1 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::
ANAKAPALLE
Present: Sri G.Ramakrishna,
Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division), Anakapalle
Thursday, this the 08 th day of January, 2026
Original Suit No.190 of 2017
Between :
Gandi Lokeswara Rao, S/o Apparao, Aged 38 years, Business,
Ramalayam Veedhi, Paravada Village, Paravada Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District.
...Plaintiff
And :
1. Diddupudi Ramalingam, S/o Suryaprakasa Rao, Aged 52 years,
Gold Smith, Residing at D.No.5-69, Paravada Village, Paravada
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (DIED)
2. Diddupudi Padmavathi, W/o Ramalingam, Aged 52 years, House wife, D.No.5-69, Paravada Village and Paravada Mandal.
3. Diddupudi Santhosh Kumar, S/o Ramalingam, Aged 34 years,
D.No.5-69, Paravada Village and Paravada Mandal.
4. Diddupudi Mahesh, S/o Ramalingam, Aged 30 years, D.No.5-69,
Paravada Village and Paravada Mandal.
5. Diddupudi Devi, W/o Surya Prakash Rao, Aged 35 years,
Housewife, D.No.5-69, Paravada Village and Paravada Mandal.
6. Diddupudi Varshitha, D/o Surya Prakash Rao, Aged 8 years,
Minor represented by next friend mother guardian Diddupudi Devi, 2 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
W/o Surya Prakash Rao, Aged 52 years, D.No.5-69, Paravada
Village and Paravada Mandal.
(Defendants 2 to 6 are added as legal heirs of 1st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.266/2012, dt.24.01.2023.) ….Defendants
This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 05-12-2025 in the presence of Sri.K.P.V.Ramanaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri.Ch.S.S.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 4 and
Smt.J.Bharathi Laxmi, Advocate for 6th defendant and defendant No.5 was set exparte, having heard and 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 defendants for specific performance of sale agreement in terms and conditions of sale agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff i.e., directing the (defendant) defendants 2 to 6 to execute and register regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff and if the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiff prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to execute and register regular sale deed on behalf of (defendant) defendants 2 to 6 (or) alternatively if the Hon’ble Court comes to conclusion that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff for
Rs.7,00,000/- with interest at 24% from the date of suit.
3 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
2.The brief averments of the plaint:
The (defendant) deceased 1st defendant is the absolute owner of RCC slab house i.e., plaint schedule property. The (defendant) deceased 1st defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for
Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) and received Rs.7,00,000/- towards advance of sale consideration on 26.05.2016 and agreed to execute and register regular sale deed to the plaintiff within one year from the date of sale agreement at the expenses of plaintiff and executed a sale agreement in favour of plaintiff on 26.05.2016 and as per terms and conditions of the sale agreement dt.26.05.2016 executed by the (defendant) deceased 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff, the defendant agreed to execute and register sale deed in favour of plaintiff at the expense of the plaintiff within one year from the date of sale agreement on receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- at the time of execution and registration of regular sale deed. Further, the plaintiff is always and ready and willing to obtain regular sale deed in terms of sale agreement by paying balance sale consideration and the plaintiff several times demanded the (defendant) deceased 1st defendant to execute and register regular sale deed, but on one pretext or other, the defendant postponed to execute and register regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Then the plaintiff got 4 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
issued registered lawyer’s notice dt.20.11.2017 demanding the (defendant) deceased 1st defendant to execute and register sale deed in terms of sale agreement, having received the same, the deceased defendant got issued reply notice dt.16.12.2017 with false allegations with a malafide intention to evade to execute and register the regular sale deed in terms of sale agreement and the plaintiff came to know that the deceased defendant making hectic efforts to create sham and nominal documents to defeat the rights of plaintiff accrued under the agreement of sale and to create multifarious litigation, hence the plaintiff constrained to file present suit against (defendant) deceased defendant for specific performance. Further, during pendency of the suit, the defendant died intestate on 04.05.2022 and the defendants 2 to 6 being wife and sons and daughter-in-law and grand daughter succeeded and survived to all the properties of the defendant including the plaint schedule property and the defendants 2 to 6 are bound by the suit agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016 and are liable to execute and register regular sale deed on behalf of defendant or for alternative relief that if the Hon’ble Court come to conclusion that specific performance of sale agreement cannot be granted, a decree for Rs.7,00,000/- which was received by the defendant (deceased defendant) as advance towards sale consideration at the time of sale agreement. Hence, the suit.
5 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
3. The defendant having received summons and filed his written statement by denying the plaint averments and contended that he is owner of plaint schedule property, but it is ancestral property and as such defendant’s children are having coparcenary rights therein. When the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.20.11.2017, the defendant issued reply dt.16.12.2017 with true state of affairs, but the same were suppressed by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant has not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff and same was created in the name of plaintiff by one Paila Ramu. The alleged agreement of sale is rank forged brought into existence in the name of plaintiff. The defendant has no necessity to alienate the plaint schedule property. But, for their family legal necessities during the year 2016 the defendant and his family members mortgaged the said property to one Budha Rajunaidu S/o Satyanrayana resident of Gavarapalem of Anakapalle. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to execute sale deed as demanded by the plaintiff and it is fictitious and fraudulent document brought into existence to compel the defendant and his family members to come to the illegal terms Paila Ramu at whose instance the plaintiff filed the present suit and no transaction took place in between plaintiff and defendant and he was set up by above said Paila Ramu due to differences arose in chit transaction with Paila Ramu. The plaintiff, Paila Ramu and some 6 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
other supporter of Paila Ramu i.e., Dungala Ramunaidu filed suits against defendant and his family members to grab their house property with some fictitious documents and to cause wrongful loss to him and his family members.
Further, the plaintiff filed present suit by creating agreemetn of sale said to have been executed by defendant for his house property. So also Paila Ramu filed suit in O.S.No.152/2017 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Anakapalle and got attached the said house property. So also Dungala
Ramunaidu filed suit in O.S.No.167/2017 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Anakapalle and got attached the said house property. The filing of above suits at the same time evil attitude of the plaintiff and his instigators stated supra. Further the suit has no cause of action and the cause of action one stated is neither true nor correct. The plaintiff is not entitled for decree as prayed for and he has no bonafides. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4.Whereas, the 6th defendant filed his written statement by denying the plaint averments and contended that deceased defendant is paternal grand father, 2nd defendant is grand mother, defendants 3 and 4 are uncles to her of i.e., father’s younger brothers and 5th defendant is her mother. Further, she is a minor girl, she is aged 8 years old, as such natural guardian of minor i.e., 5th defendant has represent to contesting the suit on behalf of her minor child, but, 7 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
her mother has not showing interest in contesting the suit either for herself or on behalf of her minor girl i.e., this defendant, as such the plaintiff filed a petition Under Order 32 Rule 3 of CPC for appointing Court guardian to minor girl i.e., 6th defendant, the same is allowed by the Hon’ble Court vide
I.A.No.267/2022 dt.17.11.2022. Further, the enquiries of the Court guardian reveals that no such sale agreement executed by the deceased 1st defendant either in favour of plaintiff or in favour of anybody, the plaintiff got created the suit agreement of sale. The plaintiff has no right to proceed against her properties unless the getting permission from the Hon’ble District For her legal bonafide reason only. Further, she has no necessity or requirement to alienate her share of property as such, the suit against the minor defendant is not maintainable for seeking decree of specific performance of contract. Further, she is in care and custody of her mother, however either 5th defendant or any of the family member has not showing interest in cotesting the matter as such it is clear that all the defendants are acting in manner of detrimental right of minor by clubbing their hands with the plaintiff, it is further clear that the other defendants are colluded with the plaintiff and they are trying to alienate her share. Further, the suit against her is not maintainable under law and suit is barred by limitation. Hence, prays the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit.
8 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial :
1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016 is true, valid and supported by consideration or not?
2) Whether the suit agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016 is binding on the defendant or not?
3) Whether the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendant or not?
4) Whether the plaintiff established readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement dt.26.05.2016 or not?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016 by getting a registered sale deed by the defendant or not?
6) To what relief ?
6.After filing of additional written statement, the following additional issue is framed:
1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016 is binding on all the defendants or not?
7.To support to the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff, himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and one of the attestor of Ex.A1 i.e., B.China
Nooka Raju is examined as PW2. Ex.A1 is unregistered suit agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is office 9 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
copy of legal notice, dt.20.11.2017 issued by plaintiff and Ex.A3 is reply notice dt.16.12.2017 issued by the defendant to plaintiff. On behalf of defendants, the deceased defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and Duddipudi Mahesh is examined as DW2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3 were marked and they are
Ex.B1 is certified copy of police report dt.21.03.2017 submitted to the SHO of
Paravada by his elder brother one Surya Prakasha Rao, Ex.B2 is certified copy of acknowledgment dt.21.03.2017 issued by the SHO with regard to receipt of the said report and Ex.B3 is certified copy of legal notice dt.12.06.2017 issued by his brother Surya Prakasha Rao.
8.Heard the argument of both sides. Perused the case record.
9. ISSUE NO.1,2 AND 4:
Since these issues are interrelated to each other, as such they are discussing in one issue in order to avoid the repetition of the evidence.
10.As seen from the case record, the contention of plaintiff is that the deceased defendant i.e., D1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property to an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the plaintiff and enter into agreement of sale under
Ex.A1 with him on 26.05.2016 and on that day he paid an amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- towards part payment to the defendant. Thereafter, it is fixed a time of one year to pay the balance sale consideration amount from the date of 10 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
its execution. Later, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.20.11.2017 under
Ex.A2 for execution of regular sale deed by expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract to the defendant, but the defendant did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed instead of he issued a reply notice under Ex.A3 with false contention. As such the plaintiff chose to file the present suit for the relief of specific performance.
11.Whereas, the contention of defendants that the D1 is never executed the
Ex.A1 and it is a created one and fabricated one. He further pleaded that the plaintiff is a set up party by one Paila Ramu since one Paila Ramu conducting local chit groups, at one stage the defendant son by name Guddipudi
Suryaprakasharao joined in said chit group to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and after some time he bid the chit and to secure chit amount the said Paila Ramu obtained the blank promissory notes and cheques from this defendant and after completion of said chit period, he did not return the same, but at that time he stated that he will return the same after some time. Later, for harassing the defendants, the said Paila Ramu got colluded with Dungala Ramunaidu and got filed a civil suit against him. Later, the said Dungala Ramunaidu and Paila
Ramu who are close friends with the plaintiff were got forged the Ex.A1 agreement of sale with the henchman of said Paila Ramu and brought into 11 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
existence of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Moreover, in the year of 2016 itself, the defendant and his family members mortgaged the suit schedule property to one
Budda Rajunaidu. Therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.
12.Accordingly, by perusal of the above rival contention of both sides, when plaintiff pleading execution of Ex.A1 by D1 after receiving the part of sale consideration amount, but, the defendants are denying the execution of Ex.A1 by pleading forgery of D1 signature and fabrication of Ex.A1 document. As seen from the case record, it is appearing that the D1 who subsequently died of this case is representing by his legal heirs as defendants No.2 to 6 who added vide orders in I.A.No.266/2022, dt.24.01.2023. In this case, the D6 had filed his separate written statement who is minor and who is represented through an advocate appointed by this Court vide orders in I.A.No. 267/2022, dt.17.11.2022 as Court guardian.
13.In order to prove the pleading of forgery of the signature of D1, the D1 and his legal heirs are failed to send the Ex.A1 document to an expert to prove that the signature of D1 on the Ex.A1 is a forged one or fabricated one.
Therefore, the plea taken by D1 or D2 to D6 with regard to forgery or fabrication of Ex.A1 failed to prove into this Court. On the other hand, by the evidence of
PW1, it is proved that the deceased defendant is received part of sale 12 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
consideration amount under Ex.A1 on the date of its execution itself and the same is not in dispute as defendants were failed to disprove the same.
14.To support the contention of plaintiff, the plaintiff chose to examine the
PW2 by name Bandaru China Nookaraju who is the first attestor of the Ex.A1 document and he filed his chief affidavit by supporting the case of the plaintiff, during cross examination he deposed that, himself and PW1 are belongs to same community and used to go to the shop of PW1 for purchasing of urea, as such, he had acquaintance with plaintiff for last ten years. He further deposed that, the defendant is resident of Parawada and he seen him on the date of
Ex.A1 itself and when he went to the shop of PW1, he informed that he purchased one house and then on the request of PW1 and the defendant, he went to Anakapalle for drafting documents. He further deposed that the another attestor by name one Ganireddy Chandra Kumar was taken by him to the shop of PW1 and on his request only he came to the shop and there upon the request of plaintiff he acted as one of the attesting witness under Ex.A1 document since by that time he had acquaintance with plaintiff.
15.The PW2 further deposed that, the document writer was present at
Lankelapalem which is nearer to the Parawada and in the present case only he 13 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
subscribed his signatures as attesting witness. He further deposed that after they went to Anakapalle, the Ex.A1 was drafted and it took nearly half an hour time to draft it and it was drafted by one Prasad and he seen him first time on that day itself. He further deposed that the Ex.A1 was read over to him and he was not present at the time of negotiations with regard to purchase of plaint schedule property, but he came to know that it was agreed in between both parties that the plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards sale consideration, out of that on that date, after execution of Ex.A1 the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant. He further deposed that the defendant contributed his signature and affixed his thumb impression on Ex.A1.
He further deposed that it is true the signature and thumb impression of defendant are present on stamp paper and bond paper are present on right side corner of the paper. He further deposed that it is true signature of defendant on Ex.A1 is in blue colour ink and signatures of remaining persons on it are in black colour.
16.Accordingly, by perusal of the above evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is proving the execution of Ex.A1 by deceased defendant i.e., D1 after receiving the part of sale consideration amount, but the defendants are failed to elicit any 14 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
contradictory fact from their mouth to sake the credibility to the contents of
Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Further, the DW2 who is son of D1 deposed that the signature on Ex.A1 does not belongs to his father i.e., deceased 1st defendant, but to prove the same, he failed to take any steps for sending the Ex.A1 to an expert. As such, the evidence of DW2 not inspiring any confidence to believe their case as true and correct. Unfortunately, the deceased defendant filed his chief affidavit as DW1 and exhibited Exs B1 to B3, but subsequently, he reported died, if he cross examined, then, certainly, the real fact will came know into this Court. As such, the evidence of DW2 not inspiring any confidence to disbelieve the case of plaintiff.
17.Moreover, on perusal of the Ex.A3 reply notice at para No.4 send by deceased defendant through his counsel showing that the deceased defendant try to impress that there are financial relationship between one Paila Ramu,
Dungala Ramunaidu and the plaintiff herein by stating that there is a chit transaction in between to the son of deceased defendant by name Diddupudi
Suryaprakash and the Paila Ramu, but, to prove the same he failed to take any legal action to brought the said Paila Ramu into the Court nor taken any legal course of action against him. Therefore, the contention of defendants failed to prove before this Court.
15 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
18.Accordingly, by above discussion made by this Court showing that the deceased defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same to an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- out of that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid towards part consideration and remaining amount has to be paid within one year and when the plaintiff express his readiness and willingness to performance his part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward, then plaintiff filed the present suit.
19.Here, it is the contention of defendant that the plaintiff failed to file any piece of document to express his readiness and willingness as such he is not entitled to claim relief of present suit, but the same is denied by plaintiff and plaintiff relied on a judgment decided by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in between Mogadati Ramatulasamma Vs Nanduru
Nagendramma in appeal suit No.1117/2016 and date of disposal on 03.01.2025 in said judgment at para No.32, 45 and 56 in which it was held that :
32. In light of the above settled legal position, this Court views that mere non- deposit of the balance sale consideration amount cannot be a ground to hold that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. It is not the Appellant/Defendant case that, despite the direction of the trial Corut or this Court, the Respondent/Plaintiff failed to deposit the amount. As already pointed out, Exs.X.2 and X.3 establish that plaintiff had Rs.9,00,000/- 16 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
with her much before the stipulated date and Ex.X1 establishes that she could generate Rs.8,87,000/- within six months of the specified time.
45. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract is required to be decided in light of the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced by her and her conduct. The thrust of the case set up by the Appellant/Defendant was that the Defendant neither executed the agreement nor received the advance amount. It is significant to note that the Defendant had set up the case of total denial. She pleaded that the agreement for sale (Ex.A1) was a fabricated document and that plaintiff had fabricated the same in connection with the business transactions between them. In this case, after taking into consideration the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and other material placed before the Court, this Court views that though Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the Defendant did not come forward in terms of the agreement, and questioned the genuineness of the Ex.A1 agreement.
56.Therefore, in all probabilities, the Defendant herself executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of Plaintiff. Once it is accepted that the Ex.A1 sale agreement is true and its contents are proved, it follows that the consideration has passed and that the case of the Plaintiff stands proved in all respects. Thus, on an overall consideration of the facts and evidence in juxtaposition, an inevitable and safe conclusion can be held that the suit sale agreement is true, valid and binding and is supported by consideration. As seen from the facts on hand, it is not the case of Defendant that Plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale deed registered. It is also not her case that the Plaintiff was not in a position to arrange the required money to get the sale deed registered. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief from specific performance.
17 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
20.Accordingly, as per above said ratio laid by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, is applicable to the present facts of this case since, the plaintiff by issuing Ex.A2 legal notice expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward to execute the regular sale deed instead of he taken a plea of forgery and fabrication of Ex.A1 document, but the same is failed to prove by him as discussed above.
Therefore, the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 and proved passing of sale consideration amount under Ex.A1 which is binding upon the deceased defendant and his legal heirs. Accordingly, issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 answered in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NOs.3, 5 and additional ISSUE No.1:
21.Here, it is the contention of plaintiff that the deceased defendant is the exclusive owner of plaint schedule property. Therefore, the defendants 2 to 6 shall execute regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff. But whereas the contention of defendants 2 to 6 including deceased defendant that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property in which the deceased defendant along with his family members all are having joint rights as that of him. Therefore, this
Court cannot direct the defendants No.2 to 6 to execute regular sale deed since 18 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
they are not parties under Ex.A1 and they further pleaded that in the year of 2016 itself, the suit schedule property was already mortgaged to one Budda
Rajunaidu S/o Satyanarayana resident of Gavarapalem of Anakapalle.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of specific performance on ancestral property.
22.With regard to deciding the nature of the plaint schedule property the
PW1 during in his cross examination deposed that “it is true in Ex.A1 it was mentioned that the plaint schedule property is an ancestral property. He further deposed that defendant had three sons and their marriage was performed and among them elder son Suryaprakasarao was passed away. He again admitted that it is true suit schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant. He further deposed in cross examination dt.03.04.2023 stating he came to know that the plaint schedule property is succeed it from his ancestress. He further deposed that he know the 1st defendant since from his childhood and he know the particulars of his family members. He further deposed that as on date of execution of Ex.A1 no partition among the family members of D1 took place as his children are minors. He further deposed that in Ex.A1 it is not specifically mentioned that D1 executed Ex.A1 on behalf of his family members also, so 19 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
also in Ex.A1 it is not mentioned that D1 sold the property to the welfare of the minors also.
23. Here, before going to discuss the above evidence of PW1 it is necessary to refer the written statement contents of D6 that he was appointed by a Court guardian as per orders in I.A.No.267/2022 dt.17.11.2022 and the alleged sale agreement executed by deceased defendant is not binding on him and through
Ex.A1 document, the plaintiff cannot claim any right against him on the suit schedule property unless getting permission from Hon’ble District Court and he had no necessity or requirement to alienate his share of property in plaint schedule property, as such suit against minor defendant is not maintainable.
24.Accordingly, on combined reading to the evidence deposed by PW1 along with the written statement contents of the D6 showing that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the 1st defendant as admitted by the PW1 as such the nature of the property is the ancestral property to the deceased defendant and his legal heirs and then the rights of the D2 to D6 are also involved into it as they are co-sharers to the plaint schedule property but the D2 to D6 are not the parties to the Ex.A1 agreement of sale with the plaintiff 20 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
then, the plaintiff cannot proceed against the interest of the co-sharers of plaint schedule property since the suit schedule property is their ancestral property.
25.As such, the relief sought by plaintiff for specific performance of registration of regular sale deed by D2 to D6 is not possible to grant as the plaintiff can not proceed against the co shares interest on the plaint schedule property. However, the plaintiff claimed an alternative relief for return of the part payment amount under Ex.A1 as mentioned in the plaint.
26.Therefore, the defendants are proved that the plaint schedule property is their ancestral property and the D2 to D6 are not parties to the Ex.A1 agreement of sale with plaintiff whose rights are also involved under Ex.A1 agreement of sale property i.e., plaint schedule property then the question of granting of the relief of specific performance will not extended against to the interest of the D2 to D6. Thereby the plaintiff is entitled to claim only the alternative relief as prayed in the plaint. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
ISSUE No.6:
27.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by granting alternative relief with costs in favour of plaintiff against the estate of D1 by directing the defendants 2 21 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
to 6 to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 12% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization.
Typed by my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 08 th day of January, 2026.
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Anakapalle.
Appendix of Evidence
Number of Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Gandi Lokeswera Rao P.W.2 : Bandaru China Nookaraju (1st attestor of Ex.A1)
For the Defendants:
D.W.1: Duddupudi Ramalingam (eschewed) D.W.2 : Duddupudi Mahesh (4th defendant)
Number of Exhibits Marked
For the Plaintiff :
Ex.A1 : Unregistered suit agreement of sale dt.26.05.2016.
Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dt.20.11.2017.
Ex.A3 : Reply legal notice dt.16.12.2017.
22 (Fair Judgment)
O.S.No.190/2017, ACJ(Sr.D.),Anakapalle
For the Defendants:
Ex.B1 : Certified copy of report dt.21.03.2017 submitted to the S.H.O., Paravada by his elder brother one Surya Prakasha Rao.
Ex.B2 : Certified copy of acknowledgment dt.21.03.2017 issued by the SHO with regard to receipt of Ex.B1 report.
Ex.B3 : Certified copy of legal notice dt.12.06.2017 issued by his brother Surya Prakasha Rao.
ACJ(Sr.D.)/AKP