High Court · 2025

"'ResPondents/Defendants counsel for the Appellant :Smt' R MADHAVI LATHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 & 3 : M/S' V SATYAM REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT .o THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUrT No.26Z of2OlS JUDGMENT: Chzrl]enging the judgment dated 24.O1.2O15 p;rssed in O.S.No.259 of 20Og by the learned XIII Additional Dislrict ald Sessions .tr,clg6, p2rr*. Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suit tsr filed.

2. Thc b"ief facts of the case are that the plaintiff hled a suit under ()rder VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of tlre Civil Procedure tlo,le seeking specihc performance of an agrr:ement of sale dated .4.OS.2OOZ As per the plaintifl defendan- No.1, M. Chenna I.iotaiah, was the absolute owner ol. thr: 5pi1 property located at Thattianaram Village, Ranga Reddy District, an<l e ntered into a sale agreement with the pJaintiff for a total cc,nsideration of Rs. 1S,0O,000/_, out ol ,vhich Rs. 14,O0,00t),' . was allegedty paid as advarce. The pl,rintiff claimed thar_ <lespite readiness and willingness to pa,r the balance, the defendant failed to complete the sale and in,stead executed a subsequent sare agreement-cum-GpA on 77.O1.2OO8 in :.avor of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.1 l I i i / 2 sxs' J A.S.No.267 of2015 remained ex parte. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, however, denied the .claims of the plaintiff before the trial Court and asserted that the defendant No'1 agreed to sell the property to them for Rs. 18,70,0O0/-. They entered into an -' agreement on 06.12.2007 and paid Rs'3'OO'000/- initially' later clearing the outstanding housing loan of Rs' 1O'76'320/- to redeem the mortgage on the property' A registered agreement of sale- cum-GPA was executed in their favor (Ex B 1)' and they claimed to be bona hde purchasers for value' They also contended that defendant No 1 had a habit of signing blank papers and cheques, casting doubt on the plaintiffs agreement-

3. Basing on the above pleadings' the trial Court framed fourissuesandonbehalfoftheplaintiffsi.e.,PWs.land2 were examined and ExAl to A5 are marked' DWs'1 to 3 are examined and trxs'Bl to 815 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

4. After examining the evidence' the trial Court' uide order dated 24.01.2015, dismissed the suit observing that there are discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the Ct 3 SKS, J A.S.No 267 of 2O1S plaintiffs version, Rs. 14,O0,0110/_ particularly regarding documenta[ron. the payrrrent of allegedly made in cash without The supporting witness (pW:]) gave lnconsisten t testimony, weakening the case of the plai ntiff. In contrast, cefendant Nos.2 and 3 provided credible documentilJ' evidence (Exs.B1 to B15), proving paym,rnt and possessiorr. Due to the non_appearance of def_endant No. 1 and the dotLlttful circumstances around the agreemen t of the plaintiff, rhr, trial Court concluded that the plaintifl f,riled to prove the r.rrtidity of the agreement. Aggrieved there by, the prcsent apltcal suit is hled.

5. Hearrf Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned c.ounsel appearing or behalf of the appellant as well as Sri V. Siatyam Reddy. lcalr.d counsel appearing on behali of resp,rn6l6,61 Nos.2 ar-rd !l

6. Learnerl counsel for the appellant submitted thrrt the judgment arri decree passed by the triar court are rncorrect and against :he evidence and law artd that the trial Court wrongly rejer:ied the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance based on assumptions instead of properly I 4 SKS, J A.S.No.267 of2()l5 (l considering the documents and witness testimonies' The trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff only because she is from a different district and has no business in Hyderabad' He further submitted that there is nothing unusual about someone wanting to buy property in the capital city and that the trial Court ignored that defendant Nos'2 and 3 claimed ownership through an agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, which does not transfer title under the law He further submitted that even if the document is genuine' it only gives them the right to seek specific performance from defendant No. 1, which they never did, and are now barred by iimitation Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that the 7. appellant proved her case by examining the attesting witness' and his evidence remained unchallenged and that the trial Courtalsofailedtonoticethecollusionamongthedefendants, especially since defendant No 1 remained ex-parte ald did not appear to give evidence. He further contended that the blank cheque relied on by the defendants raises suspicion and showsfurthercollusion'Moreover,theagreementofsale relied upon by the defendants is not admissible in evidence as l l',-.,i-'::-:-riri-:a- : f ---- () 5 sKs, J A.S.No.:167 of 2()l5 it was not grroperly stamped. He further contended r_hat the trial Court ;rade its decision based on assumptionr,; rather than evidence, and the dismissal of the suit is unjust. Therefore, h,: prayed the Court to set aside thc juclgment of the trial corlrt by allowing this appeal suit.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaint itself reveals that there is nc proper basis lbr thc agreement, as no registered sale cle::d was executed in f,l,our of the plaintiff despite the alleged p,lyment of Rs. 14 0tr,0O0/-. He further submitted rert the appellaxt / pla intiff has not filed any receipt to prcve the payment ol the advance amount, nor has she explair ed the source of lunds used to pay the said amount to del.:ndant No. 1. This, il:cording to the respondents, indicates tl Lat the documenr is fabricated to defeat the rights of Defendant. Nos.2 and 3. He ir-r rther contended that trx.A1 lacks credibil ty and that the docu;rents relied upon by the plaintiff do not s.-rpport her claim. Hence, he prayed the Court that the appeal r;uit be dismissed. 6 SKS' J A.S.I{o.267 of2015 o]

9. The points that arise for consid'eration in this appeal

1. Whether the appellant/ plaintiff is entitled'.to the relief of of the agreement of sale under specific Performance Ex-A1? whether the judgment of the trial Court warrants any interference? Point No.i:

10. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the suit has been hled by the appellant/ plaintiff seeking specilic performance of the agreement of sale marked as Ex'A1' The case of the appellant is that defendant No 1 entered into an agreement of saie witJl her for the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 15,0O,OO0/-, out of which Rs'14'00'OOO/- was allegedly paid in cash. As per the terms of the agreement' defendant No. 1 was to complete construction of the cement-structured house, deliver possession, and thereafter execute a registered sale deed upon payment of the remaining sale consideration' : ,f) 7 SKS, J A.S.N(.26? of 2()ls 1 1. In srrpport of her claim, the appellart/plaintiff relied on Ex.A 1 (agreement of sale), Ex.A2 (office copy of Jeg;rl notice dated 30.01.2OOg), Exs.A3 and ,{4 (returned cor.ers arLd postal acknowledgrnent), and Ex.AS (certified copy of the.a5rreement of sale-curr -GpA). It is a settled principle of lau. that rn a suit for specilic prerformance, the plaintiff must not onll- p.:ove the execution rf a valid agreement but arso estabr sh her continuous r eadiness and willingness to perform her part of the contrar:1

12. In tLre present case, although the agreement ot sale is dated 14.011.2OO7, no time limit for performance was sp:cified. However, fllr plaintiff claims that she approached clefr:ndant No. 1 in the ,'irst week of November 2OOZ to pay the balance sale conside:;rtion, but defendant No.1 was not rei dy to perform his lxrrt of the contract. It was only on 3O.Ol.2OOg that a legal ll,rtice was issued by the plaintiff, which raises doubts regarding her readiness and willingness.

13. Furth€.r the plaintiff failed to produce any docume ntary evidence, suclt as receipts or bank records, to substal.rtiate the alleged payment of Rs.14,OO,OO0/_. During her evrd:nce, i l r I I 8 SKS, J AS.No.267 of 20l5 o she vaguely stated that the amount was adjusted from her dowry, but no further proof was submitted in support of this claim. She also admitted that she never visited the suit schedule property before entering into the agreement, which further weakens her case.

14. Further, the documents filed by the defendants, including Ex.B2 (agreement of sale dated, 03-12.2007), reveal that defendant No.1 had entered into a subsequent agreement of sale with the husband of defendant No.3, who is also the father of defendant No.2, for a higher sale consideration of Rs. 18,70,000/-, out of which Rs.14,97,32O1- was duly acknowledged and supported by receipts. The defendants also produced Ex.B 1 (registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA), Exs.BS to B7 (1oan discharge documents), and Ex'B13 (electricity demand notices in the name of DW 1), which collectively establish their possession and payment of sale consideration.

15. The evidence of DWl and DW3 further corroborates the fact that defendant No.l had a practice of signing blank documents and issuing blank cheques due to his l \ a 9 SKS, J A.S.N o.267 of 2()1S indebtedne.ss. Ex.B15, a blank cheque issuecl by rlefendant No.1 in fa',our of DW3, supports this contention. Trtese facts undermine the credibility of Ex.A1 relied upon by the plaintiff.

16. Therr-.fore, this Court finds that the appellanr-/plaintiff has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. There is also no convincing evidence to suppc,rr, the alleged payment of a substantial perrt of the sale consiieration. On the contrary, the rlcfenda nts have successful[.,- established their case by proclucing creilible oral and docunrr:ntary evidence, including discharge of thr housing loan on th,: suit schedule property. Point No.ii:

17. In vi,t.,t, of the above discussion in point No.i, there is no illegalitl, Lr the judgment of the trial Court. The tn al Court discussed tl1 the issues and it is a u,e1l rea scined j ,,rdgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment.

18. In vie'ry thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2OO8 10 srs, J A.S. o.267 of2015 G by the iearned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge' Ranga ReddY District, L'B' Nagar' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER .1. The Xlll Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar, Hyderabad(With records, if any)

2. one 6c to-rus. R tvlADHAVl LATHA, Advocate [OPUC] g On" CC to M/S. V SATYAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADK/gh W HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.267 of 2015 2 DRAFTS .-,. a-a 5TA i! Qs. .//-,, 4'..,' 7 \eq M C) ),r ._ <t'., ( 1 i DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS b fll{ \l -1/, rN rHE H|GH ""r*IfffIrtffio"rtffE oF TELANGANA THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL ' 'li'o-r-Hiiusruto nuo wverurv rtve : PRESENT i ,, THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO:267 oF 2015 Between: Madala Ramadevi, Wo Malyadri' Aged.about, Kothapeta, 1Oth ward, "J;ii6o'bff;e District. 47- veets Occ: Housewife' R/o' Kandutur' kandukur Mandal' Prakasam t "'APPellanUPlaintiff AND 1 ttlatle China Kotaiah, S/o Kondaiah' agsd about 37 vears Occ: Business' R/o.HNoa-40,New"N"is"i"'tdlii;,'"t;'oomagar'Hvderabad 2. Thakur Padmini, D/o Thaku Ranveer Singh' aged about 39 years' Occ: Housewife, nlo n llo'iI-iiil ram't'nigar' -V-ivekanda Nagar' i;il;;;;t"., nanla Reddv District' Hvderabad' Housewife, wo H io 'iii)"oslo6)oe' cortul ivrirfigiii, ilanga Reddv District'

3. Thakur Sharada, Wo Thakur Mahender pilqfr, aoed about 37 years' occ: -Naga"r colony' Neredmet' ...ResPondents/Defendants Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 4'1 Rule 1 of C'P C against the Judgment and Decree o"t"l Z+ of zo15 made in O S No'259 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Xlil noaitiJn""ioitrict and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar, HYderabad' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgment and Decree oi ti" r-o''"icourt and the material papers in the Case ot Smt' R MADHAVI LATHA' Advocate for the and upon hearing the "'g*;ntt Appellant and of M/S. V snfVnft'f nEDDY' Advocate for the Respondent No 2 & 3' , ,/'7 This Court doth Orcier and Decree as follows: 1 That the Apoeal suit be and hereby is dismissed confirmrng the judgment dated 24 0'r '2r)15 passed in o.s.No.259 0f 2008 by the X' ,\dditionar District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar; That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2 //TRUE COPY// SD/- K SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR I l .. SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Xllt Additional Diskict a L B.Nagar, Hyderabad Two CD Copies 2 tnd sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at ADK ry- HIGH COURT DATED:10 t04t2O2S DECREE AS.No.26T of 2015 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS ) $\