated' L3.O7 '2O18 The said doctrment was notlconsiclered by the learned Judge as the author of the document t-* I l0 wa!; not examincd. As per the established legal precedents, marking of thc document :,rs an exhibit is not suflicient to prove the contcnts. 18 The author of a documen t has to be examined to prove thc genulneness of iLs contcnts. In the absence oI failurc. to examine the author of Ex.B1, no fault can be found on thc par: of the learned .Judgc for nor considering Ex. B 1-Information givr:n by the Dy. Con'rmissioner, patanr:heru and GHMC dated 13.07.2O i 8

19. Assuming for a moment that thc plaintitf is indeed engagccl in money lencling busincss, in the absence of any <locument, loan transaction betrveen the plaintilf and dcfenclant No.1 cannot be believed. The plaintills role in creating Ex.A1 Agreenent of sale on the basis of bl:rnk signed papcrs has to be proven by defenclant Nos.2 and 3 q,i1h crecliblc evidence. In the abscnce ol said cvidence, no malaf-ide can be atrributed to the plaintiff. 20' Thc nc--xt gro,nd raised by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is that the learned Judge has not taken into consicleration tj_re legal notice ctatcd 13.O4.2O IO r_rncler trx.A3, whereby, ciefendant No. I had demandcd the plaintilf to return the blank signecl papers and chequcs obtain,^d. by him with respect to hand loan, is a matter that needs to be examined I I w Ex.A1 Agrecment of sale/ExA1 was entered on 26'07'2008 21. and defendant No.1 had sent legal notice/Ex A3 on 13 04 2010 In the interim, defendant No. 1 executed Ex'A7 registered sale decd vide document bearing No.3398 ot 2OO9, dated 23 O4 2OO9 in favour of defendant No.2, u'ho in turn executed Ex AS registercd sale deed vide document bearing No.9971 of 2OO9, dated O5' 1 1'2009 in favour of defendant No.3. The conduct of defendant No'1 shows that he entercd into an Agrecmcnt of salc u'ith the plaintiff on 26'07 ')OO8' alienated thc property in lavour of defendant No 2 on 23 04 2OO9 and after a lapse of (1) year (3) months, got a falsc lcgal noticc issued under Ex.A3 to the plaintiff' It appears that only [o covcr up his misconduct of sclling lhe suit schedule propert)/ iu favour o[ defendant No.2, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice allcging loan transaction without any proof. In the absence of anv docurnentary evidence, much crccience cannot be givet-r to Ex'A3 lcgai notice dated 13.04.2010. There is at-r issue raised by defendant Nos 2 and il :rbout 22. [he admission of signatures of dcfendant No l on Ex Al ln this regard, no lault can be found on Lhc part of the learned Judgc as the defendanls themselves ir-r thcir lvrittcn statement have admittcd thc Agreement of sale containing the signatures of defendant No' 1 though thc said signatures are alleged to have been tzlken on blank papers. Thc case of defendants as pcr trx A3 legal notice is that t2 therc was a l.an Lransaction between defendant N,r.1 and plaintiff for lending zr. amou't of Rs.5,00,O00/ a.d in t lrat context, the plaintiil obtained blank signecl papcrs and promrrsorl. notc. It is their lurthcr casc thzrt thc sairl blank papers rr,.erc used for preparing thc Agreement of salc by the ptaintiff. Or.rt.c the pleadings have an adnrissiorr about the gcnuineness of thc signature. the same canr-rot ilt: clisputcd at appezrl sLagc.

23. Comir-rr: to the aspcct ol proof of trx.A1/Agljement of sale, thc plaintiff gol himself examinecl zrs pW1 to provc ,ltc contents of trx.A1. Furthcr, thc plaintilf examincd pw2/Mohd. Mairmood Ali, u,ho signed on tirc Agreement o[ sirk: zrs a ,n,itncss has discharged his burden o[ lrroof to pro\.e Ex.A 1/Agre enrcnt of salc, t he contents of 0r cc the plaintiff the onus o[ prool then shifts to the dcfendants to rlisprove 1l,re san'rc. Excep[ lor thc oral cvidence ol defendant No.2 lt:; DWI rvho is r.ro1. a sign.rtory to Ex.A l, no evidence is produced to disprove the contents of Ex.A t . Ar a minimum, defendant Nos 2 artd 3 coulcl har.e exarnini..l the legat representatives ol defenclant No.l i.c. dr:fenclant Nos.4 to r-t or other witness to Ex.A i in support of the ir pleading that blank signed papers \rrere git,cn to thc plaintitf in a loan Lransactiorr and that no such alleged Agrcement of sale took place under Ex. { l. Even the defendant Nos.4 to 6 rcmained t:x parte and did not cor rtesl the suit. Hence, thc cvidt'rrce of DWI who is not having persorral knowledge r'r/ \ 1i about trx.A1 Agreement of sale is not a competent witness to depose about the same. In ttrc circumstances, this Court is not inciined to find fault with the finding given by the learned Judge about there being no tamper of trx A1 Agreement of sale' Lastly, the judgments of lhe Hon'ble Supre me Court of 24. India referrcd by the learned counsel for respondent No 1/plaintifl inAhmadasahabAbdulMulla(D}byproposedLRs(4supra)and R. Lakshmikantham (5 supral, are about limitation pcriod for specific performance. The said judgments are about Lhe tirne from which the limitation begins to Irn in a suit for specific perfornancc i.e. when a date is Iixed 'from said date'and when there is no datc' \rghen the plaintilf has noticed that performance is refused' ln the instant case, the plaintiff had noticed about the refusal to perlorm the Agreement of sale upon reccipt of Ex A3 legal notice dated 13.O4.2O10- Since the Agreement of sale/trx Al is dated 26'O7 '2OOa' even if the limitation pcriod is taken three years' the said limitiltion begins on 13.O4.2O1O and the suit is hled in [he year' 2O1l Therefore, there is no issue of limitation in fiiing the suit' In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the 25. considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere u'ith thc impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge' Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District Judge' Medak at ; l4 Sangareddy, dated 19.O9.2O 19 in O.S.No.55 ol 20 1 1. As such, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to As a scquel, all the pending misccllaneous irpplicaLions are

26. COSTS closed Sd/. K. SREE RAMA MURTHY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. (with records if any)

2. One CC to Sri Peddapally Sai Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri B. Nalin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/gh ry. .-::l'&L:' HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ATE r--) \\\ 1t S. t! -f,. .l{ n t'\E t 12 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.655 of 2019 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT b 1 t, h IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134421 FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT No: 655 of2019 Between:

1. V. Manohar Kumar, S/o Krishnamurari, Aged about 44 yrs, Occ. Employee, R/o Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

2. G. Sushmita, Wo H. Ramesh Kumar, Aged about 39 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o Vimandnagar, Secunderabad. ...Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 AND

1. T. Sairam, S/o Pratha Krishna Goud, Aged about 55 yrs, Occ-Agriculture, H,NO. 4-130, Market Road, Patancheru Town and lvlandal, Sangareddy District.

2. tvl. Ganesh died, per LRs Petitioners No. 3 to 5- 3. Smt Mutheneni Rajitha, Wo Ganesh M. Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.4-B-71l3, Manjeera Nagar, New BVt\/ School, Sangareddy Town And District.

4. I\rluttineni Praharsha, D/O M. Ganesh, Aged about 19 yrs, Occ. Student R/o H.No.4-8-7'113, l\/anjeera Nagar, New BVM School, Sangareddy Town And District.

5. Muttineni Lokesh, S/o M. Ganesh, Aged about 18 yrs, Occ. Student, R/o H.No. 4-8-7113, Manjeera Nagar, New BVM School, Sangareddy Town and District. ...Respondents/Plaintiffs/Defendants Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 19-09-201g passed in O.S.No.55 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Vll Additional Diskict Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Peddapally Sai Kiran, Advocate for the Appellants arid of Sri B. Nalin Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. --/ This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-Vll Additional Sangareddy. 2 Two CD Copies M- N':lr"jr^-. t="r'o* oFFtcER 't ,_) District Judge, IVledak at HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 DECREE AS.No.655 of 2019 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT ?\ b l,\