Sri E.Bhima Rao., B.Sc., L.L.B.,

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri E.Bhima Rao, VII Addl. District Judge,

Monday, this the 24th day of October, 2016

O.S.99/2011

Between: 

Samarouthu Maheswari .. Plaintiff

A N D

Thota Lakshmi Venkata Bala .. Defendant

This suit is coming on for hearing before me on this day and upon perusing the plaint, and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kothapalli, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri V. Lakshmi Narayana, advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over this day for consideration,this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.25.05.2009 directing the defendant to execute a regd. sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of schedule property or alternative relief for refund of the sale consideration advance of Rs.20,00,000/­ with interest at 12% p.a from 25­5­2009 till the date of suit and for costs.

2. The plaintiff’s case in precise is the defendant is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which an extent of 275 Sq.

yards in Door N0.46/2 R.S. 12/2, Vidhyadharapuram Vijayawada

S.No.200/2. The defendant offered to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.42,00,000/­. The defendant received Rs.20,00,000/­ towards part payment of sale 2 consideration from the plaintiff on 25.05.2009.The defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff on that day incorporating the mutually agreed terms and conditions. The remaining balance sale consideration payable by the plaintiff is to be paid within 120 days from the date of agreement of sale. In default, the plaintiff has to pay interest @12%p.a. If the defendant fails to perform her part of contract she has to pay interest @12%p.a. on the amount paid by the plaintiff. As the defendant has not come forward to perform her part of contract after the stipulated time on the pretext that Thota Mani Kumar filed the suit in O.S.No.916/2009 against defendant and got attached the plaint schedule property in the suit proceedings. The plaintiff got issued a notice to her on 21­03­2011 informing that she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract by getting ready with the required documents. Having acknowledged the said notice, the defendant got issued a reply on 4­4­2011 with false allegations. Hence this suit.

3. Defendant filed written statement resisting the maintainability of the suit and contended that plaintiff is close relative to the defendant i.e., brother­in­laws daughter. The defendant has no children. The children of her brother­in­laws and sister­in­laws were brought up in the hands of defendant and her husband who are aged about 60 years and 66 years. The plaintiff in collusion with her brother Thota Manikumar trying to grab the property of the defendant. The cousin of the plaintiff Thota Manikumar by forging the signature of the defendant on promissory note got filed a 3 suit against the defendant and attached the property of the defendant on the file of V Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Vijayawada in O.S.No.916/2009.

4. It is further averred that on 18­02­2009 defendant gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada against the said Manikumar as he is trying to grab the property of the defendant by forging the signature of the defendant and threatening the defendant to put the property of the defendant in his name and the same was referred to Inspector, I Town P.S.

5. It is further contended that after giving complaint to the

Commissioner of the Police, Vijayawada the plaintiff in collusion with said Thota Mani Kumar hatched a plan to grab property of the defendant by fabricating the documents. The defendant never executed any document in any favour to sell the property of the defendant. The defendant has only said property and her family eking livelihood from the income arises out of the said property. In the property of the defendant there is a godown which was let out to one Naidu on monthly rent of Rs.12,000/­. The recitals of the agreement of sale shows that plaintiff is at liberty to make construction or repairs in the plaint schedule property it clearly shows that plaintiff has no knowledge with regard to the structures in the plaint schedule property and to whom the property was let out. It clearly shows that the plaintiff fabricated the suit document and got filed the present suit against the defendant. The schedule mentioned in the agreement of sale is different from that of the schedule mentioned in the plaint.

4

6. It is further contended that after receipt of the notice from the plaintiff counsel the defendant gave reply. The counsel for the plaintiff received the said notice and kept quiet. The plaintiff intentionally returned the regd. notice with false endorsements.

Even after filing of the suit if at all the plaintiff is bonafide purchaser she has to come forward to deposit the balance sale consideration before this Court. But they failed to deposit the same or they are not tried to deposit the balance sale consideration.

It clearly shows that plaintiff has no capacity to enter into the agreement of sale being the housewife. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitle for equitable relief of specific performance and requires to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. Basing on the pleadings and documents of both plaintiff and defendant the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 25­05­2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for specific performance as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

8. In the trial afforded to both the parties, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and P.W.2 2nd attestor of agreement of sale and

Exs.A1 to A3 were exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant herself examined as DW1 and no documents were exhibited on her side.

9. Heard the arguments of both learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant.

5

10. ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:

Issues no.1 and 2 are interlinked to decide this issues evidence is common. To avoid unnecessary repetition and to abridge the judgment this court deciding these two issues simultaneously.

11. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.42,00,000/­ and received sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/­ under agreement of sale, dated 25­05­2009.

12. In support his version the plaintiff’s husband Ramakrishna Siva

Vara Prasad examined as P.W.1. He clearly reiterated the averment of the plaint in his chief affidavit.

13. To prove the case he exhibited original agreement said to have been executed by the defendant as Ex.A1. The defendant in her written statement stated that suit sale agreement is fabricated document. For granting of specific performance is discretionary relief plaintiff has to establish the execution of suit sale agreement by the defendant and she is always and ready and willing to perform her part of contract.

14. To prove the execution of Ex.A1 suit sale deed PW1 clearly and categorically deposed in accordance with plaint pleadings. In his cross examination number of aspects touching financial sources and financial capacity and what are the precautions taken by her while 6 entering into the alleged agreement with defendant and etc., facts.

Only suggestions given by defendant to PW1 is that Ex.A1 is fabricated with collusion with Thota Manikumar, and filed the suit.

There is no effective cross examination of PW1 from the side of the defendant to impeach the genuineness of the agreement of A1.

15. To prove the execution of Ex.A1 agreement, plaintiff examined one of the attestors of it as PW2. PW2 in his chief examination deposed that defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on 25­05­2009 and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted that he was present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale and defendant put her signature before him and after witnessing the same he put his signatures as second attestors. The husband of the defendant is signed as first attestor. In his cross examination he deposed that by the date of execution of Ex.A1 plaintiff called him to act as an attestor. By that date he, plaintiff and her husband PW1, defendant and her husband T. Adhikari and scribe Sri Ramamurthy were present. The transaction held between 11­00 am and 12­00 noon.

He has no idea who bring the Ex.A1 stamp. He has gone through the

Ex.A1 contents. Defendant’s husband signed as a first attestor and after that he signed as a second attestor on Ex.A1. Thota

Manikumar is his cousin. He denied to a suggestion that defendant never executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff and he, Manikumar and plaintiff were colluded together and fabricated Ex.A1 as defendant has no children and to grab the property. Except the 7 suggestion that the defendant has not executed the Ex.A1, there is no effective cross examination of PW1 from the side of Defendant with regard to Ex.A1 by the defendant. Agreement of sale is not a compulsorily attestable document. PW2 explained why he signed as an attestor in Ex.A1. If really the intention of the plaintiff is to fabricate Ex.A1 by obtaining the signature DW1 is no force since

PW2 is relative to both the parties. By reason of relative to both the parties his evidence cannot be kept aside. The evidence of PW2 inspires confidence and cogent. There is no infirmities in the evidence of PW2 with regard to execution of Ex.A1 agreement by the defendant. PW2 categorically deposed that defendant after receiving an advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ executed the sale agreement under Ex.A1.

16. Before filing the suit the plaintiff got issued legal notice under

Ex.A2 and she received the said notice and gave reply under Ex.A3.

To support the case of the defendant she examined as DW1. In her cross examination she deposed that she did not file documents which were shown in her chief examination affidavit Exs.B1 to B3 i.e., served copy of the plaint along with promissory note filed by

T. Manikumar against the defendant on 29­07­2009. Copy of complaint to the Commissioner of Police Vijayawada against T. Mani

Kumar on 20­08­2009 and returned cover addressed to the plaintiff on 20­04­2011. There is no dispute that defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property. By cross examining PWs 1 and 2, defendant could not elicit anything from their mouth against the case of the plaintiff. After considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 8 2 and exhibits A1 and A2 this court is of considered opinion that plaintiff probabalise that defendant by receiving an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/­ as an advance executed Ex.A1 suit sale agreement in her favour. During the course of arguments the counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff has no capacity to purchase the plaint schedule property being a housewife.

17. In her cross examination DW1 admitted that plaintiff has properties in East Godavari District and he has no idea whether plaintiff’s husband has industries. She further admitted that the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to her and she did not file any base against Mani Kumar and plaintiff by alleging that both were trying to grab her property and gave police complaint.

18. Plaintiff proved the execution of suit sale agreement by defendant. To get the equitable relief of specific performance, mere proof of execution of suit sale agreement by defendant is not sufficient. Plaintiff must plead and prove that always she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. It is mandatory. If the plaintiff not proved the readiness and willingness to take sale deed by paying balance of sale consideration is not entitled for specific performance of sale agreement. Plaintiff pleaded that she is always ready and willing take sale deed by paying balance sale consideration to defendant.

9

19. Ex.A1 is the sale agreement. Total sale consideration is

Rs.45,00,000/­ plaintiff paid advance sale consideration of

Rs.20,00,000/­ to the defendant as per the terms of agreement plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration 120 days from the date of agreement failing which plaintiff has to pay remaining balance sale consideration with interest 12% p.a. and in case defendant fails to turn up to receive the balance sale consideration she is liable to pay 12% p.a. on advance sale consideration.

20. As can be seen from the plaint, plaintiff contended that defendant has been postponing the due performance of her part of consideration under Ex.A1. The defendant pre­texted that Thota

Manikumar filed a suit in O.S.916/2009 against her and got attached the schedule property in the suit proceedings believing the defendant’s promise plaintiff have been waiting for positive response from defendant’s side. The plaintiff suspects that the defendant had been intentionally delaying the completion of sale transaction to cause loss to the plaintiff. Plaintiff got issued registered notice under

Ex.A2. DW1 in her cross examination deposed that there are two court suits filed against her and her husband. And those are disposed of against them. She do not know whether the suit filed by the Manikumar for recovery of money against her was decreed and attached the property in the said suit.

21. As seen from her evidence it is evident that the plaint schedule property was attached in 0.S.916/2009 and the suit was decreed. As per the evidence on record within the period under Ex.A1 plaintiff was having capacity to purchase the schedule property. There is no 10 need to ready with balance sale consideration from the date of agreement. Fixing 120 days time in Ex.A1 to provide sufficient time to secure the balance sale consideration by plaintiff. Before the expiry of the time fixed, the plaintiff must ready with balance sale consideration and need not ready with balance sale consideration unless there is specific condition in agreement for payment of amount prior to the date fixed.

22. As per the evidence on the record it is clear that the plaintiff has properties in her name and she is having capacity to purchase the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff issued a legal notice demanding her to execute the agreement of sale in pursuance of

Ex.A1. Defendant issued a reply notice for the said legal notice vide

Ex.A2. Plaintiff in her notice clearly mentioned that she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract.

23. To prove the case of the defendant examined DW1 she filed chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the written statement.

In her cross examination she admitted that there is no dispute between her and plaintiff. Her husband look after the affairs relating to properties and that today her husband came along with her and he was present in the court. She studied up to SSLC she can read

Telugu. She further admitted that there are two cases filed against her and her husband and those are disposed against them. Thota

Mainkumar is son of her brother­in­law who is her husband’s brother’s son. She deposed that she do not know whether suit filed by Manikumar for recovery of amount against her was decreed and attached property in the said suit. She further admitted that she did 11 not file documents plaint copy which was filed by T. Mani Kumar against her and complaint to the commissioner which was given by her against Manikumar.

24. In her cross examination she categorically admitted that signature on Ex.A1 agreement is her. She did not file any case against T. Manikumar and plaintiff. She did not remember when she gave reply notice of Ex.A2. She did not remember when the suit was filed when issuing after her reply notice. She further admitted that plaintiff have properties in East Godavari District and she has no idea whether plaintiff have no industries. She further admitted that

before execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale the plaint schedule

property was mortgaged in Gandhi Co­operative Urban Bank

Limited. She does not remember when she discharged the mortgage debt to Gandhi Co­operative Bank. She denied to a suggestion that plaintiff paid the mortgage debt of Rs.2,00,000/­ to Gandhi co­ operative bank and title deeds of her. As seen from her evidence it is clear that defendant admitted her signature on Ex.A1 and also plaintiff has capacity to purchase the plaint schedule property and that Thota Manikumar filed a suit against the defendant and attached the property in O.S.916/2009 and that after knowing the same the plaintiff issued a legal notice under Ex.A2 to defendant to prove her readiness to perform her part of contract under Ex.A1.

Further there is no effective cross examination of PW1 from the side of defendant to impeach the correctness of above facts deposed by

DW1.

12

25. Basing on evidence it can be said that plaintiff is having capacity. Whatever it might be at the relevant time the plaintiff is ready with balance consideration.

26. After considering the above observation this court is of considered opinion that plaintiff is able to probabalise that she is always ready and willing to take regd. sale deed from the defendant by paying balance sale consideration.

27. For whatever it may be as can be seen from the cross examination of DW1 done by the plaintiff counsel the agreement in between defendant is written agreement the defendant has not produced any evidence to support her contention. Therefore, it is clear that defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff. After considering the all the above circumstances this court is of considered opinion that the defendant fails to prove that plaintiff fabricated Ex.A1 agreement of sale. In view of the above observations this court is of considered opinion that plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A1.

The defendant is liable to execute sale deed in the name of the plaintiff. Defendant also liable to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff after execution of sale deed in her name. I, therefore, answer this point in affirmative and in favor of the plaintiff.

13

28. Issue No. 3: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff with following reliefs and direction.

1. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/­ within 3 months from the date of this judgment to the credit of this suit and inform the same to the defendant in writing.

2. On such deposit defendant is directed to register sale deed in the name of plaintiff in pursuance of suit sale agreement within 30 days and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiff.

3. On such execution of sale deed defendant is entitled to withdraw the balance sale consideration deposited by the plaintiff without furnishing any security.

4. If the defendant is failed to comply the above directions plaintiff is at liberty to approach the court to take regd. sale deed and possession of the property according to law.

5. If plaintiff has not deposited the balance consideration as directed above she is not entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell under Ex.A1 and at best she is entitled for refund of advance of amount paid by her under Ex.A1 without any interest.

6. To the extent of advance amount Rs.20,00,000/­ a charge is created over the suit schedule property in which property purchased by the defendant is a part as a precaution; and

7. Defendant is directed to pay costs of this litigation to plaintiff while bearing her own costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court , on this the 24th day of October,

2016.

VII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA.

14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: S. Ramakrishna Vara DW1: Thota lakshmi Venkata Prasad Bala PW2: Thota Sridhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A125­05­2009Original agreement of sale. Ex.A221­03­2011Office copy of notice. Ex.A304­04­2011Reply notice.

For Defendant ­ Nil­

VII ADJ/VJA.,

APKR030036842015

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - CUM

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada AT

VIJAYAWADA(R) ,KRISHNA

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada

MVOP/512/2015

Exhibit No.:

: Gugulothu Krishna Kumari Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Ro. Dr No.49-2-651, Urmila Nagar, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

2: Gugulothu Narasimha Rao Age: 0 Occupation : Ro. Dr No.49-2-651 Urmila Nagar Gunadala Vijayawada.

3: Gugulothu Naga prabhth Kumar Age: 0 Occupation : Ro. Dr No.49-2-651 Urmila Nagar Gunadala Vijayawada.

4: Gogulothu Indira Age: 0 Occupation : Ro. Dr No.49-2-651 Urmila Nagar Gunadala Vijayawada

VERSUS : Soma Sekhar Reddy Age: 0

Occupation : Address: Ro. Dr No.1-71, Aregudem, Chautuppal Mandalam, Nalgonda District.

2:P. Yadaiah Age: 0 Occupation : Ro. H.No.5-13 Charakondavangoor mahabubnagar District.

3:Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Age: 0 Occupation : Rep by its Branch Manager Situated at E-8 RIICO Industrial Area Sita Pura Jaipur Rajasthan State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : MV Rama Rao Advocate for : appearing for Soma Sekhar Reddy: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 01-11-2016 )

ORDER

Both parties are going to compromise Settled before Lok Adalat.

Date : 01-11-2016 Sd/-xxxxxxx

`FOR CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTAL

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- CUM-VII Additional District

and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada

APKR030006272016

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- CUM VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada AT

VIJAYAWADA(R) ,KRISHNA

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- CUM – VII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) VIJAYAWADA.

MVOP/3/2016

Exhibit No.:

: Chekka Chanti Babu Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Ro.41-114-26, Ranadive Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

2: Chekka Sai Babu Age: 0 Occupation : Ro.41-114-26 Ranadive Nagar Krishna Lanka Vijayawada.

3: Chekka Pandu Rangamma Age: 0 Occupation : Ro.41-114-26 Ranadive Nagar Krishna Lanka Vijayawada

VERSUS : S. Someswara Rao Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Ro. Lingavaram Village, Guduwada mandalam, Krishna District.

2:Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Age: 0 Occupation : Rep by its VC cum MD vijayawada ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : S.D.Srinivasa Rao

Advocate for : appearing for S. Someswara Rao: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 03-11-2016 )

ORDER

petitioner called absent. No representation. cost not paid. petition is

dismissed for default with out costs.

Date : 03-11-2016 Sd/-xxxxxx

FOR CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTAL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM – VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC)VIJAYAWADA.

APKR030021342016

Presented on : 08-07-2016 Registered on : 08-07-2016 Decided on : 02-11-2016 Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 25 days

IN THE COURT OF

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada AT

VIJAYAWADA(R) ,KRISHNA

OS/226/2016

: Boditha Vasudeva Rao Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Ro. 3-1-273A13, Rotary Nagar, Vidhyadarapuram, Vijayawada.

VERSUS : Yerubothu Sujatha Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Ro. Dr No.77-1453-4, Sundaraiah Nagar, payakapuram, Vijayawada. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Ch. Rama Swamy Advocate for : appearing for Yerubothu Sujatha: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 02-11-2016 )

ORDER

Consequent to the orders passed in IA/16 is allowed and advanced the matter from 16-11-2016 to today i.e.,2-11-2016. In view of the memo accordingly recorded and suit is dismissed as not pressed with out costs as not pressed. \ IA 372/16 Since main suit is dismssed this petition is dismissed with out costs. \ IA/16 petition is allowed and advanced the above matter from 16-11-2016 to today i.e., 2-11-2016.

Date : 02-11-2016 Sd/-xxxxxxx

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada