The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl, M ROOPENDER Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA APPEAL SUIT NO.831 of 1998 Date: 26.1t:2O25 Between: APCO Fabrics Employees Co Op Housing Societrcs Ltd AND Smt.Parvathi Devi and Others JUDGMENT: ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Appeal Suit is filed b-v the appellant under Section 96 read u,ith Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, being aggrieved by the judgmcnt/decree passed in O.S.No.753 of 199 1 on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/ plaintiff has filed suit bearing O.S.No.753 of 199 1, seeking specihc perlormance ol the agreement of sale in respect of land measuring 7 acres in Sy.No.50 and 60 situated at Fatehullahguda, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. l t, :t 2 ii_

3. The main contention of the appelli L r- is that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 u,ho are the owners of the l L1d measuring Ac.'22 in S.v.No.59 and 60 and the appellant sor.i- ..r enterecl into t\r,o agreernents of sale agreeing to purchase _ L,: above lald dated 16.09. 1981 and 25.O2.1982 for 15 acrr r and 7 acres respectivci_r at the ratc ol Rs.3 1,00O/ - and that t - :y rn ere put in possession of the entire larld who in turn allott,: I the same by making into plots to its members countersignec :y respondent Nos.5 and 6 GPA holdcrs of the respondent Nos;.I to 4 and sale deeds u,ere also executed for a total extent of r I rl of 15 acres after issuing of G.O.M.S.No.733, dated 31. 10.1! i t] that too by receiving atr1ditional amoLtnt.

4. It i.s lurther contended that, the defen i lnts promised to execute the sale deed for remaining Ac.7 ac:,: of land after sometime. Subsequentlv. the respondents i zrted acting suspiciously and on attention of the same the :ur r:llant society issued public notice in the neu,spaper and also s;sued a legal nolice. The respondent No.2 approached and all in demanded further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for execution of sa1: rieed for Ac.7 acres and promised that the respondent Nos. 1 tr 4 personally execute the sale deed and received Rs.20,0OO/- or_r . of additional arnount of Rs.1,00,OO0/-. The plaintiff have l rrchased the \ \ t stamp and also got the sa-1e deed prepared for getting the sale executed to an extent of Ac.7 acres. Further the respondents did not keep up their promise as such the suit u'as fi1er1 seeking specific performance of tl-re agreement

5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed r.r,ritten sta[cment and contended that the respondents agreed to sell the lald measuring 15 acres only and not 22 acres and that the contention of the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement for total of Ac.22 acres \vas denied

6. It is iurther contended that the defendanr never entered into an agreement and the alleged agreement dated

25.02.1982 .,vas not genuine and it is contended that D1 to D4 agreed to sc1l to the plaintiff only 15 acres land at the rate of Rs.31,000/- per acre on 16.09.198 1 and Dl to D4 executed G.P.A. in favour of D5 and D6 to sell 22 acres of land but the G.P.A. only referred the agreement dated 16.09.198 1 and there was no reference about the sale of 7 acres land and that the defendant have received consideration only to the extent of 15 acres but not for 22 acres. 7 . It is further contended that as on the date of the execution of sale deed, in fact the G.P.A. executed in favour of -l 4 D5 and D6 was already cancelled alld as such thr ;ale deed has become i11ega1 and the contention that the possess:i n of 22 acres was clell,ered to the plaintifl in lg!2 als,r rlenied. The plaintiff/ societ) ne \.er promised lhe defendalt to I :,rcute trre 22 acres iand ar-rd that if an1 arr-rounts are pard to D5 r nd D6 b1, the plalntiff tl.re Dl to D4 s'as bound br the same. Arr L it is further denred that there \r.as an agreement oniy for 1: e cres that is executed on 16.09. 1981 but there was no alk:r1, <1 agreement dated 25.02.1982 for 7 acrcs. The defendant No.5 iled separate r.r,,ritten statement so also defcndant No.6 liled a - tther rvritten statement supportlng the case of D1 to D4

8. Basing on the pleadir-rgs the iearnc: trial Judge settled the follorvins issues

1. Whether D I to Dzl agreed to sell seven aclt s land on 25.02.1942 to the plaintiff ald rcceived entire co I ;jderation arld also indllcted thc plaintiff in irossession as ar€,r ed in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff ls entitlcd to a decree i' specific performarce agal-rst D1 to D4 and D5 ald D6 in rr::1 ect of the suit schedule property?

3. To wl.rat relief the plantiff is entitlcd?

9. During the course of the enquiry tw(l vitnesses are examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.,q 1 to A6 1 are marked. The defendalts 1 and 2 are examine<l Lr; DW.1 and DW.2 on behalf of D1 to D4 and trxs.B1 and 82 a.rr .-narked. The I i l I L l l 5 defendant No.6 examined himself as DW'3 and the defendant No.5 is examlned on commission as DW.4. There 15 nO representation on behall of D7

10. Having gone into entire contentions raised by both parties, the }earned Judge came to a conclusion that in spite of Ex.A 1 where D 1 to D4 agreed to sell 7 acres of land on

25.O2.1982 to the plaintiff and received entire sale consideration and also inducted lhe plaintiff in possession as averred in the plaint. The learned Judge came to a conclusion that the alleged agreement of sale dated 25.02.1982 from r.r'hich the entire claim of plaintiff is based being not proved. As such the learned Judge finally came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for aly relief and the plaintiff did not specifically claim decree for specific performance for Rs.20,000/- against D2 and finally dismissed tire suit.. 1 1. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal 1S fi1ed by the plaintiff on the following grounds:

1.) Thc Judgemenl and Decree passed by the Lower Court is arbitrary, contrary to law and facts ofthe case, hcnce, Iiable to be set aside.

2.) The Lower Court did not prope.ly consider the evidence led by the Appellant and documents filed b) (hom while dcciding the aboYe suit. 3.) The t-orver Coun tailed to appreciate the fact that the delence taken by the Respondents that they did nol agree to sell the suit land measuring 7 acres to the society rvas apparenth' f'alse as they themselves have adtnitted il1 their petitions boing lA No.l104/92 and lA No.l105i9:l filed under Order tX Rule 7 CPC lor setting asidc I 6 ex parte ordcrs contcllding that they have entercd illto t,v\ o it I agreerng to sel l5 acres and 7 acrcs rc5pectively and that their CI r 6) did not pai ILrll consideration antounrs arrd lurthcr thol,recei.,i,i towards seconC salc xgrecmcnt in rcspect olsuit Iand liom the so. i tilough recei!!.1 tnrirc sale consideralion rn respect oI thc suit la ] samc 10 lltcrn SaiJ petitions rver.c niark,:tl as Lx.A.5l ro A.jj wrongly discarC:d []r.A.-s4 and A.5 5 o!r pr,_.iurnptioni and assumti ( .1 )Th. courl hr o* llso iliJ nor applec atr rhe lact rhai llre llcsl), l filed a letter [rr:lolc the rcgistrar. I layathnagal., R.R district und(r I that the appcllalrt society had entcred into agreemcnts of sale ti, measu[ing 22 acres in sy.no.59 and 60. rments of sales . fRespdt.s 5 :Lnd rnl.lr Rs r0 0rl0/_ t. and the Ci'As lid not pa_v the I e Court be lrtrv cnt no I hirnsclf i.A.i6 admitting rr rchase oi land 5) The court bclorv lailcd to appreciare tlre lact that rhe rcsponl I disputc the co[e.tn.\s of lL]cal noticc I1,...,\16 issued h\ the,\ppc I I it was categolicrll) nlcntioncd that the socret)- ltad entered inb a!. 22:rcr.s oflan.l ,rr trltat thc ,rurcri h,rr..r.<uLrlcJ tl r...,ledccrl ,.. that thc sociel\ had paid crrtirt salc ccrn.rrleration illloLrnting ( called Lipon thc resporldent \os.l io 4 10.\ecute the sale dced fbr I of 7 acrcs- ,\dnrillcdl) thc r.spondctlts I [) I did ltot i:sue an_v rc I counduct of thc respondeuts clcarll, lalsih rhe dcti:nce raken b1, rl|r rlto4didror r,ocicly' u herein r rent of sale fbr I lr 15 acrcs and :.8.f lakhs and lcmaining [and loticc and tir is n thcir wrrttcn staterncnt.

6.) Thc court bclorv also did not considcr various docuntcnts exh:r cd on bchalf ol the appellant socicty. nanrelv. Iir.A.27; A.lll: A.53 and,\.56 ctc.. r I rein it is clearly shown thaf thc :ocietl,had enlercd into artrcentent ofsa[e lor pur:l t ' Iand and the Rcil)ondcnts I to J hare agrct'tl to sell thc cntire land o 7.) Thc court bclorl also did not propcrh apprcciate the e\,( l appellant. 8.) lhe court b,;lorr rvron-sll drawn adv:rse inferencc firr noir t agreemcnt of salc il rcspcct ol suit land ln.asrLring ? acres. It is s1,i appellant that aqrcernent of sales rverc lllcd betorc IIIJDn author i entering into dclelopment aqroetnent lor constrLlction of houses l: and the samc wcre in tunt sent lo Govct-nnent and the Appe[anL So, i back the oriqinal documents inspite of their best efiorts. Iiurthcr tl l not allow the appellant to mark xerox cop1. of said agreelnent of sa : along !\ ith a separate application. 9.) The court belorv found lault with the appellanr society h r ( agreement of salc ancl dcnied the relieI to the ALrpellant Corn dismisscd thc suit on the ground that origina, agreernen{ of sale wai rr records clearly establish that the rcspondelts I to 4 have agreed t ) land in favour ofsocietv. e 01'22 acres of I acres. :: lead b-v the irg o[ original :illc case of tlrc i at the time of nt lor nrembers t'., could not get rouft below did rhich was filed filing original rould not have ' ftled when thc e ll 22 acrcs of \ 7

10.) The court belou did not discuss the pleadings and evidelce lead by the Appellant and did nor apprcciate the docurrents filed b1 the Appellant sociery. and the entire -iudgemeoL passed bl- thc lower coir is either ou prcsumptions or assunptions. 1 l.) I he court belorv also did nor consider rhe serrled legal position rvhich rvas rclicd by thc Appellaflt at rhe tinrc olargurnents and not aven discussed in thejudgement. t2.) lhe courf belo* also Iailcd ro appreciate the l'acts that the Respondents have laken iuconsistcnl plcas arddLrc:rl !,\ idcncc aqain cootrar\ to the pleadings and filcd uriften arr{Lrrncnrr on ditlereri l'ootrng not in contirrnitl rvith ether plcadings or evidence I3.) lhe Courr belorr did not rirpr0ciats rhc lact that cotrectness ol Lx.A.5,1, A.55 were nol disputed b] tha Rcspord.nts io their evidcnce.

1.1.) Thc Court belo* did not considcr'the adrrissions made by the delendant no.6 in his writlen staterrenr l5) Tlte (irurr ought not to ltar.' rclicd upon allcged larout of respondenrs I to.1 tbr *hich rras brouehr irp tbr the .uit and admirtedly earlier agreernents GP.\s did nor disciose allcgcd la)out. lllepleaoilayoutwasrakenoDlytoavoidsurtcluiln.

16.) The Court bclorv did not rppreciate the t'act that Ex.A.l GPA exccuted by Rl to R4 in fhvour of R.5 ar1.i R.6 is lirr execution of sale dqcd lor entirc 22 acrss of land in favour oiappcllanr socict) 17.) The Court belo* also did uot considcr the evidence of Respondents I to.1 whcrein thcy adrniffed the reccrpt of more lhan Rs.8.00 lakhs which is more than the actual sale considcralion for ll acres of land. l8) t{ence, it is pmyecl to allo\\ thc appeal bv settrng aside the jud,g.enlent iI OS No.75l 9l dt ll..l 95 olr thc lll.'Lrl'Scnior Clvil Judge, Rangareddy diStrict at Saroor nagar and pleased ro Jccrcc thr \uir tor specitlc pertbrnrance as pra)ed lor in the s!rt

12. During the pendency of the appea-i though notices were sent to the respondent and in view of the elevation of the counsel for the respondent AS High Court Judge of Andhra Pradesh, notices were sent to the respondents, but the service could not be effected as such the service was effected by way of paper publication, none appeared for the respondents I 8 (

13. Having heard the learned counsel f,r- the appeliant and having perused the en tire material placeo r ri record. the point rxrhich arises before this Court for considerrr jr I is "1- Whetber the lcarned.litrlso has rirhtlr. disrnissed the

2. Whether thc plairrtifl is crrtrlled lor specific pe.lorm:rr of sale datecl 2a 02.19a2 ') 3. If so to q,hat relief ?" )f 1l_re a sreemen t L4. Having heard the contentions raised L \ ',he appellant in detail and having perused the entire materia: r: record, it is noLed that there rvas an agreement betu.een tre pat'ties in respect of the 15 acres of land and it is borne c,rr cf the record and though it is contention of the plaintifl tlr: there is an agreement entered by the GPA holders of t to D4 i.e., defendant D5 and D6 u.i-ro have cntered into tlt: ilgreement of sale on 16.09.198 1 and 25.02.1982 for 15 acrt: and 7 acres respectively in Sy.No.59 arrd 60 in Fatehullahgu<lrr Ha5rathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District at the rate of Rs.3 i r 0O/- per acre and it is also the contention of the plaintiff that I e transaction was completed and 9Oo/o of the sale price u'r I received by defendant Nos.1 to 4 through defendant No.5- Srr ; ;r:quently, the defendalt No.5 pressurized the plaintiff to pay R,,; 5,,000/- more per acre due to delay in payment of fu1l amount i: r, the plaintiff society and as per the contention of the plaintilf :s amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as aqlditronal apart fr,r I the original \ I agreed amount for 22 acres and on receipt of the additional amounts in the above mentioned manner, apart from the fuil sale consideration been made, three sale deeds were executed on 23.O4.lgg}. Leaving only 7 acres to be registered later' In spite of the request made by the plaintill society to register the rematning 7 acres land also Though one of the GPAs of the defendantsNo.lto4werereadytoregistertheremainingT acres but the defendant No 5 d'id not come forward for executing the sale deed. It is also further the case of the plaintiff that if the G.P.A. defendant No 7 obtained an1' G'P A from aly of the defendarts No. I to 4 and it is contention of the defendant that the G.P.A. rvhich is given to G P A'Nos 5 alr d 6 was cancelled' Though it is contended that the pos er given to the defendant No.5 continued till the completion of sa'le transaction and lt is also the case of the plaintiff that at the time defendant No'2' who promised to the office bearers of the socieS in the presence of defendant, that 7 acres of the land rvill be registered within one month,whenthebalanceofonelakhcanbepaidbeforethe Registrar and the defendants No' 1 to 4 promised to execute the sale deed and they were misguided by car-rcelling the power of attorney given to defendalt No'5 and 6' ! i I T J; 10

15. It is further the case of the plzLi : present suit is filed onl1, to thc extent of latr l acres in Survey No.59 and 60. Whereas it rs plaintiff that though there was z1n agreement ) parties in respect of the sale of lancl of 22 . documents, the agreement dated 25.02.1982 ,. -r ff that as the iomeasunng / tec case of the r' \\'cen both the :res ut-ider two r; being dcnied by the defendants and that no such agreement ,.i rs placed before this Court and that it is also furrher borne out ,, Rs.2O,O00/- \vas received under agreemenr r.he record that of salc dated

25.02.1982 and that defenclant No.2 and 4 rrvr:rr i-ninors i.e., as on the alleged date of agreement of sale dated 25 )2.1982.

16. Though it is the case of rhe plainriff ri instructions of D2, they prepared two sale r, papers one for four acres afld another lor thr: unsigned sa-le deeds are marked as Ex.ASg an,i document vendor name is shown as D2 in Ex.l\i the agreement of sa_le is executed by D5 on be:: Though D2 alone not being the vendor, he is shci, the Ex.A59. In view of the denial of the very aFI ; t according to rcls on stamp ' acres. In the ,\59. The said I as D.1. When t of D1 to D4. rr as vendor in ),:ment of sale dated 25.02. 1982 nowhere in the evidence o[ shows that the said agreement u,as in fact (r { he plaintiff it 'r:uted b1' the defendant No.5 and 6 on behalf of the defendal. \o.1 to 4. The \ \ I Iearned counsel for the appellant has liled an I.A.No.2 of 2024 ' wherein he r.r,ants to bring 1. The Pl-rotostat copy of the Deed of Understanding 2. C.C. ol Salc Deed Documcnt No.4408/2000 dated 16.10.2000 and 3. Photostal col))' of LiLi'out plan, pending disposal of the appeal before this Court bv rvay of additional evidence under Order 41 Rr-rle 27 ol CPC. No cloubt the said documents are admittedly pertarning to the transaction betrveen the plaintiff and the defendant through their GPA holder arrd it shows that there u,as negotialion made betu'ecr-r the parties and that it is also evrdent lrom the sard agreement dated 25.O2.1982, the same was denied and disputed b1'the first party therein.

17. Though learned counsel for the appellant has contended that memorandum ol understanding dated

24.10.1999 was appa-rently acted upon and sale deed was executed only to the extent ol tu,o acres and that the subsequent part i.e., 2nd part ol agreement in favour o[ the plaintifl in respect of the land measuring 2 acres in survey No.2/ 1 1 was still not yet acted upon and yet to be registered and it is also spelt out in the said memoraldum of understanding that such execution, the present suit and appeal suit shall be withdrawn. No doubt even the said Memorandum of Agreement does not throw any light on the alleged agreement of sale which is said to -l 72 have been executed on 25.O2.1982, as such the said document cannot be taken into evidence for disposal of th: Even if the memorandum of understancling c: r present appeal. be taken as a proof of the acceptance of agreement of saLe <l rt e d 25.02.1982, the same has to be treated only as a subse(l t,lnt agreernent betrn een the parties under which the appellar L r,r,ould have a separate remed1,, if so advised, to seek ar-r]. furt l r'r relicf on the basis of the said memorandum of understandin 1 And as such even otheru.ise the appellants could not be abie c convince this Court nor could be able to make out the grotLrr 1; for receiving the said documents by way of additional evidenc e rrs in Order 41 Rule 27, the said provision is hereby extractecl lrr the sake of convenlence Order 41 Rule 27: Appellate Court. Production of Additional li idence in But (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be cntitle(i addilional er.,idence, whether oral or documentar\., iL. I Court, (a) the Court h'om whose decree the appeal is prefcrrt:r to admit evidence which ought to have been u (aa) the party seeking to produce additior: I establishes that notwithstanrling the exerc ir diligence, such evidence was not within his t r could not, after the exercise of due diligence, b,: 1 him c1 thc lime when the decree appealecl passed,or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be I any rvitness to be examined to enable it to pronounce i for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Cour_ such evidence or document to be produced, or wjt examined. -o producc e Appellate il- ',rrs rcfused .)itted, o. eviclence, : of due r,i,ledge or 'oduced b1, Jtrinst n,as 'oduced or lgment, or nray allorv css to be (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be Appellate Court, admission. pr() L ( ed by an the Court shall record the rea r r lbr rts 13

18. Coming to the facts of the case as the entire case of the plaintiff IS depending upon agreement of sale dated

25.02.1982 in respect of 7 acres as the said agreement itself is not being placed before this Court, filed nor being proved by u,'ay of aly evidence. As such, this Court is also ol the opinion that the appellant has not made out an1'grounds to interfere rvith the findings given by the trial Court and also the judgment as such this Court does not see any grounds to a1lot, the appeal and consequently the plaintiff is not entitled lor any' specific performance ald that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court cannot be found lault with and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the

19. Hence, the appeal deserves to be and accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /a //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER T o

1. The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District' L'B Nagar' HYD 2. One CC to SRl. M ROOPENDER Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy' Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CD Copies .t -rL- A5R/PsL I I ! HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 ) I I I I ! t E I I 1 \ \ 1 ilE S t e o(J * 0I llAH 20?E -e. 6) a,r e * JUDGMENT AS.No.831 of 1998 DISMISSING ]'HE APPEAL 6 (" 3\ a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEI!4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA APPEAL SUIT NO: 831 OF 1998 Between: APCO Fabrics Empicyees Co Op Housing Societies Ltd., Rep by its Secretary Sn. K. Vilaya Babu, Office at 3-5-779, Weavers House, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. APPELLANT AND

1. Smt. Parvatr Devi, W/o late Bansi Batradurslngn R/o H.No.2 69, Firjadiguda, Uppal Vill., Hayatnagar (tr,4). R.R Drst

2. Santosh Singh, Wo late Bansi Bahadursingh, R/o H No.2-69, Firladiguda, Uppal Vill., Hayatnagar (N4), R R.Dist

3. Asha Singh, Wo late Bansr Bahadursingh, R/o H No.2 69, Frrjadiguda, . Uppal Vill., Hayatnagar (tt/), R.R Dist

4. Usha Singh, D/o late Bansi Bahadursrngh, R/o H No.2-69, Firjadiguda, Uppal Vrll., Hayatnagar (tt4), R.R.Dist

5. Vishnu Shankar Singh, S/o late Bansr Bahadursingh, Agril. R/o Fathaullaguda, Hayatnagar (lt/), R R.Dist.

6. Sanjeeva, S/o A. Ramulu, R/o H No.2-16, Chartanyapur, Dislshukhnagar, 7. G. I\/ysaiah, S/o late Jangaiah, Agril R/o Nagol Vill., Uppal (M), R R.Dist. RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Rangareddy district at Saroornagar in OS No 753/9.1 dt.13.4.98. ORDER: 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 Petition and =:=--V upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Roopender, Advocate for th. : pe lla nt and of Srr V Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocatt,. for the Respondents. That this Court doth Ordcr and Decree as follows:

1. I hat this lLppeai is irc arcl hclcbl' disnrissed- conlilrnirrg th.' r L . nrcnt and ilecree pirssed br thc tual ( (rul-t.

2. lhat Lhere shirll bc nir r)rdcr as to costs 1r -J QDt? coeY // I;D/. MOHD. ISMAIL t,) I)UTY REGISTRAR / :-; \-.' : E:.CTION OFFICER To t. Ihc t ;\driitional Seniirl Clir,il.ludge- Itangarcrkly l)istriet. I ',irslu. IIYI)

2. Ito CD (lopics HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 DECREE AS.No.831 of 1998 DISN,IISSING THE APPEAL a' AL a\