IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri Alapati Giridhar
Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
Saturday, the 04th day of May, 2019
Appeal Suit 55/2017
Between: Taddi Pyditalli Naidu …Appellant/5 th Defendant
A n d:
1. Varri Sanyasi Rao (Plaintiff)
2. Gandhavarapu Pentayya
3. Musidipalli Yerrayyamma
4. Kuriti Mutyalamma
5. Sopeta Ramalakshmi…Respondents/Defendants
On appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.13/2011, dt.16.12.2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gajapathinagaram Between: Varri Sanyasi Rao…Plaintiff
A n d:
1. Gandavarapu Pentayya
2. Musidipalli Yerrayyamma
3. Kurthi Mutyalamma
4. Sopeta Ramalakshmi
5. Taddi Pyditalli Naidu…Defendants The appeal is coming on 01.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
K.Nagabhushana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant/5th Defendant and of Sri G.Ramamohana
Rao, Advocate for the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, the 2nd to 5th Respondents remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
01.The appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.13/2011, dt.16.12.2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram, whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.15.04.2008 is decreed.
02.For brevity, the parties in the appeal are referred as “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” as arrayed in the trial Court.
03.The brief averments of the Plaint are that the 1st to 4th Defendants are the children of one Gandavarapu Satyam of Chemalavalasa village, who is the absolute Owner of the schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents situated in Chemalavalasa village in Survey
No.101/14 and the 1st to 4th Defendants are his children and the 5th Defendant is the subsequent purchaser of the Plaint schedule property, that the father of the 1st to 4th 2
Defendants i.e Satyam approached the Plaintiff and offered to sell the schedule property for sale consideration of .1,000/- per cent, totaling to .60,000/- and the said Satyam received₹₹ advance sale consideration of .50,000/- and executed an agreement of sale dt.15.04.2008 in₹ favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule property and acknowledged the receipt in the agreement, that the Plaintiff should pay the balance sale consideration of .10,000/- or₹ above or less after measuring the correct extent of the land and get the sale deed executed by the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants either in the name of the Plaintiff or his nominee at his cost within three years after the agreement, the Plaintiff demanded the father of the 1st to 4th
Defendants to attend for measuring the land and execute regular sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration, but he postponed the same on one pretext or the other, subsequently he died, thereafter the Plaintiff demanded the 1st to 4th Defendants to execute the sale deed, but they used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other, that the Plaintiff is always ready and willing with the balance sale consideration and necessary amount for registration and stamp duty, that the Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 11.1.2011 demanding them to receive the balance consideration and for execution of regular sale deed, the 1st
Defendant refused to receive the notice and the 2nd to 4th Defendants received the notice and attended before the elders, while the agreement of sale is in subsistence, the Plaintiff came to know that the 1st to 4th Defendants got executed a registered sale deed dt.21.01.2011 in favour of the 5th Defendant though the Plaintiff informed to the 5th Defendant about the sale agreement, that the sale deed between the 2nd to 5th Defendants is collusive one with a view to defraud the rights of the Plaintiff under the suit agreement and on the next day of execution of the sale deed, the 1st to 4th Defendants got issued reply with all false and untenable allegations, hence the suit.
04.The 2nd Defendant filed Written Statement, which was adopted by the 1st, 3rd and the 4th
Defendants. The brief averments of the written statement are that the 1st to 4th Defendants admitted that they are the children of Gandavarapu Satyam, but denied the other material averments of the Plaint and contended that the 1st Defendant is an unsound mind and minor and the 2nd to 4th Defendant are the daughters of Satyam, that Satyam never purchased any land and there is no self-acquired property of Satyam, during his life time the said Satyam never informed to the 1st to 4th Defendants about the alleged sale agreement till his death, thus 3 the 1st to 4th Defendants have no knowledge about the transaction, that the survey number of the Plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the 1st to 4th Defendants, further contended that the 1st to 4th Defendants and their father entered into sale agreement with the 5th
Defendant on 02.03.2008 and received advance amount of .45,000/- out of total sale₹ consideration of .55,000/- and delivered possession to him and registered the same in favour₹ of the 5th Defendant after receiving the balance sale consideration of .10,000/-, further₹ contended that by the date of sale agreement dt.15.04.2008 all the Defendants are majors except the 1st Defendant and it is necessary to take signatures of the 1st to 4th Defendants on the sale agreement, that the 5th Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property under the of the sale deed, that the suit sale agreement is not valid and there is no cause of action for the suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.
05.The 5th Defendant filed separate written statement. The averments of the Written
Statement of the 5th Defendant are on the similar lines of the Written Statement of the 2nd
Defendant. The brief averments of the 5th Defendant are that the father of the 1st to 4th
Defendants never said about the said transaction during his life time and also the Plaintiff never informed the same to the Defendants either during the life time of Gandavarapu Satyam or immediately after his death, the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants died on 15.08.2009 due to ill-health, that the 1st to 4th Defendants and their father entered into a sale agreement with the 5th Defendant on 02.03.2008 and received an advance of sale consideration of .45,000/- and₹ delivered possession of the land to the 5th Defendant, ever since the 5th Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same, that except the 1st the Defendant the other Defendants are majors as such it is necessary to obtain their signatures, that there is no cause of action to file the suit, thus prayed to dismiss the suit.
06.Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
01. Whether the agreement of sale deed dt.15.04.2008 is true, valid and binding on the Defendants?
02. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property by evicting the 5th Defendant?
03. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
04. To what relief?
07.During trial, the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Ex.A.1/agreement of sale, Ex.A.2/office copy of lawyer’s notice, 4
Ex.A.3/refused postal cover of the 1st Defendant, Ex.A.4 and A.5/postal acknowledgements of the 2nd and the 4th Defendants, Ex.A.6/returned postal cover of the 3rd Defendant, Ex.A.7/reply notice by the Defendant, Ex.A.8/No.3 Adangal, Ex.A.9/Encumbrance Certificate for the year 2010, Ex.A.10/1-B Register issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bondapalli.
08.On behalf of the Defendants, the 2nd Defendant is examined as D.W.1, the 3rd
Defendant is examined as D.W.2, the 5th Defendant is examined as D.W.3 and also examined
D.W.4 and got marked Exs.B.1/Agreement of sale executed by 1st to 4th Defendants in favour of the 5th Defendant, Ex.B.2/Certified copy of the registered sale deed. The Court also got marked Ex.X.1/identity in the thumb impression marked as “D2” and “A2”.
09.The trial Court decreed the suit without costs.
10.Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial Court, the 5th Defendant preferred the present appeal contending that the decree and Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to
Law, that the trial Court ought not have believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to
A.6, that the trial Court ought to have seen that whether Ex.A.1 was executed by deceased
Satyam or not, that the trial Court ought to have seen whether the the schedule property is ancestral property of late Satyam or not and whether he is having exclusive right to execute sale agreement or not, if the property is ancestral property, how far the Ex.A.1/agreement of sale is valid, that the trial Court ought to have seen that the deceased Satyam executed the
Ex.A.1/agreement also on behalf of the 1st to 4th Defendants or not and that by the time of
Ex.A.1/agreement all the legal heirs are minors or not, if they are minors, whether the document was executed by him lonely or also on behalf of them or not, if they are majors why the Plaintiff did not obtain the signatures of the 1st to 4th Defendants on the agreement/Ex.A.1, that the trial Court failed to observe the evidence of P.W.1 when he clearly admits that the suit property is the ancestral property, that without examining the Expert, the report given by the
Expert/Ex.X.1 has no value, that the trial Court ought to see whether Ex.B.2/sale deed executed by the 1st to 4th Defendants is valid or not, that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence let in by the Defendants, that the trial Court failed to observe that the documents filed by the Plaintiff have no sanctity and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is interested, that the Trial Court did not give opportunity to the Respondents/Defendants to adduce further 5 evidence, thus prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial
Court.
11.The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondents contended that the Plaintiff purchased the property under the agreement/Ex.A.1 from G Satyam, but he died, the 1st to 4th Defendants did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, thus the Plaintiff got issued Legal
Notice, but the 1st to 4th Defendants in collusion with the 5th Defendant got executed the registered sale deed as to cause wrongful loss to the Plaintiff, the Trial Court dealt with all the issues, that the trial Court after considering the evidence on record rightly decreed the suit, which does not warrant interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal with exemplary costs.
13.Now, the points for determination are;
i) Whether the agreement/Ex.A1 is duly executed by the said G Satyam (father of the 1 st to 4 th Defendants) in favour of the Plaintiff, if so, whether the
same is within the knowledge of the sons/1 st to 4 th Defendants of the said G
Satyam? ii) Whether there is any irregularity in the decree and judgment of the trial Court warranting interference by this Court?
In Re (i) and (ii) Points :
14.Both the points are answered here as to avoid repeat ion of evidence.
15.The material on record reveals that the Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, he filed chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination reiterating the plaint averments. As per P.W.1
G Satyam i.e the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants executed agreement of sale/Ex.A.1 to sell the schedule property for .60,000/- and received advance consideration of .50,000/-, but₹₹ subsequently due to his illness he could not execute the sale deed, subsequent to the death of the said Satyam, the Plaintiff demanded the 1st to 4th Defendants for execution of registered sale deed in terms of Ex.A.1/agreement of sale, for which they admitted their liability, but postponed the same despite issuance of Ex.A.2/legal notice and only with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Plaintiff, the Defendants brought Ex.B.2/sale deed into existence. The learned Counsel for the Defendants cross-examined, wherein he stated that the schedule property is the ancestral property of his vendor and further stated that the names of the 1st to 4th Defendants are not mentioned in the sale deed. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that though P.W.1 stated that the schedule property is ancestral property, the same 6 alone cannot survive the case of the Defendants, since the recital of Ex.A.1/sale agreement clearly and categorically shows that the schedule property is the ‘self-acquired’ property of the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants. The Court perused Ex.A.1/sale agreement, wherein it is mentioned that “… Naa Swajyathamuga dakhalapadi, naati nundi neti varaku, naa swadhina hakku anubhavamulo unnatuvanti...”. Further, the 1st to 4th Defendants have knowledge about the sale of the schedule property by their father to the Plaintiff. Even though P.W.1 is cross- examined at length, except the suggestions, which are denied by P.W.1, nothing could be elicited to discredit his evidence.
16.To substantiate his contention, the Plaintiff also examined the 1st Attestor of
Ex.A.1/Sale agreement as P.W.2, his evidence shows about the negotiation for sale schedule property between Satyam and P.W.1, execution of Ex.A.1/sale agreement etc. The learned
Counsel for the Defendants cross-examined, wherein it could be elicited that he does not know for what time they agreed to get registration, denomination of stamp etc facts, but they are very trivial and do not disturb the case of the Plaintiff with regard to execution of
Ex.A.1/sale agreement and receiving advance sale consideration.
17.The Plaintiff also examined the Scribe of Ex.A.1/sale agreement as P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.3 is almost identical to that of the evidence of P.W.2 in all material aspects, particularly with regard to execution of sale agreement, receiving of balance sale consideration by the Plaintiff etc facts. The learned Counsel for the Defendants cross- examined P.W.3, wherein he clearly stated about the denomination of the stamp on which the
Ex.A.1/sale agreement is executed. Though P.Ws.2 and 3 are cross-examined, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve their evidence with regard to the Ex.A.1/sale agreement.
18.The Plaintiff also examined one Srinivasa Raju as P.W.4. As per P.W.4, the Plaintiff raised dispute before the village elders against the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants for execution of the regular sale deed, for which the father of 1st to 4th Defendants/Satyam sought time because of his illness. The evidence of P.W.4 also shows that even after the death of
Satyam, the Plaintiff demanded the 1st to 4th Defendants for execution of regular sale deed, for which the Defendants agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff, but postponed the same. The learned Counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants cross-examined P.W.4, but could not elicit any contra material to discredit his evidence. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.4, it 7 reveals that the 1st to 4th Defendants agreed to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the
Plaintiff after the death of their father. If really, the sole execution of Ex.A.1/agreement of sale of the schedule by the said G Satyam, if the same is ancestral property as contended by the Defendants, they should not have consented for execution of sale deed in terms of the
Ex.A.1/sale agreement. Further, the learned Counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants though cross-examined P.W.4 did not even suggest that the schedule property is the ancestral property of the 1st to 4th Defendants and their father, for which the said Satyam/father of the 1st to 4th
Defendants cannot execute any sale agreement exclusively.
19.In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the execution of Ex.A.1/sale agreement by Satyam in favour of the Plaintiff since the Defendants in their written statement did not specifically deny the same. The fact remains is that according to the Defendants the schedule property is ancestral property of their joint family consisting of the 1st to 4th
Defendants and their father/Satyam. To dispel the case of the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendants examined as D.W.1 and the 3rd Defendant examined as D.W.2, they filed their chief-affidavit reiterating the averments of the Written Statement. In their cross-examination, they stated that except the disputed property, their father sold the remaining land, they further stated that their father also sold one plot to the 5th Defendant. If really, the schedule property is the ancestral property, the Defendants would have raised dispute for selling the remaining part of the land by their father on the ground it is ancestral property. Further D.Ws.1 and 2 though stated that their father sold one plot to the 5th Defendant, by that time also, they did not dispute for selling by his father on the ground it is ancestral property, thus, these establishes that the schedule property and other properties sold by Satyam stating they are are his self- acquisitions, further the Defendants also did not raise any objection for selling the other properties. D.Ws.1 and 2 also stated that the Plaitniff got issued legal notice/Ex.A.2, thereafter within 10 days, they executed the Ex.B.2/sale deed. Even though D.Ws.1 and 2 denied that they entered into sale deed after receipt of Ex.A.2/legal notice to cause wrongful loss to the Plaintiff, but the conduct of the Defendants in entering to Ex.B.1/sale agreement and Ex.B.2/sale deed to be examined in the light of the evidence on record.
20.The 5th Defendant examined himself as D.W.3, he filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, wherein he supported the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 in all material aspects.
8
The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff cross-examined D.W.3, wherein he stated that he purchased some part of the land from the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants in Survey
No.101/14. D.W.3 also stated that one Mutyalu Naidu purchased Ac.0.13 cents of land in
S.No.101/14 from the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants. Further D.W.3 and the said Mutyalu
Naidu also did not insist the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants to get their signatures on the sale deed. Thus, the evidence of D.W.3/5th Defendant is strengthening the case of the prosecution. Further when the Plaintiff already entered into agreement of sale in respect of the schedule property with the Owner/father of the 1st to 4th Defendants, the 5th Defendant is not supposed to enter into the transaction. As per D.W.3, he does not know the fact of Ex.A.1 till filing of the suit, if really there is any iota of truth in the said assertion, it is for D.W.3 to enquire about the said property, even after filing of the suit by the Plaintiff, the 5th Defendant has civil and penal remedy against the 1st to 4th Defendants for causing loss to him and to prosecute them for suppression of previous transaction of the Plaintiff, but the 5th Defendant did not proceed on these lines, of course it is for him to proceed, but the 5th Defendant cannot simply claim that he is bonafide purchaser without going for the remedies available to him or without explaining why he could not proceed on those lines, otherwise this conduct of the 5th
Defendant is strengthening the case of the Plaintiff that the sale deed is out of collusion. As per D.W.3, he demanded the father of the 1st to 4th Defendants for execution of sale deed, but in view of the ill-health of Satyam, he could not get the sale deed.
21.The Defendants examined the Attestor of Ex.B.1/sale agreement as D.W.4. As per
D.W.4, the 1st to 4th Defendants and their father/Satyam during his life time entered into an agreement of sale with the 5th Defendant and they delivered the possession to the 5th
Defendant. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of Ex.B.1/sale agreement both parties agreed to get the regular sale deed within one or two years and the balance amount under Ex.B.1/sale agreement is only .10,000/-. ₹
22.The contention of the learned Counsel for the 5th Defendant is that the father of 1st to 4th Defendant along with the Defendants executed Ex.B.1/sale agreement. The thumb impression of said Satyam is also subjected to comparison by the Expert. As per the
Defendants, Satyam also a party to the Ex.B.1/sale agreement in favour of the 5th Defendant.
Even assuming for a moment that in Ex.B.1/Sale agreement, the said Satyam is a party, the 9 prior document need not be overlooked. In this context also, though Ex.B.1/sale agreement is there in existence, the prior disposition under Ex.A.1/sale agreement prevails over Ex.B.1/sale agreement so also Ex.B.2/sale deed.
23.Further even assuming for a moment that the schedule property is ancestral property, when the Defendants executed Ex.B.1/sale agreement, it is left open for them to get
Ex.A.1/sale agreement cancelled or challenged, but they did not proceed on these lines, thus they cannot bank upon Ex.B.1/sale agreement and Ex.B.2/sale deed. The self-admission of
D.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that after receiving notice from the Plaintiff under Ex.A.2, they entered into Ex.B.1/sale agreement with the 5th Defendant. Thus, the conduct of the
Defendants in executing sale agreement in favour of the 5th Defendant, they should have cleared off Ex.A.1/sale agreement in favour of the Plaintiff.
24.Further even for the sake of arguments, Satyam executed Ex.B.1/sale agreement along with the 1st to 4th Defendants, the Defendants cannot give go-bye to Ex.A.1/sale agreement entirely and they should not include their father again in Ex.B.1/sale agreement, when he already had transaction with the Plaintiff in respect of the same property under Ex.A.1/sale agreement.
25.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the 1st to 4th Defendants and the 5th Defendant have colluded and brought the Ex.B.1 and B.2 documents into existence to defraud the Plaintiff and to cause wrongful loss to the Plaintiff, whereas the contention of the Defendants that there is no collusion among the Defendants and that the Ex.A.1/sale agreement is not valid. The Court perused the material. The 1st to 4th Defendants on one hand and the 5th Defendant on the other had filed their respective written statements separately through their respective Advocates. But, surprisingly the averments of both the written statement are akin to each other even most of the lines with same paragraphs in both the written statements and further the types font and pleas also same, for which the 5ht Defendant could not offer any explanation in the argument. This also leads to draw an inference that all the Defendant have colluded with each other.
26.The material reveals that the 5th Defendant is retired as Manager of AP Grameena
Vikasa Bank, but he did not choose to make payment through Cheque or DD or like payment.
Further the 5th Defendant/D.W.3 in cross examination stated that he do know whether D.W.1 10 showed the legal notice to him got issued by the Plaintiff. Whereas D.W.1 in cross examination admitted that he shown the legal notice to the 5th Defendant, thus these reveal that the 5th Defendant knew about the legal notice, thus the prior sale transaction of the
Plaintiff, even otherwise the 5th Defendant being the native of the neighbouring village of the schedule property and if he had negotiation with Satyam, he is supposed to enquire about the schedule property before he entering into Ex.B.1/sale agreement. Thus, it clearly reveals that the 5th Defendant knowing well about the Ex.A.1/sale agreement again entered into
Ex.B.1/sale agreement.
27.The Court pursued the agreement/Ex.B.1 dated 2-3-2008, which is not on Stamp
Paper, but on a conquest paper, wherein the said G Satyam and the 1st to 4th Defendants are signed, but the Expert could not tally the thump impression of the said G Satyam with his admitted thumb impression, further in the registered sale deed/ExB.2, there is no recital about this prior agreement and payment of advance on the date of agreement, thus both are not consistent. These reveal the collusion between the defendants as contended by the Plaintiff.
Further the material on record reveals that the Plaintiff could prove his case, where as the
Defendants took false pleas and suppressed material facts as stated supra.
28.The Court, considering the material on record, holds prima facie that the Defendants did not disclose the true facts and approached the Court with false claim and pleas. Thus, the material warrant to examine the law covering this dimension.
29. The Hon’ble three Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Re: suo moto proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate 1 , while dealing with affidavit with false averments in support of Writ Petition, The Hon’ble Court observed the menace of perjury and ordered to file Complaint U/s.193 of I.P.C., the same is extracted here under; “.............Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be-wrecked if statutory restrictions are hot imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with the truth: The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.
1(2001) 5 SCC 289 11
In India, law relating to the Offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time...”
30.The Hon’ble three Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Salem
Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs Vs. Union of India 2while dealing with amendments to Code of Civil Procedure, observed on costs, exemplary costs and initiation of perjury in appropriate cases, they were extracted here under;
8. Costs:
So far as awarding of costs at the time of judgment is concerned, awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory in as much as the liberal attitude of the Courts in directing the parties to bear their own costs had led parties to file a number of frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous and unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably follow the event. Where a party succeeds ultimately on one issue or point but loses on number of other issues or points which were unnecessarily raised, costs must be appropriately apportioned. Special reasons must be assigned if costs are not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to rules in force. If any of the parties has unreasonably protracted the proceedings, the Judge should consider exercising discretion to impose exemplary costs after taking into account the expense incurred for the purpose of attendance on the adjourned dates.
9. Proceedings for Perjury :
If the Trial Judge, while delivering the judgment, is of the view that any of the parties or witnesses have willfully and deliberately uttered blatant falsehoods, he shall consider (at least in some grave cases) whether it is a fit case where prosecution should be initiated for perjury and order prosecution accordingly.
31.Thus, in view of the above legal principles, the Court has to examine the false contentions of the Defendants. But, the Plaintiff did not agitate all these before the trial Court with regard to th false claims of the Defendants, further, the Trial Court also did not examine these aspects. However, the Appellant, being retired bank manager to be diligent in taking the pleas, he made the Plaintiff to veer round the Court, however this Court having regard to the material on record and circumstances of the case, inclined to impose exemplary costs.
32.The Court pursued the material on record and on re-appreciation of evidence, inclined to hold that the Plaintiff could prove the agreement and his case, thus he is entitled for 2. (2005) 6 SCC 344 12 specific performance in the circumstances of the case. Whereas the 5th Defendant could not prove any of his contentions.
33.The trial Court discussed all the aspects and rightly decreed the suit, thus the judgment of the trial Court is proper perspective and there is no irregularity in the judgment of the trial
Court warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merits, thus liable to be dismissed with costs and also quantified compensatory costs in the circumstances of the case.
34.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with costs and also quantified exemplary costs of
Rs.3000/- payable by the Appellant to the 1st Respondent, confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.13/2016, dt.16.12.2016 by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on the 04 th day of May, 2019
Sd/ Alapati Girdihar
Principal District Judge,
Vizianagaram 13
Date of Presentation: 20.07.2017/06.04.2017/27.04.2017/Date of filing: 22.09.2017 01.06.2017/12.06.2017/21.09.2017
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri Alapati Giridhar
Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
Saturday, the 04th day of May, 2019
Appeal Suit 55/2017
Between: Taddi Pyditalli Naidu, S/o late Appalaswamy, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Retired Employee, New Colony, Puritipenta, Gajapathinagaram …Appellant/5 th Defendant
A n d:
1. Varri Sanyasi Rao, S/o late Simhachalam, aged 66 years, Bondapalli village and Mandal. (Plaintiff)
2. Gandhavarapu Pentayya, S/o late Satyam, aged 23 years, rest ditto.
3. Musidipalli Yerrayyamma, W/o Papayya, aged 44 years, rest ditto.
4. Kuriti Mutyalamma, W/o Chandra Rao, aged 33 years, Yatha Veedhi, Kanapaka, Vizianagaram.
5. Sopeta Ramalakshmi, W/o Sanyasi Rao, aged about 29 years, Bondapalli.…Respondents
On appeal against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.13/2011, dt.16.12.2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gajapathinagaram Between: Varri Sanyasi Rao…Plaintiff
A n d:
1. Gandavarapu Pentayya
2. Musidipalli Yerrayyamma
3. Kurthi Mutyalamma
4. Sopeta Ramalakshmi
5. Taddi Pyditalli Naidu…Defendants
The appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment in O.S.13/2011, dt.16.12.2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram, whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.15.04.2008 was decreed.
Value of the Appeal for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is .60,000/- and a₹
Court fee of .2,626/- is paid under Section 39 read with 49 of A.P.Court Fee and Suits₹
Valuation Act.
The appeal is coming on 01.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri
K.Nagabhushana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant/5th Defendant and of Sri G.Ramamohana
Rao, Advocate for the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff , the 2nd to 5th Respondents remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court doth order and:
14
D E C R E E
(i) that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.13/2016, dt.16.12.2016 passed by the Junior
Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram;
(ii)that the Appellant do pay to the Respondents a sum of .₹ 3,603/- towards costs of the appeal;
(iii) that the Appellant do pay to the 1st Respondent a sum of .3,000/-₹ towards exemplary costs;
Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 04 th day of May, 2019.
Sd/ Alapati Girdihar
Principal District Judge,
Vizianagaram
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Appellant For Respondent
No costs memo is filedStamp on vakalat3.00
Writing charges100.00
Advocate’s fee:3,500.00
Costs Allowed: 3,603.00
Sd/ Alapati Girdihar
Principal District Judge,
Vizianagaram