Sri. E Bhima Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE::

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: E.BHIMA RAO,

Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 08th day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.65/2025

BETWEEN:

T.Raghunatha Reddy…. Plaintiff.

And

Kodidela Chandrasekhar…. Defendant0

This suit is coming on 24.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri H.Rama Subramanyam, Sri B.Anil Kumar, Sri M.Anjana

Puthra - Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to direct him to receive balance sale consideration and to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff with regard to plaint schedule property, in pursuance of agreement of sale, dated 05.01.2018, failing which, the same may be done through process of court and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff and defendant are entered into an agreement of sale on 05.01.2018 regarding the plaint schedule property for valuable 2 consideration of Rs.52,00,000/-, the defendant previously by different installments has received Rs.39,60,000/- and also received Rs.40,000/- through cheque Nos.196479, 196480 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu, accordingly the defendant has received Rs.40,00,000/- and executed an agreement of sale, agreeing to executed registered sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and there is no time limit in the agreement. The defendant received an amount of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu cheque No.000101 in total received Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.01.2018, the said payment is endorsed on the backside of the agreement of sale. Again, on 10.12.2018, the defendant received Rs.25,000/- by way of HDFC Bank,

Ananthapuramu cheque No.000090 and the same is endorsed on the backside of agreement of sale. Again on 13.02.2019 the defendant received Rs.20,000/- by way of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu cheque

No.000091 and the same was endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement. Again the defendant executed the endorsement on separate stamp paper and received an amount of Rs.40,000/- cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu cheque No.000092 in total

Received Rs.50,000/- on 27.05.2019 and the same was executed on the stamp paper. Again on 19.05.2020 the defendant received an amount of

Rs.60,000/- and the same was endorsed on the back side of the stamp paper. In the agreement it is agreed that the defendant must have got survey the land to fix up the boundaries, later the defendant received an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 14.07.2022 and the same is endorsed on the backside of stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. As the defendant received the amounts intermittently endorsed and signed on the agreement of sale dt.05.01.2018 and stamp paper dt.20.09.2018, totally the defendant has received an amount of Rs.43,05,000/- from the plaintiff and the balance amount due under sale transaction is Rs.8,95,000/- only.

It is further averred in the plaint that, the plaintiff is always ready and 3 willing to perform his part of contract. The defendants for the reasons best known to him, postponing to perform his part of contract to execute regular registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount.

Inspite of several demands and by way of legal notice through advocate, the defendant is not cooperating to execute regular registered sale deed.

Now the defendant is making hectic efforts to deal with the property by bringing into existence of some registered documents in favour of third parties detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3.Though the defendant received summons, did not appear before this court either in person or through his counsel. Hence the defendant was set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record, pleadings and evidence made on behalf of the plaintiff.

6.Now the points that arise for determination in this original suit are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7.POINT No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that, on 05.01.2018, the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property at Rs.52,00,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and on the same day i.e. on 4 05.01.2018 the defendant executed an agreement of sale agreeing to receipt of Rs.39,60,000/- at installments and receipt of Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque No.196479 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu, accordingly the defendant received Rs.40,00,000/- as on the date of agreement of sale dt.05.01.2018. Subsequently, on 21.01.2018 the defendant received an amount of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque

No.000101 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu in total received Rs.1,00,000/-, the same was endorsed on the backside of the agreement of sale. Again, on 10.12.2018, the defendant received Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque

No.000090 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu, on 13.02.2019 the defendant received Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque No.000091 of HDFC Bank,

Ananthapuramu and the same were endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement.

The defendant executed the endorsement on separate stamp paper and received an amount of Rs.40,000/- cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque No.000092 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu in total received

Rs.50,000/- on 27.05.2019 and the same was executed on the stamp paper. Again on 19.05.2020 the defendant received an amount of

Rs.60,000/- and the same was endorsed on the back side of the stamp paper. As per the agreement of sale, the defendant has to conduct survey the land and fix up the boundaries. Later the defendant received an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 24.07.2022 and the same is endorsed on the backside of stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. The defendant received the amounts intermittently endorsed and signed on the agreement of sale dt.05.01.2018 and stamp paper dt.20.09.2018, totally the defendant has received an amount of Rs.43,05,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff issued legal notice, dt.21.06.2025, but inspite of receiving it, the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract.

5

8.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and he reiterated the contents of his plaint in his affidavit and relied on Ex.A1 to A8 to prove his case. Ex.A.1 is the Original agreement of sale executed by defendant/Kodidela Chandra Sekhar in favour of plaintiff dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A2 is the endorsement for Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque made on 21.01.2018 total for Rs.1,00,000/- in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A3 is the endorsement for Rs.25,000/- by way of chequue made on 10.12.2018 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A4 is the endorsement for

Rs.20,000/- by way of chequue made on 13.02.2019 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A5 is the endorsement for Rs.40,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of chequue made on 27.05.2019 total Rs.50,000/- in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. Ex.A6 is the endorsement for

Rs.60,000/- by way of cash made on 19.05.2020 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. Ex.A7 is the endorsement for Rs.50,000/- by way of cash made on 24.07.2022 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. Ex.A8 is the

Office copy of legal notice dt.21.06.2025 along with postal receipt.

9.As per the averments of Ex.A1/Agreement of sale, wherein it is clear that on 05.01.2018 the defendant has executed agreement by receiving an advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and agreed that he will execute regular registered sale deed after receipt of the balance of sale consideration. As per Ex.A1, the defendant is the owner of plaint schedule property, he agreed to sell the property for total consideration of

Rs.52,00,000/- , further it is clear that the time is not essence of the contract as the defendant agreed to execute regular registered sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration. As per Ex.A2 is the endorsement on 21.01.2018 the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque total for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Further under Ex.A3 endorsement, on 10.12.2018 the plaintiff has paid an 6 amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of chequue, under Ex.A4 endorsement, on 13.02.2019 the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-, under Ex.A5 endorsement, on 27.05.2019 the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of chequue total Rs.50,000/-, under

Ex.A6 endorsement, on 19.05.2020 the plaintiff paid an amount of

Rs.60,000/- by way of cash, under Ex.A7 endorsement, on 24.07.2022 the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant. So as per

Ex.A1 to A7, the plaintiff has paid total amount of Rs.43,05,000/- to the defendant.

Further, as seen from the evidence, to show that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had called upon the defendant to perform his part of the agreement by receiving the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed has issued notice under Ex.A8. However the defendant has not responded to the same.

10.The Honourable Apex Court in a case in between Pramod Shroff

Vs. Mohan Singh Chopra held on 16 April, 2026, wherein their Lordships held that “even in default or ex parte suits, the court should identify the legal points and give a reasoned answer. Simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) of CPC doing so would be a “material irregularity”.

As seen from the above judgment, even in exparte suits, the plaintiff has to prove his case by adducing relevant evidence and that the court should identify the legal points and give a reasoned judgment.

11.In the case on hand, the defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and also by filing documents under Ex.A1 to A8 proved his case that the defendant failed to perform his part of contract, therefore this court finds no reason to disbelieve the same and to deny the 7 contentions of the plaintiff. Such silence of the defendant inclined the

Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant that he has been intentionally evading to perform his part of contract. Therefore, this court holds that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract under suit agreement/Ex.A1, but the defendant refused to perform his part of contract.

Accordingly the point No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

12.Point No.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff with following reliefs and conditions:

(i) The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.8,95,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs and ninety five thousand only) within thirty [30] days of this judgment to credit into bank account of the defendant by following the procedure as prescribed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt.,

Ltd., Vs Union bank of India & Ors in Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No (s) 534 of 2020 and in “Paraminder Singh Vs Honey Goyal, dt.18.03.2025 in Civil

Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising out of S.L.P. ( C ) No.4484 of 2020] at para 20” and inform the same to the defendants in writing; in case, the defendant not furnished his bank account details, the plaintiff is directed to deposit the amount in the court;

(ii) On such deposit, the defendant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff in pursuance of the suit sale agreement within thirty days;

(iii) If the defendant fails to comply the above directions, the plaintiff is at liberty to approach the Court to take the registered sale deed according to law; 8

(iv) If the plaintiff not deposited the balance sale consideration, he is not entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A.1; at best he is entitled for refund of advance amount without interest;

(v) To the extent of advance amount of Rs.43,05,000/- a charge is created over the suit schedule property, in which the property owned by the defendant;

(vi) The defendant is directed to pay the costs of this litigation to the plaintiff while bearing their own costs;

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

Prl. District Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

PW.1 : T.Raghunath Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original agreement of sale executed by Kodidela Chandra Sekhar in favour of plaintiff dt.05.01.2018.

Ex.A2 : Eendorsement for Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque made on 21.01.2018 total for Rs.1,00,000/- in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018.

Ex.A3 : Endorsement for Rs.25,000/- by way of chequue made on 10.12.2018 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018.

Ex.A4 : Endorsement for Rs.20,000/- by way of chequue made on 13.02.2019 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018.

9

Ex.A5 : Endorsement for Rs.40,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of chequue made on 27.05.2019 total Rs.50,000/- in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018.

Ex.A6 : Endorsement for Rs.60,000/- by way of cash made on 19.05.2020 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018.

Ex.A7 : Endorsement for Rs.50,000/- by way of cash made on 24.07.2022 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018.

Ex.A8 : Office copy of legal notice dt.21.06.2025 along with postal receipt.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant

-NIL-

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

Prl. District Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE::

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: E.BHIMA RAO,

Principal District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 08th day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.65/2025

BETWEEN:

T.Raghunatha Reddy…. Plaintiff.

And

Kodidela Chandrasekhar…. Defendant0

This suit is coming on 24.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri H.Rama Subramanyam, Sri B.Anil Kumar, Sri M.Anjana

Puthra - Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to direct him to receive balance sale consideration and to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff with regard to plaint schedule property, in pursuance of agreement of sale, dated 05.01.2018, failing which, the same may be done through process of court and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff and defendant are entered into an agreement of sale on 05.01.2018 regarding the plaint schedule property for valuable 2 consideration of Rs.52,00,000/-, the defendant previously by different installments has received Rs.39,60,000/- and also received Rs.40,000/- through cheque Nos.196479, 196480 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu, accordingly the defendant has received Rs.40,00,000/- and executed an agreement of sale, agreeing to executed registered sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- and there is no time limit in the agreement. The defendant received an amount of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu cheque No.000101 in total received Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.01.2018, the said payment is endorsed on the backside of the agreement of sale. Again, on 10.12.2018, the defendant received Rs.25,000/- by way of HDFC Bank,

Ananthapuramu cheque No.000090 and the same is endorsed on the backside of agreement of sale. Again on 13.02.2019 the defendant received Rs.20,000/- by way of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu cheque

No.000091 and the same was endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement. Again the defendant executed the endorsement on separate stamp paper and received an amount of Rs.40,000/- cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu cheque No.000092 in total

Received Rs.50,000/- on 27.05.2019 and the same was executed on the stamp paper. Again on 19.05.2020 the defendant received an amount of

Rs.60,000/- and the same was endorsed on the back side of the stamp paper. In the agreement it is agreed that the defendant must have got survey the land to fix up the boundaries, later the defendant received an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 14.07.2022 and the same is endorsed on the backside of stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. As the defendant received the amounts intermittently endorsed and signed on the agreement of sale dt.05.01.2018 and stamp paper dt.20.09.2018, totally the defendant has received an amount of Rs.43,05,000/- from the plaintiff and the balance amount due under sale transaction is Rs.8,95,000/- only.

It is further averred in the plaint that, the plaintiff is always ready and 3 willing to perform his part of contract. The defendants for the reasons best known to him, postponing to perform his part of contract to execute regular registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount.

Inspite of several demands and by way of legal notice through advocate, the defendant is not cooperating to execute regular registered sale deed.

Now the defendant is making hectic efforts to deal with the property by bringing into existence of some registered documents in favour of third parties detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3.Though the defendant received summons, did not appear before this court either in person or through his counsel. Hence the defendant was set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record, pleadings and evidence made on behalf of the plaintiff.

6.Now the points that arise for determination in this original suit are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

7.POINT No.1:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that, on 05.01.2018, the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property at Rs.52,00,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and on the same day i.e. on 4 05.01.2018 the defendant executed an agreement of sale agreeing to receipt of Rs.39,60,000/- at installments and receipt of Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque No.196479 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu, accordingly the defendant received Rs.40,00,000/- as on the date of agreement of sale dt.05.01.2018. Subsequently, on 21.01.2018 the defendant received an amount of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque

No.000101 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu in total received Rs.1,00,000/-, the same was endorsed on the backside of the agreement of sale. Again, on 10.12.2018, the defendant received Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque

No.000090 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu, on 13.02.2019 the defendant received Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque No.000091 of HDFC Bank,

Ananthapuramu and the same were endorsed on the back side of the sale agreement.

The defendant executed the endorsement on separate stamp paper and received an amount of Rs.40,000/- cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque No.000092 of HDFC Bank, Ananthapuramu in total received

Rs.50,000/- on 27.05.2019 and the same was executed on the stamp paper. Again on 19.05.2020 the defendant received an amount of

Rs.60,000/- and the same was endorsed on the back side of the stamp paper. As per the agreement of sale, the defendant has to conduct survey the land and fix up the boundaries. Later the defendant received an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 24.07.2022 and the same is endorsed on the backside of stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. The defendant received the amounts intermittently endorsed and signed on the agreement of sale dt.05.01.2018 and stamp paper dt.20.09.2018, totally the defendant has received an amount of Rs.43,05,000/- from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff issued legal notice, dt.21.06.2025, but inspite of receiving it, the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract.

5

8.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW-1 and he reiterated the contents of his plaint in his affidavit and relied on Ex.A1 to A8 to prove his case. Ex.A.1 is the Original agreement of sale executed by defendant/Kodidela Chandra Sekhar in favour of plaintiff dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A2 is the endorsement for Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque made on 21.01.2018 total for Rs.1,00,000/- in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A3 is the endorsement for Rs.25,000/- by way of chequue made on 10.12.2018 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A4 is the endorsement for

Rs.20,000/- by way of chequue made on 13.02.2019 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018. Ex.A5 is the endorsement for Rs.40,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of chequue made on 27.05.2019 total Rs.50,000/- in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. Ex.A6 is the endorsement for

Rs.60,000/- by way of cash made on 19.05.2020 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. Ex.A7 is the endorsement for Rs.50,000/- by way of cash made on 24.07.2022 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018. Ex.A8 is the

Office copy of legal notice dt.21.06.2025 along with postal receipt.

9.As per the averments of Ex.A1/Agreement of sale, wherein it is clear that on 05.01.2018 the defendant has executed agreement by receiving an advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- and agreed that he will execute regular registered sale deed after receipt of the balance of sale consideration. As per Ex.A1, the defendant is the owner of plaint schedule property, he agreed to sell the property for total consideration of

Rs.52,00,000/- , further it is clear that the time is not essence of the contract as the defendant agreed to execute regular registered sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration. As per Ex.A2 is the endorsement on 21.01.2018 the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque total for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Further under Ex.A3 endorsement, on 10.12.2018 the plaintiff has paid an 6 amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of chequue, under Ex.A4 endorsement, on 13.02.2019 the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-, under Ex.A5 endorsement, on 27.05.2019 the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of chequue total Rs.50,000/-, under

Ex.A6 endorsement, on 19.05.2020 the plaintiff paid an amount of

Rs.60,000/- by way of cash, under Ex.A7 endorsement, on 24.07.2022 the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant. So as per

Ex.A1 to A7, the plaintiff has paid total amount of Rs.43,05,000/- to the defendant.

Further, as seen from the evidence, to show that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had called upon the defendant to perform his part of the agreement by receiving the balance sale consideration and execute registered sale deed has issued notice under Ex.A8. However the defendant has not responded to the same.

10.The Honourable Apex Court in a case in between Pramod Shroff

Vs. Mohan Singh Chopra held on 16 April, 2026, wherein their Lordships held that “even in default or ex parte suits, the court should identify the legal points and give a reasoned answer. Simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) of CPC doing so would be a “material irregularity”.

As seen from the above judgment, even in exparte suits, the plaintiff has to prove his case by adducing relevant evidence and that the court should identify the legal points and give a reasoned judgment.

11.In the case on hand, the defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and also by filing documents under Ex.A1 to A8 proved his case that the defendant failed to perform his part of contract, therefore this court finds no reason to disbelieve the same and to deny the 7 contentions of the plaintiff. Such silence of the defendant inclined the

Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant that he has been intentionally evading to perform his part of contract. Therefore, this court holds that the plaintiff has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract under suit agreement/Ex.A1, but the defendant refused to perform his part of contract.

Accordingly the point No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

12.Point No.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff with following reliefs and conditions:

(i) The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.8,95,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs and ninety five thousand only) within thirty [30] days of this judgment to credit into bank account of the defendant by following the procedure as prescribed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt.,

Ltd., Vs Union bank of India & Ors in Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No (s) 534 of 2020 and in “Paraminder Singh Vs Honey Goyal, dt.18.03.2025 in Civil

Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising out of S.L.P. ( C ) No.4484 of 2020] at para 20” and inform the same to the defendants in writing; in case, the defendant not furnished his bank account details, the plaintiff is directed to deposit the amount in the court;

(ii) On such deposit, the defendant is directed to execute the registered sale deed in the name of the plaintiff in pursuance of the suit sale agreement within thirty days;

(iii) If the defendant fails to comply the above directions, the plaintiff is at liberty to approach the Court to take the registered sale deed according to law; 8

(iv) If the plaintiff not deposited the balance sale consideration, he is not entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A.1; at best he is entitled for refund of advance amount without interest;

(v) To the extent of advance amount of Rs.43,05,000/- a charge is created over the suit schedule property, in which the property owned by the defendant;

(vi) The defendant is directed to pay the costs of this litigation to the plaintiff while bearing their own costs;

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

Prl. District Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

For Plaintiff : For Defendants:

PW.1 : T.Raghunath Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original agreement of sale executed by Kodidela Chandra Sekhar in favour of plaintiff dt.05.01.2018.

Ex.A2 : Eendorsement for Rs.62,000/- by way of cash and Rs.38,000/- by way of cheque made on 21.01.2018 total for Rs.1,00,000/- in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018.

Ex.A3 : Endorsement for Rs.25,000/- by way of chequue made on 10.12.2018 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018.

Ex.A4 : Endorsement for Rs.20,000/- by way of chequue made on 13.02.2019 in the sale agreement dt.05.01.2018.

9

Ex.A5 : Endorsement for Rs.40,000/- by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of chequue made on 27.05.2019 total Rs.50,000/- in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018.

Ex.A6 : Endorsement for Rs.60,000/- by way of cash made on 19.05.2020 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018.

Ex.A7 : Endorsement for Rs.50,000/- by way of cash made on 24.07.2022 in separate stamp paper dt.20.09.2018.

Ex.A8 : Office copy of legal notice dt.21.06.2025 along with postal receipt.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant

-NIL-

Sd/- E.Bhima Rao

Prl. District Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

In the Court of :Principal District and Sessions Judge

Case No. :CRL.MP/0000178/2026 Dudekula Masthan Vali alias Takkida Masthan A.2 Vs State Rep By the Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Urban P.S

Date : 11-05-2026

Business: Heard and allowed. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 11-05-2026

Principal District and Sessions Judge