O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :
AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: MS. K. KAVITHA,
IV Additional District Judge,
Nalgonda
[ (Tuesday, this the 31 st day of March, 2026)
…
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
Pati Shantha W/o Venkat Reddy, Age: 32 Years, Occ: House Hold, R/o 2-11, Kadaparthy Village of Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Plaintiff
AND
1.Chappidi Narayana Reddy S/o Sathi Reddy, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o Flat No. 58, Read No. 4, Arunodaya Colony, Opp: Bhagyalatha Hospital, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad.
2.Chappidi Kavya Chandana D/o Chappidi Narayana Reddy, Age: 11 Years, Occ: Student, R/o Flat No. 58, Road No. 4, Arunodaya Colony, Opp: Bhagyalatha Hospital, Vanastalipuram, Hyderabad. (The Defendant No.2 is minor as such Rep. by her natural father Chappidi Narayana Reddy i.e., Respondent/Defendant No.1).
(As per order of the Hon'ble Court vide I.A. No.366 of 2020, dated:
22-02-2020).
... Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 12.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and in the presence of Sri. Ch. Ramchander, Advocate for the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
Page 1 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of
Agreement of sale, dated 3.12.2009 against the Defendant by directing the
Defendant to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the
Registered sale deed of the suit schedule property in favor of the Plaintiff and in case of failure by the Defendant, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant. Further, the Defendant may be directed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property in favor of the Plaintiff. The
Hon'ble Court may award an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- including advance
sale consideration towards damages for breach of contract and direct the
Defendant to pay the said sum in favor of the Plaintiff with interest @ 24%
P.A from the date of agreement of sale as an alternative relief with costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is succinctly stated as follows:
(i) Defendant no.1 is the maternal uncle of the husband of the
Plaintiff and he is the owner of the Agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 6-38
Gts out of Sy. Nos. 250, 253 and 234, situated at Nomula village of
Nakrekal Mandal, (Amended as per orders in I.A. No. 366 of 2020, dated
Page 2 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
22-02-2021), Nalgonda District, hereinafter called as suit schedule property. The Defendant approached the Plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit schedule property and the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations, sale consideration is fixed at
Rs. 14,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the Defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant also handed over the original Pattadar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the
Plaintiff on 03-12-2009. The Plaintiff submits that according to the terms of agreement of sale, Dt: 03-12-2009, she has to pay an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- on 31-03-2011 and the remaining entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before 15-04-2011. That on 16-01-2010, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the Defendant and after receiving the part sale consideration amount, the Defendant executed receipt in favour of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Defendant mortgaged the suit schedule property before State Bank of Hyderabad,
Nakrekal, Branch vide Loan account No: 52203683660 and obtained loan.
The Defendant requested the Plaintiff in order to execute the Registered sale deed, he has to repay the loan amount before the State Bank of
Hyderabad, Nakrekal Branch, as such he requested the Plaintiff to pay the
Page 3 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
loan amount to the bank on his behalf out of sale consideration amount of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff further submits that considering request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 54,200/- on 28-06-2010, Rs. 25,000/- on 20-08-2010 and Rs. 25,000/- on 23-08-2010
before the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal Branch in discharge of loan
of amount obtained by the Defendant and the Plaintiff in token of receipt payment made by her, obtained the original challan from the State Bank of
Hyderabad, Nakrekal Branch. The Plaintiff further submits that the
Defendant obtained loan from the father-in-law of the Plaintiff by name Pati
Linga Reddy executing 3 promissory notes, Dt: 06-03-2008 and 20-07- 2009. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to settle the said loan amount with her father-in-law and pay the amount to him and adjust the said amount paid to Pati Linga Reddy as part sale consideration of the agreement of sale, Dt: 03-12-2009. Considering the request of the
Defendant, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- on 03-03- 2011 and 15-07-2011 to the father-in-law of the Plaintiff in two installments and her father-in-law returned the promissory notes executed by the Defendant in his favour to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff furtehr submits that again on 10-05-2012, she paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards part of sale consideration to the Defendant and after receiving the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the Defendant executed a receipt in her favour.
Page 4 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
The Plaintiff paid following amounts on different dates to the
Defendant as shown in detail below:-
Sl. DATE AMOUNT DOCUMENTS No.
1.13-12-20093,00,000-00Executed an Agreement of Sale Deed
2.16-01-20107,00,000-00Executed a receipt on Non-Judicial Stamp
3.28-06-201054,200-00State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
4.20-08-201025,000-00State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
5.23-08-201025,000-00State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
6.03-03-20111,05,000-00Two Promissory notes, Dt: 06-03-2008
7.15-07-201150,000-00Promissory note, Dt: 20-07-2009
8.10-05-201250,000-00Receipt TOTAL 13,09,200-00
(ii)The Plaintiff further submits that as on 10-05-2012, the
Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.13,09,200/- out of total consideration of
Rs.14,00,000/- and she paid the substantial amount to the Defendant.
She approached the Defendant and requested him many times to execute the registered sale deed in her favour as she was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to the Defendant, but he used to postpone to execute the registered sale deed on one pretext or other and the Defendant dodged to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff further submits that due to the close relationship between the Plaintiff and
Page 5 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Defendant, she could not insist the Defendant to execute regular registered sale deed. On 26-03-2014, the Defendant addressed a letter to the Plaintiff intimating her, he would initiate civil and criminal action against her.
The Plaintiff further submits that having gone through the contents of letter, Dt: 26-03-2014, the Plaintiff surprised and immediately, she approached the Defendant no.1 along with elders, requested the Defendant by receiving the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in her favour and also requested the Defendant, in order to avoid unwanted litigation requested him to execute the registered sale deed, but the Defendant refused to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed. The Plaintiff submits that as a last resort she got issued legal notice on 17-11-2014 though her council calling upon the Defendant to execute the registered sale deed within a week days of receipt of legal notice and she is ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration and the said legal notice served on the Defendant on 18-11-2014, however, the Defendant did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and the Defendant also did not give any reply notice to the legal notice of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that recently she came to know that the Defendant is seriously making efforts to sell away the suit schedule property in favor of third parties, therefore the present suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the
Page 6 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Defendant and the Defendant is liable to answer.
(iii)The Plaintiff submits that she is having sufficient means to pay the remaining sale consideration and she is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract and the Plaintiff is always ready to pay the remaining sale consideration and also ready to bear the necessary stamp duty and registration expenditure. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant intentionally ignoring the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant and he is avoiding to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submits that he sustained huge loss as the
Defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed and she is also entitled to claim damages from the Defendant to a tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% P.A from the date of agreement of sale apart from seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement of Sale against the
Defendant. Hence, the suit.
3.Defendant no.1 filed Written Statement and the same was adopted by the Defendant no.2 by filing adoption memo. It is contending that the above suit as framed and filed by the Plaintiff is neither maintainable in law, nor on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed in Limini.
Page 7 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
a. The Defendant do hereby denied all the allegations and averments of the above suit under reply, except those that are specifically admitted herein. Hence the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of those denied allegations.
b. That in reply to averments of Para Nos.1 & 2 of the plaint under reply, which are description particulars of the parties of the plaint, which are formal, hence needs no reply.
c. That in reply to averments of Para No. 3 of the plaint under reply, it is true that the Defendant is the maternal uncle of the husband of the plaintiff and the Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Agriculture land admeasuring Ac.6-38 guntas of survey
Nos. 250, 253 & 234, situated at Nakrekal Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District and the Defendant approached the Plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit property and after negotiations sale consideration is fixed at Rs. 14,00,000/-, but it is false and incorrect that, accordingly the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration, and after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- the Defendant executed an agreement of sale in favor of the Plaintiff and the Defendant also handed over the original Pattadar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff on 03-12-2009, and the Plaintiff submits that according to the terms of agreement of sale, dated 03- 12-2009 the Plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 31- 03-2011 and the remaining entire sale consideration amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- on or before 15-04-2011, the Plaintiff submits that on 16- 01-2010 the Plaintiff paid an amount or Rs. 7,00,000/- to the
Page 8 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Defendant and after receiving the part sale consideration amount the
Defendant executed receipt in favor of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant mortgaged the suit schedule property
before State Bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch vide loan account
No. 52203683660 and obtained loan. The Plaintiff submits that the
Defendant requested the Plaintiff in order to execute the registered sale deed he has to repay the loan amount before the State Bank of
Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch, as such the Defendant requested the
Plaintiff to pay the loan amount to the bank on his behalf out of sale consideration amount of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff submits that considering request of the Defendant the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 54,200/- on 28-06-2010 Rs. 25,000/- on 20-08-2010 and Rs. 25,000/- on 23-08-2010 before the State Bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch in discharge of loan of amount obtained by the Defendant and the Plaintiff in token of receipt payment made by her obtained the original challan from the State
Bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch. The Plaintiff submits that the
Defendant obtained loan from the father-in-law of the Plaintiff by name Pati Linga Reddy executing 3 promissory notes, Dt:06-03-2008 and 20-07-2009 and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to settle the said loan amount with her Father-in-law and pay the amount to him and adjust the said amount paid to Pati Linga Reddy as part sale consideration of the agreement of sale Dt. 03-12-2009. The Plaintiff submits that considering the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of Rs.1,55,000/- on 03-03-2011 and 15-07-2011 to the father-in-law of the plaintiff in two installments and her father-in-law returned the promissory notes executed by the
Page 9 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
defendant in his favour to the plaintiff, the plaintiff again on 10-05-2012 paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards part of sale consideration to the defendant and after receiving the said amount of
Rs.50,000/- the Defendant executed a receipt in favor of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff paid following amounts on different dates i.e. total paid of Rs. 13,09,200/-, hence denied, in fact the plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and while receiving the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- only the Defendant herein had executed the Agreement of Sale on 03-12-2009. Later the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, totally the plaintiff paid the sum of
Rs.9,00,000/- to the defendant. The Defendant further submit that, he never mortgaged the suit schedule property and never obtained any loan either from the plaintiff's father in law Pati Linga Reddy or from any body, and the defendant never executed any promissory notes and the promissory notes which alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff are created and fabricated, and the amounts mentioned in the table in this para and the total amount of Rs. 13,09,200/- is false and incorrect, hence denied.
d. That in reply to averments of Para No.4 of the plaint under reply, it is false and incorrect that, as on 10-05-2012 the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 13,09,200/- out of total consideration of Rs.
14,00,000/- and she paid the substantial amount to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff approached the Defendant and requested him many a times to execute the registered sale deed in her favor as she was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to the
Defendant but the Defendant used to postpone to execute the registered sale deed on one pretext or other and the Defendant
Page 10 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
dodged to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff and due to the close relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant she could not insist the Defendant to execute regular registered sale deed and on 26-03- 2014 the Defendant addressed a letter to the Plaintiff intimating her he would initiate civil and criminal action against her and having gone through the contents of letter Dated 26-03-2014 the Plaintiff surprised and immediately she approached the Defendant along with elders requested the Defendant by receiving the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in her favor and also requested the Defendant, in order to avoid unwanted litigation requested him to execute the registered sale deed but the Defendant refused to receive and on 18-11-2014 but the Defendant did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and the Defendant also did not give any reply notice to the legal notice of the Plaintiff, and the plaintiff submits that recently she came to know that the
Defendant is seriously making efforts to sell away the suit schedule property in favor of third parties, therefore the present suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the
Defendant and the Defendant is liable to answer, hence denied, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
e. That in reply to averments of Para No.5 of the plaint under reply, it is false and incorrect that, the Plaintiff is having sufficient means to pay the remaining sale consideration and she is always ready and willing to perform" her part of contract and the Plaintiff is always ready to pay the remaining sale consideration and also ready to bear the necessary stamp duty and registration expenditure, and the
Page 11 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Defendant intentionally ignoring the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant and he is avoiding to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff and he sustained huge loss as the Defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed and she is also entitled to claim damages from the Defendant to a tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% P.A from the date of agreement of sale apart from seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement of
Sale against the Defendant and the Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit and the Defendant is liable to answer, hence denied, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. In fact, the defendant number of times requested and demanded the plaintiff to come forward to get registration of the said property to her by paying the remaining sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, but the plaintiff did not come forward for the same.
f.That in reply Para No. 6 Cause of action Para of the plaint under reply, there is no cause of action is arose for filing the present suit, and the alleged dates i.e. 16-01-2010, 28-06-2010, 20-08-2010, 23- 08-2010, 03-03-2011, 15-07-2011, 10-05-2012 and 17-11-2014 mentioned in this para are on Imaginary only to create a Cause of
Action for filing the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of Cause of action.
g. That in reply to Para Nos. 7 to 9 of the plaint under reply, i.e.
columns of court fee, jurisdiction and limitation paras of the plaint under reply, which are formal paras, hence needs no reply.
h. It is submitted that, the plaintiff and defendant are close relatives, as the Defendant is the maternal uncle of the husband of the plaintiff
Page 12 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
and the Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property i.e.
Agriculture land admeasuring Ac.6-38 guntas of survey Nos. 250, 253 & 234, situated at Nakrekal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda
District and the Defendant approached the Plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit schedule property and the Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations sale consideration is fixed at Rs. 14,00,000/-, and the plaintiff paid the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant as advance sale consideration and after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- the
Defendant on 03-12-2009 had executed an agreement of sale in favor of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant handed over the original Pattadar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff, but the husband of the plaintiff taken away the original patta pass book from the mother of the plan and the Defendant herein is having original
Title deed with him, but he deposited the same in bank while taking loan. In fact, the defendant number of times requested and demanded the plaintiff to come forward to get registration of the said property to her by paying the remaining sale consideration of
Rs.6,00,000/-, but the plaintiff did not come forward for the same.
i.The defendant further submit that, so many times, the defendant stated with the plaintiff that, due to non coming forward by the plaintiff for getting registration, by paying the balance sale consideration, the said sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant will be stands cancelled, and whatever amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant will be forfeited, even after that also the plaintiff did not come forward. The Defendant waited within the stipulated period as agreed in the said agreement of sale, after the
Page 13 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
said stipulated period of agreement of sale also the defendant waited sufficient time for registration, but the plaintiff failed to get registration by paying the balance sale consideration, due to which having left with no other alternate remedy the defendant gifted the suit schedule property to his daughter namely Baby Chappidi Kavya
Chandana, and executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed document bearing No.4136 of 2013, dated 21-6-2013, the same was also informed to the plaintiff, but the same was suppressed by the plaintiff in this suit.
j.It is submitted that, basing on the said Agreement of Sale instead of getting registration of sale deed by paying the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully occupied the said property, and the suit schedule property is in illegal possession of the plaintiff, and unless and until a registered sale deed is not executed the possession of plaintiff will be treated as illegal possession.
k. That under the above stated facts and circumstances the suit under reply is neither maintainable in law, nor on facts, and the same is liable to be dismissed, as otherwise the Defendant shall suffer heavy and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by any means, since the plaintiff filed the present suit, by suppressing and creating all the material facts, and due to the false averments of legal notice of plaintiff only the defendant did not gave any reply. Hence, prayed to dismiss the above Suit under reply, with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
Page 14 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
4.On the basis of rival pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by my learned predecessor on 20-01-2020 :
1. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract?
2. Whether the plaintiff is aware of the execution of registered gift deed No.4136 of 2013, dated 21.06.2013 by the defendant No.1 in favour of his daughter Baby
Chappidi Kavya Chandana i.e., defendant No.2?
3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
property as on the date of filing of the suit?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 03.12.2009 in respect of the suit property against the defendants?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternate relief of damages of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per
annum from the date of agreement of sale?
6. Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
7. To what relief?
5.On 19-03-2021, the learned Counsel for defendants filed
additional written statement in which the following submissions are
made:-
Page 15 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
I. That the above suit as framed and filed by the Plaintiff is neither maintainable in law, nor on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed in Limini.
II. The Defendant do hereby denied all the allegations and averments of the above suit under reply, except those that are specifically admitted herein. Hence the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of those denied allegations.
III. That in reply to averments of Para No.3 of the plaint under reply, it is true that the Defendant is the maternal uncle of the husband of the plaintiff and the Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Agriculture land admeasuring Ac.6-38 Guntas of survey Nos.
250, 253 and & 234, situated at Nomula village of Nakrekal Mandal,
Nalgonda District and the Defendant approached the plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit schedule and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations sale consideration is fixed at Rs.14,00,000/-, but it is false and incorrect that, accordingly the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- the Defendant executed an agreement of sale in favor of the plaintiff and the Defendant also handed over the original Pattadar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the plaintiff on 03-12-2009, and the Plaintiff submits that according to the terms and agreement of sale of
Rs.6,00,000/- on 31-03-2011 and remaining entire sale consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15-04-2011. The
Plaintiff submits that on 16-01-2010 the plaintiff paid an amount or
Rs.7,00,000/- to the Defendant and after receiving the part sell
Page 16 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
consideration amount the Defendant executed receipt in favor of the plaintiff, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant mortgaged the suit schedule property before State bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch
Vide loan account No.52203683660 and obtained loan. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant requested the loan amount before the
State Bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch, as such the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the loan amount to the bank on his behalf out of sale consideration amount of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff submits that considering request of the defendant the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 54,2000/- on 28-06-2010 Rs.25,000/- on the 20-08-2010 and Rs. 25,000/- on 23-08-2010 before the State Bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch is discharge of loan of amount obtained by the Defendant and the
Plaintiff in token of receipt payment made by her obtained the original challan from the State Bank of Hyderabad Nakrekal Branch.
The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant obtained loan from the father-in-law of the plaintiff by name Pati Linga Reddy executing 3
Promissory notes Dt: 06-03-2008 and 20-07-2009, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to settle the said loan amount with her father-in-law and pay the amount to him and adjust the said amount paid to Pati Linga Reddy as part sale consideration of the agreement of the sale Dt:03-12-2009. The
Plaintiff submits that considering the request of the Defendant, the
Plaintiff paid the total amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- on 03-03-2011 and 15-07-2011 to the father-in-law of Plaintiff in two installments and her father-in-law returned the promissory notes executed by the defendant in his favor to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff again on 10-05-
Page 17 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
2012 paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-, the Defendant executed a receipt in favor of Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff paid following amounts on different dates i.e. total paid Rs.
13,09,200/- hence denied, in fact the plaintiff paid only a sum of 2,00,000/- and while receiving the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/-only the Defendant herein had executed agreement of sale on 03-12-2009.
Later the Plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, totally the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-to the Defendant. The Defendant further submit that, he never mortgaged the suit schedule property never obtained any loan either from the Plaintiff's father-in-law Pati
Linga Reddy or from any body, and the defendant never executed any promissory notes and the promissory notes which alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff are created and fabricated, and the amount mentioned in the table in this Para and the total amount of Rs. 13,09,200/- is false and incorrect, hence denied.
IV. That in reply to averments of Para No.4 of the plaint under reply, it is false and incorrect that, as on 15-05-2012 the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 13,09,200/- out of total consideration of
Rs.14,00,000/- and she paid the and the Plaintiff approached the substantial amount to the Defendant Defendant and requested him many a times to execute the registered sale deed in her favor as she was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to the
Defendant but the Defendant used to postpone to execute the registered sale deed on one pretext or other and the Defendant dodged to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the
Page 18 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff and due to the close relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant she could not insist the Defendant to execute regular registered sale deed and on 26-03- 2014 the Defendant addressed a letter to the Plaintiff intimating her he would initiate civil and criminal action against her and having gone through the contents of letter Dated 26-03-2014 the Plaintiff surprised and immediately she approached the Defendant along with elders requested to Defendant by receiving the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in her favor and also requested the Defendant, in order to avoid unwanted litigation requested him to execute the registered sale deed but the Defendant refused to receive and on 18-11-2014 but the Defendant did not come forward to execute the registered sales deed and Defendant also did not give any reply notice to the legal notice of the Plaintiff, and the plaintiff submits that recently she came to know that the
Defendant is seriously making efforts to sell away the suit schedule property in favor of third parties, therefore the present suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the
Defendant and the Defendant is liable to answer, hence denied, the plaintiff is pit to strict proof of the same.
V. That in replay to averments of Para No.5 of the Plaint under replay, it is false and incorrect that, the Plaintiff is having sufficient means to pay remaining sale consideration and she is always ready and willing to perform" her part of contract and the Plaintiff is always ready to bear the necessary stamp duty and registration expenditure, and the
Defendant intentionally ignoring the agreements between the Plaintiff
Page 19 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
and Defendant and he is avoiding to execute the registered sale and deed in favor of the Plaintiff and he sustained huge loss as the
Defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed and she is also entitled to claim damages from the Defendant to a tune of Rs.
14,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% P.A from the date of agreement of sale apart from seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the Defendant and the
Plaintiff is entitled to file the suit and the Defendant is liable to answer, hence denied, the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
In fact, the defendant number of times requested and demanded the plaintiff to come forward to get registration of the said property to her by paying the remaining consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, but the plaintiff did not come forward of the same.
VI. That in replay Para No.6 Cause of action Para of the plaint under replay, there is no cause of actions is arose for filing the present suit and the alleged dates i.e. 16-01-2010. 28-08-2010, 23-08-2010, 03- 03-2011, 15-07-2011, 10-05,2012, and 17-11-2014 mentioned in this Para are on Imaginary only to create Cause of action for filing the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of Cause of action.
VII. It is submitted that, the plaintiff and defendant and defendant are close relatives, as the Defendant is the maternal uncle of the husband of the plaintiff and the Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Agriculture land admeasuring Ac. 6-38
Page 20 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Guntas of survey Nos.250, 253 & 234, situated at Nomula village of
Nakrekal Mandal Nalgonda District and the defendant approached the plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit schedule property and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations sale consideration is fixed at Rs.14,00,000/-, and the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant as advance sale consideration and after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- the Defendant on 03-12-2009 had executed an agreement of sale in favor of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant handed over the original Pattar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff, but the husband of the plaintiff taken away the original patta pass book from the mother of the defendant, and the
Defendant herein is having original Title deed with him, but he deposited the same in bank while taking loan. In fact, the defendant number of times requested and dernanded the plaintiff to come forward to get registration of the said property to her by paying the remaining sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, but the Plaintiff did not come forward for the same.
VIII. The defendant further submit that so many times the defendant stated with the plaintiff that, due to non coming forward by the plaintiff for getting registration, by paying the balance sale consideration, the said sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant will be stands cancelled, and whatever amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant will be forfeited. Even after that also the plaintiff did not come forward. The defendant waited within the stipulated period as agreed in the said agreement of sale, after the
Page 21 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
said stipulated period of agreement of sale also the defendant waited sufficient time for registration,but the plaintiff failed to get registration by paying the balance sale consideration, due to which having left with no other alternate remedy the defendant gifted the suit schedule property to his daughter namely Baby Chappidi Kavya
Chandana and executed a registered Gift settlement Deed document bearing No.4136 of 2013 dated 21-06-2913, the same was also informed to the plaintiff, but the same was suppressed by the plaintiff is the suit.
IX. It is submitted that, basing on the said Agreement on the said
Agreement of sale instead of getting registration of sale deed by passing the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully occupied the said property, and the suit schedule property is in illegal possession of the plaintiff, and unless and until a registered sale deed is not executed the possession of plaintiff will be treated as illegal possession.
X. That under the stated facts and circumstances the suit under replay is neither maintainable in law, nor on facts, and the same is liable to be dismissed, as otherwise the Defendant shall suffer heavy and irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated by any means, since the plaintiff filed the present suit, by suppressing and creating all the material facts, and due to the false averments of legal notice of plaintiff only the defendant did not gave any reply. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the above Suit under reply, with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
Page 22 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
6.During the course of trial before this Court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 apart from examining her husband Pati Venkat
Reddy as PW.2, one Singireddy Somireddy as PW.3, one Pati Yadagiri
Reddy as PW.4, one Ponugoti Sreenivas Rao as PW.5 and one Singireddy
Venkat Reddy as PW.6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A18. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.1 himself examined as DW.1, defendant No.2, who is the daughter of D-1, herself examined as DW.2, and the wife of D-1 i.e., Chappidi Pushpa as DW.3 and one B.S. Jayaraj as
DW.4 and got marked Ex.B.1.
7.Heard both sides and perused the record. Both side Counsels filed memos along with Citations.
8.The learned Counsel for plaintiff filed memo along with the following Citations:- i. 2010 (6) ALT 596 (S.B.) reported in B. BHASKAR REDDY V.
BOMMIREDDY PATTABHI RAMI REDDY (DIED) AND OTHERS.
ii. 2009 (2) ALT 143 (S.B.) reported in Attirala Chinnamma and another v. Gummadi Ravindraiah.
iii. 2004 (6) ALT 217 (S.B.) reported in SARDAR DARSHAN SINGH V.
SARDAR RAM SINGH AND ANOTHER.
Page 23 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
9.The learned Counsel for defendants filed Citation in 2024
LawSuit(SC) 580.
ISSUES NO.1 to 6 :-
Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to 1. perform her part of contract?
Whether the plaintiff is aware of the execution of 2. registered gift deed No.4136 of 2013, dated 21.06.2013 by the defendant No.1 in favour of his daughter Baby
Chappidi Kavya Chandana i.e., defendant No.2?
Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit 3. property as on the date of filing of the suit?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific 4. performance of agreement of sale, dated 03.12.2009 in respect of the suit property against the defendants?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternate 5. relief of damages of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of agreement of sale?
Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
6.
10.The facts involved in answering the above issues are one and the same and to avoid repetition of facts and evidence on record the above issues are answered together. In lieu of the rival contentions, the plaintiff filed the above suit seeking Specific Performance of agreement of sale,
Page 24 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
03.12.2009 i.e., Ex.A17 by directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of
Rs.49,45,500/- by conveying the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that she is entitled for the said relief.
Since the plaintiff filed present suit seeking the above said relief, the plaintiff has to stand or fall on the evidence let in by her and she cannot take the advantage of the weaknesses of the defendant's case if any.
11.In discharge of the said burden cast on her the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and filed her chief examination affidavit with similar averments to that of averments made in the plaint. The PW-1 marked Exs.A1 to A18.
12.Ex.A1 is the Original Pattadar passbook of Chappidi Narayana
Reddy S/o. Sathaiah issued by MRO, Nakrekal, Ex.A2 is the Counter foil,
dated 28-06-2010, Ex.A3 is the Counter foil, dated 20-08-2010, Ex.A4 is
the Counter foil, dated 23-08-2010, Ex.A5 is the Passbook (SBH) Kisan
Star Card of Chappidi Narayana Reddy ATL A/C. No.62069636751, Ex.A6 is the Promissory note, dated 06-03-2008 executed by Ch. Narayana Reddy in favour of Linga Reddy, Ex.A7 is the Promissory note, dated 06-03-2008 executed by Ch. Narayana Reddy in favour of Linga Reddy, Ex.A8 is the
Page 25 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Promissory note, dated 20-07-2009 executed by Ch. Narayana Reddy in favour of Pati Linga Reddy, Ex.A9 is the Receipt, dated 10-05-2012 acknowledging the amount of Rs.50,000/- by Ch. Narayana Reddy, Ex.A10 is the Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 17-11-2014, Ex.A11 is the Original
Postal Receipt, Ex.A12 is the Original Postal Acknowledgment Card,
Ex.A13 is the Attested copy of pahani for the year 2012 & 13 (2 pages),
Ex.A14 is the Attested copy of pahani for the year 2013 & 14 (2 pages),
Ex.A15 is the Attested copy of pahani for the year 2014 & 15 (2 pages),
Ex.A16 is the Pahani obtained through Meeseva for the year Fasli 1426,
dated 28-04-2017 (4 in number), Ex.A17 is the Original Agreement of Sale,
Dt. 03.12.2009 and Ex.A18 is the Original Receipt, Dt. 16.01.2010.
13.PW-1 was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Sri. K. Ranjith Kumar:-
During cross examination she deposed that, I studied up to 10 th class.
I cannot read and write English. I do Agriculture. I have Ac. 6.38 gts agricultural land and the said land is not on my name. The said land is taken on lease for cultivation. The said land is situated at Nomula village.
I do not know the Survey Numbers of the lands taken on lease. The case is filed on the Survey Nos. 234, 250 and 253. My husband does Agriculture.
Page 26 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
I know the contents of the Written Statement filed by the defendant. Ex.A9 is drafted by my husband. It is true that after obtaining the signature on Ex.A9 the said content was written by my husband. One Mr.Pati Linga Reddy is my father-in-law. We entered in to an agreement for Ac.6.38 gts. Ex.A17 was drafted by one Ponaganti Srinivas Rao and he is none other than my brother.
As per Ex.A17 entered into an agreement for Ac.6.38 gts. I do not know the contents of Ex.A17. Witness adds that my husband by name Venkat Reddy know the contents of Ex.A17. The total said consideration is Rs.14,00,000/- and my husband knows for how many acres the said consideration is. In
Ex.A17 the witnesses are Singireddy Somi Reddy, Singireddy Dasharatha
Reddy, Pati Yadagiri Reddy and Chappidi Chandra Reddy. It is not true to suggest that Ex.A17 was drafted after obtaining the signature of the
Defendant no.1. The Defendant no.1 is the uncle of my husband. I know
Defendant no.1 since childhood through my parents. As per Ex.A17 we have paid Rs.3,00,000/- through cash. I do not know that upto Rs.25,000/- only given by way of cash and remaining amount to be paid through cheque.
I have bank account in SBH, Nakrekal. It is true that I earned through agriculture and the same credited into my bank.
Q1) As stated by you that your earnings are credited into your SBH, bank account, Nakrekal, can you submit the bank statement for the period of 2008-2012?
Page 27 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Ans: No, I cannot submit my bank statement.
I cannot say my yearly earnings. Witness adds that I am a housewife and my husband know about the earnings. I have paid Rs.13,09,200/-, once
I deposited Rs.1,04,000/- to the account of Defendant no.1 and paid in cash
Rs.1,05,000/- to the Defendant no.1 and I do not know whether any acknowledgment is obtained for the payment of Rs.1,05,000/- which paid to the defendant no.1 by way of case. Witness adds that my husband knows about that. For the remaining amount paid I have proofs and I will file before the Court. It is true that we have paid Rs.2,09,000/- to the defendant no.1.
My husband knows about the receipts for the payment of Rs.2,09,000/- paid to the defendant no.1. It is not true to suggest that as per the chief affidavit I have paid Rs.2,09,000/- to the defendant no.1 but not Rs.13,09,200/-.
Q2) You have not paid Rs.13,09,200/- to the defendant no.1, for which you have not submitted the receipts before the Court?
Ans: We have receipts for the payment of Rs. 13,09,200/- paid to the defendant no.1 and my husband knows about it.
After reading the contents of Ex.A17, witness said that there is no understanding that if the defendant cancel this agreement, the defendant will pay double the amount whatever the amount paid by the plaintiff. It is not
Page 28 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
true to suggest that as per Ex.A17 if you will not pay the total sale consideration on or before Dt.31.03.2010, the total advance payment will be forfeited. I do not know the particulars of the loan which was taken in the
SBH bank, Nakrekal. I have paid Rs.25,000/- once, again paid Rs.25,000/- and again paid Rs.54,000/- in the Bank. It is not true to suggest that
Defendant no.1 have given Rs.1,04,000/- to pay in the bank, accordingly the payment was paid in the bank but not paid by my personal means. We have not given any legal notice to defendant no.1 for registering the suit schedule land as he is my relative. Witness again changed her version and stated that the legal notice i.e., Ex.A10 is given to the defendant no.1 for registering the suit schedule land. I have the knowledge about the legal notice i.e., Ex.A10 sent to the defendant no.1. The legal notice i.e., Ex.A10 is sent to the defendant no.1 for registering the suit schedule land”.
PW-1 was further cross examined by the learned Counsel for
Defendants No.1 & 2, in which she stated as follows:-
I do not know whether we have given reply notice. It is true that after receiving a letter dated 26.03.2014 from D-1 after waiting for 7 months, we issued legal notice to D-1 on 17.11.2014. The said Letter, dt: 26/03/2014 is marked as Ex.B1. It is not true to suggest that I am not adjusted any
Page 29 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
amounts towards SBH, Nakrekal branch directing from my pocket it is paid by defendant no.1 only. I do not know whether any relation to this case and
Ex.A6 to Ex.A8, Ex.A6 to Ex.A8 are concerned to defendant no.1 and Pati
Linga Reddy who is the third party to this case. I do not know whether
I received any request letter from D-1 to me to adjust hand loan amount which was taken from Pati Linga Reddy. It is true that I do not know about the payment issues to this present case. It is not true to suggest that I have filed a false case against Defendant and defendant no.1 never made such request to I have to pay any such amount and I have not paid such amount that I am deliberately and falsely saying with collusion of Pati Linga Reddy taking the advantage of my father-in-law. It is true that there is no clause in
Ex.A17 that I can claim damages from Defendant no.1. I do not know that we have claimed Rs.14,00,000/- towards damages along with interest. It is true that I do not know the facts of this case. Hence, I am entitled for damages.
I do not know why defendant no.2 was added to this case. I do not know that defendant no.1 executed gift deed in favour of defendant no.2. It is not true to suggest that the documents which are filed by me are fabricated to entitle claim amount. It is not true to suggest that as balance sale consideration was not paid in time to the defendant, hence, I am not entitled for registration of suit land. I have not paid any separate court fee to claim damages. Hence, I am not entitled for any damages. It is not true to suggest
Page 30 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
that the documents which are filed by me, Managed and obtained by the
Revenue department which are filed in this case. It is not true to suggest that I wrongfully filed this case.
14.PW-2/Pati Venkat Reddy in his chief examination affidavit stated as follows:-
Defendant No.1 is his maternal uncle and the Defendant No.1 is the owner of the Agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 6-38 Gts out of Sy. Nos.
250, 253 and 234, situated at Nakrekal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda Dist.
The Defendant No.1 approached the Plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit schedule property and Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations, sale consideration is fixed at
Rs.14,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 and after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the Defendant No.1 executed an agreement of sale in favor of Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 also handed over the original Pattadar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff on 03-12-2009. He further stated that according to the terms of agreement of sale, Dt: 03-12-2009, Plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- on 31-03-2011 towards part sale consideration
Page 31 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
and the remaining entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before 15-04-2011. That on 16-01-2010, Plaintiff had paid an amount or
Rs. 7,00,000/-to the Defendant No.1 and after receiving the part sale consideration amount, the Defendant No.1 executed a receipt in favor of
Plaintiff. He further stated that the Defendant No.1 mortgaged the suit schedule property before State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal Branch vide loan account No. 52203683660 and obtained loan. The Defendant No.1 informed the Plaintiff in order to execute the registered sale deed, he has to repay the loan amount before the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
Branch, as such he requested the Plaintiff to pay the loan amount to the bank on his behalf out of sale consideration amount of the suit schedule property.
PW-2 further submitted that considering request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 54,200/- on 28-06-2010, Rs. 25,000/- on 20-08-2010 and Rs. 25,000/- on 23-08-2010 before the State Bank of
Hyderabad, Nakrekal Branch in discharge of loan of amount obtained by the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff in token of receipt payment made by her, obtained the original challan from the State Bank of Hyderabad,
Nakrekal Branch. The Defendant No.1 obtained loan from the father-in-law of the Plaintiff by name Pati Linga Reddy executing 3 promissory notes, Dt:
Page 32 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
06-03-2008 and 20-07-2009. The Defendant No.1 requested the Plaintiff to settle the said loan amount with her father-in-law and pay the amount to him and adjust the said amount paid to Pati Linga Reddy as part sale consideration of the agreement of sale, Dt: 03-12-2009. Considering the request of the Defendant no.1, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of
Rs.1,55,000/- on 03-03-2011 and 15-07-2011 to the father-in-law of the
Plaintiff in two installments and her father-in-law returned the original promissory notes executed by the Defendant in his favour to the Plaintiff.
PW-2 further submitted that again on 10-05-2012, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards part of sale consideration to the
Defendant No.1 and after receiving the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the Defendant No.1 executed a receipt in her favour. The Plaintiff paid the following amounts on different dates to the Defendant No.1 as shown in detail below:-
Sl. DATE AMOUNT DOCUMENTS No.
1.13-12-20093,00,000-00Executed an Agreement of Sale Deed
2.16-01-20107,00,000-00Executed a receipt on Non-Judicial Stamp
3.28-06-201054,200-00State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
4.20-08-201025,000-00State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
5.23-08-201025,000-00State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal
6.03-03-20111,05,000-00Two Promissory notes, Dt: 06-03-2008
7.15-07-201150,000-00Promissory note, Dt: 20-07-2009
Page 33 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
8.10-05-201250,000-00Receipt TOTAL 13,09,200-00
PW-2 further submitted that as on 10-05-2012, the Plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs. 13,09,200/- out of total consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/- and Plaintiff paid the substantial amount to the Defendant No.1. The
Plaintiff approached the Defendant No.1 and requested him many times to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to the Defendant
No.1, but the Defendant No.1 used to postpone to execute the registered sale deed on one pretext or other and the Defendant No.1 dodged to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff.
PW-2 further submitted that due to the close relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff could not insist the
Defendant No.1 to execute regular registered sale deed. On 26-03-2014, the
Defendant No.1 addressed a letter to the Plaintiff intimating the Plaintiff that he would initiate civil and criminal action against the Plaintiff. Having gone through the contents of letter, Dt: 26-03-2014, the Plaintiff surprised and immediately approached the Defendant No.1 along with elders
Page 34 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
requested the Defendant No.1 by receiving the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff and also requested the Defendant No.1, in order to avoid unwanted litigation, requested him to execute the registered sale deed, but the Defendant No.1 refused to receive the remaining sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed. PW-2 further submitted that as a last resort, the
Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 17-11-2014 though her Counsel calling upon the Defendant No.1 to execute the registered sale deed within a week days of receipt of legal notice and the Plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration and the said legal notice served on the
Defendant No.1 on 18-11-2014, but the Defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and the Defendant No.1 also did not give any reply notice to the Plaintiff's legal notice. Therefore, the
Plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the Defendant No.1.
PW-2 further submitted that the Plaintiff is having sufficient means to pay the remaining sale consideration and the Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform Plaintiff part of contract and she is always ready to pay the remaining sale consideration and also ready to bear the necessary stamp duty and registration expenditure, the Defendant No.1 intentionally
Page 35 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
ignoring the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and he is avoiding to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff sustained huge loss as the Defendant No.1 failed to execute the registered sale deed and she is also entitled to claim damages from the
Defendant No.1 to a tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% P.A from the date of agreement of sale apart from seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement of Sale against the Defendant No.1
15.PW-2 was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Sri. K. Ranjith Kumar:-
During cross examination she deposed that,I purchased suit schedule property and registered it. Myself and my wife filed this case.
It is true my name is not mentioned in the plaint. It is true I did not file this case. It is true as per the Court record, the case is filed by my wife.
It is true I am no way related with this case as this case was filed by my wife. It is true in my chief affidavit attestation is done by my Advocate and the chief affidavit is prepared by my Advocate. The chief affidavit is prepared by my Counsel on my instructions. I studied up to 10th class.
I do not know the contents of the plaint and written statement. It is true as stated in my chief affidavit, I do agriculture and I get income from my
Page 36 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
agriculture work. I am not an income tax assessee.
Q:Is your wife having any agricultural land on her name?
Ans: Yes, she got agricultural land on her name. She possesses Ac.4-00 gts of land, situated at Kadaparthy village.
It is true my wife is house wife. It is true one Mr. Pati Linga Reddy is my father, who is 70 years old. Presently, he is not doing any work and there is no agricultural land on his name. I know the contents of Ex.A17.
Q:You are not a party to the Ex.A17?
Ans: No, I am not a party to the Ex.A17.
Q:You are not even a witness in Ex.A17?
Ans: Yes, I am not a witness in Ex.A17.
Ex.A17 was prepared by one Ponugoti Srinivasa Rao and he is not a relative to me. Witness adds that he is a brother by courtesy to my wife.
Q:Are your wife and you are there at the time of preparation of
Ex.A17?
Ans: Yes.
It is true, as per the Agreement i.e., Ex.A17, the total sale consideration is Rs.14,00,000/-. As per Ex.A17, one Singireddy
Page 37 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Somireddy, Pati Yadagiri Reddy, Singireddy Dasharatha Reddy and Sappidi
Ramachandra Reddy are the attesting witnesses to the Ex.A17 and all the witnesses signed before me. One Mr. Pati Yadagiri Reddy is my brother as witness in the Ex.A17. Defendant No.1 is my paternal uncle, who is having two female. I was having good relation with him. The elder daughter of D1 pursuing B.Tech., and the younger daughter was in school in the year 2009.
Q:Do you have personal knowledge about the Ex.A17 lands is an ancestral property of your maternal uncle i.e., D1 and not his self acquired property?
Ans: Yes, I have personal knowledge about Ex.A17 suit schedule property is the ancestral property of D1.
It is true I take care of the financial aspects of my wife. It is true
I adjusted all the amounts which are paid by my wife to the defendant
No.1. At the time of agreement, I paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash not in a form of cheque. Those amounts are from the agricultural earns. It is true I take care of all the affairs of my wife.
Q:Have you received possession of the suit schedule property?
Ans: No, we have not received till date.
Page 38 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
It is true the suit schedule property is in the custody of defendant
No.1. One Pati Krishna Reddy is my brother.
Q: Who is the east side of the suit schedule property?
Ans: One Mr. Pati Krishna Reddy is the east side of the suit schedule property.
Defendant No.2 was impleaded as Defendant No.1 gifted the suit schedule property to her. I do not know the details of gifted property of defendant No.2. Ex.A17 i.e., Agreement of sale is not registered.
Q: Is your wife issued any letter to register suit schedule property as mentioned in Ex.A17?
Ans: No.
Witness adds that we have orally requested defendant No.1 to register. It is true defendant No.1 issued a letter to my wife refusing to register the suit schedule property, however the same was not filed before the Hon’ble Court.
Q:Your wife has not paid total sale consideration till 15.04.2011?
Ans: Yes, she has not paid.
Page 39 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
It is not true to suggest that we have not filed the Receipt for the payment before the Hon’ble Court. Defendant No.1 has taken crop loan in
SBH, Nakrekal Branch. I do not know how much loan he was obtained, but I paid an amount of Rs.54,200/- to the Bank.
Q:Have you received any letter from Defendant No.1 to adjust loan amount from SBH, Nakrekal Branch?
Ans: No letter was received from Defendant No.1 to adjust the loan amount.
He further deposed that I know regarding the loan after preparation of document of sale. My wife stated in her evidence that she has paid that amount to SBH, Nakrekal Branch. One Mr. Pati Yadagiri Reddy has deposited Rs.54,200/- into the SBH. It is not true to suggest that myself and my wife deposing false and the said amount is paid by Defendant No.1.
It is true to adjust the said amount, my wife did not receive any letter from
Defendant No.1 and the same may be adjusted in the Agreement. We have not received any receipt from Defendant No.1 whatever the amount adjusted to the Bank. My wife stated in her evidence that she obtained
Rs.13,09,200/- and the same was adjusted by me. I cannot file the statement of my account. It is true Ex.A8 is written by me and one Mr.
Srinivasa Rao signed on Ex.A8.
Page 40 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Q: Have your wife prepared any draft sale deed and sent to the defendant No.1 to show your readiness by paying balance sale consideration as well as registration charges?
Ans: No, my wife has not sent any draft sale deed to defendant No.1.
Witness adds that we have orally asked defendant No.1 to register the suit schedule land. It is true, my wife did not send any notice to defendant
No.1 to show the readiness for registration. It is not true to suggest that
Exs.A4 to A11 and A17 are created for the purpose of this case. It is not true to suggest that to benefit my wife, I am deposing false.
16.PW-3/Singireddy Somireddy filed his chief affidavit and stated as follows:-
He is the third party to the suit proceedings in the above case, but he knows the Plaintiff and Defendants to the above case. The Defendant No.1 offered to sell the suit schedule property and Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations, sale consideration is fixed at Rs. 14,00,000/-. PW-3 further submitted that accordingly the
Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 and after receiving the advance sale consideration of
Rs. 3,00,000/-, the Defendant No.1 executed an agreement of sale on 03-12-2009 in favor of Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 also handed over
Page 41 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
the original Pattadar passbook in respect of suit schedule property to the
Plaintiff on 03-12-2009. According to the terms of agreement of sale,
Dt: 03-12-2009, Plaintiff has to pay an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- on
31-03-2011 towards part sale consideration and the remaining entire sale consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before 15-04-2011.
PW-3 further submitted that himself and one Pati Yadagiri Reddy,
S.Dasharatha Reddy and Chappidi Chandra Reddy acted as attestors to the said agreement of sale and the agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009, scribed by one Ponugoti Srinivas Rao. The Defendant No.1 subscribed the signature in the agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009 in his presence and the entire transaction taken place in his presence and PW.3 can identify his signature and signatures of the other attestors and the signature of the
Defendant No.1 in the agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009.
17.PW-3 was cross examined by the learned Counsel for defendant
No.1 in which he stated as follows :-
I received summons from court to give evidence. I studied up to intermediate. I do not know the contents of my chief affidavit. I know about the agreement of sale i.e., Ex.A17. The Ex.A17 was purchased on
Page 42 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
03.12.2009. The PW.1 paid an amount Rs.3 lakhs to defendant. The suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Defendant no.1. I do not know about the particulars of the remaining payments. It is true four persons along with me subscribed the signatures on Ex.A17. One Ponugoti Srinivas
Rao scribed the Ex.A17. I did not signed on any other documents except
Ex.A17. I do not know plaintiff’s uncle/Pati Linga Reddy executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that plaintiff did not pay the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to defendant and the entire transaction is false. Witness is confronted with Ex.A7 and it bears my signature. It is not true to suggest that myself, PW.1 and PW.2, Pati Linga
Reddy filed false case against defendant. It is not true to suggest that Ex.A17 is a fabricated document. The boundaries of the suit schedule properties East
Pati Krishna Reddy, West Chappidi Pulla Reddy, Chappidi Linga Reddy and way. It is not true to suggest that the defendant is an employee and working in Hyderabad and in order to occupy the suit schedule property and filed false case. Defendant no.1 sold an extent of Ac.7 acres approximately. It is true that defendant no.1 executed gift settlement deed in favour of Defendant no.2. It is true that since 2009 PW.2 is cultivating the suit schedule property as the Defendant no.1 staying in Hyderabad. It is not true to suggest that in order to grab the suit schedule property present suit is filed.
Page 43 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
PW-3 was again cross-examined by the Counsel for the Defendant
No.1 Sri Ch.Ram Chander: - He deposed that, “My name is Singireddy
Somireddy. PW.1 is my relative. I do agriculture. At the time of entering into the agreement I was called and subsequently I went and on the date of agreement Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as advance. Thereafter, Rs.7,00,000/- was paid but I was not present on the date of paying the above said amount”.
18.PW-4/Pati Yadagiri Reddy, who is also third party to the suit proceedings in the above case stated in his chief examination affidavit as stated by the PW-3. PW-4 further submitted that himself and one
S.Dasharatha Reddy, Chappidi Chandra Reddy and one Singireddy Somi
Reddy acted as attestors to the said agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009 and the said agreement of sale was scribed by one Ponugoti Srinivas Rao. The
Defendant No.1 subscribed the signature in the agreement of sale, Dt. 03- 12-2009 in his presence and the entire transaction taken place in his presence and PW.4 can identify his signature and signatures of the other attestors and the signature of the Defendant No.1 in the agreement of sale,
Dt. 03-12-2009.
Page 44 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
19.During Cross examination, PW-4 deposed as follows:-
I studied upto 10 th class. I can not read English but I can write. PW.1 is my brother’s wife. It is true that in Kadaparthy village I and Pati Venkat
Reddy bet one Kollu Pulla Reddy who is my neighbour of my land in the year 2020. Witness adds that there is no relation to that case and to this case. It is true that a criminal case at Nakrekal PS was registered against me and
PW.2 and we went to judicial remand for 20 days. It is not true to suggest that I did file false cases. It is true that the suit schedule property belongs to ancestral property. PW.2 purchased the Rs.100/- bond paper at Nakrekal and it was scribed by one Srinivas Rao. The suit schedule property is in survey nos. 234, 215 and 234. The suit schedule property boundaries in the
East side Pati Krishna Reddy. It is true that Ex.A17 was scribed by four members. The D-1 have two daughters. I do not know D-1 daughter have 20 years at the time of Ex.A17. It is not true to suggest that Ex.A17 is forged and fabricated. I do not know who are cultivating the suit schedule land from 2009. I do not know D-1 wife lodged a complaint at Nakrekal PS against the
PW.1 and 2 before one month and PW.2 and his brother Pati Krishna Reddy lodged a complaint against D-1 and his wife Pushpa. I do not know whether the balance amount of the agreement of sale was paid or not. It is true that one Pati Linga Reddy gave amount to D-1 and executed promissory note. It is not true to suggest that Myself, PW.1 and 2 colluded each other and filed the
Page 45 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
false case to grab the suit schedule property. It is not true to suggest that we occupied the land of one Kollu Pulla Reddy as such we filed this case to occupy the suit schedule land from D-1.
20.PW-5/Ponugoti Sreenivas Rao, who is also third party to the suit proceedings in the above case stated in his chief examination affidavit as stated by the PW-4.
PW-5 further submitted that I have scribed the agreement of sale at the instructions of plaintiff and one S. Somi Reddy, Pati Yadagiri Reddy,
S.Dasharatha Reddy and Chappidi Chandra Reddy acted as attestors to the said agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009. The Defendant No.1 subscribed the signature in the agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009 in his presence and the entire transaction taken place in his presence and PW.5 can identify his signature and signatures of the other attestors and the signature of the Defendant No.1 in the agreement of sale, Dt. 03-12-2009.
21.During Cross examination, PW-5 stated as follows:-
I studied up to Intermediate. I stay at Nakrekal. I do Agriculture. I can read English but I can not talk. I know the contents of my chief affidavit. I scribed the Ex.A17 on 03.12.2009. Generally I worked as scriber. I do not possess any license as scriber. I scribed Ex.A17 with blue pen and it contains
Page 46 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
my signature. The documents purchased by PW.1. I do not know the details from where the NJS were purchased. There are four witnesses on Ex.A17 namely Somi Reddy, Dasharadha Reddy, Pati Yadagiri Reddy and Chappidi
Chandra Reddy. I do not know about the suit schedule property. The boundaries of suit schedule property, East is Krishna Reddy and South is
Chappidi Chandra Reddy in Survey No.234, 250 and 253. It is not true to suggest that the property grabbed by the PW.1 along with PW.2 and 3. On that day around 11.00 hours PW.1 gave an amount of Rs.3 lakhs and the denomination of Rs.1000/- notes. It is not true to suggest that Ex.A17 does not contain my signature. Witness adds that on Ex.A17 I mentioned as “Dasturi” but I did not sign. I do not know the balance amount of the sale consideration.
I did not scribe the Ex.A18. As I scribed Ex.A17, as such I came to give evidence on behalf of PW.1. I did not obtain the signatures of Defendant No.1’s wife and daughter. The suit schedule property is situated at Nomula village. It is not true to suggest that myself and PW.2 forged and fabricated Ex.A17. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false.
22.PW-5 was recalled for further cross-examination by allowing I.A.
Nos. 631/2025 & 632/2025. Further cross examination of PW-5 by the
Counsel for the Defendant No.2 Sri Ranjith Kumar is as follows:-
Page 47 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
I came to give evidence to the Court for the second time.
At Dilsukhnagar bus stop, PW.2/Pati Venkat Reddy who is the husband of
PW.1 asked DW.1 that as he is paying Rs. 50,000/-, he asked for the receipt, at that time DW.1 stated that he is having Xerox copy of Ration card of D-1 and his family members and the receipt is executed on the said Xerox copy of
Ration card. Witness is confronted with Ex A17 and it is not having my signature. Witness is confronted with Ex.A9 and he admitted the recitals on
Ex.A9 and also his signatures. Witness confronted with Additional chief examination affidavit and he stated that he got two signatures and he admitted that he signed two signatures in his additional chief affidavit. It is true that in my first chief affidavit I stated that I am the witness for Rs. 3 lakhs. It is true that I did not stated in my earlier chief examination about the
Rs. 50,000/- payment. Witness adds that It was not asked about Rs.
50,000/-in my first cross examination. Witness is confronted with Ex.A9 and he admitted that there is a difference in signature of D-1. It is true that there is no name of scriber in Ex.A9. Witness is confronted with Ex.A17 and he admitted that he knows the contents of the Ex.A17 with dates. The amount of
Rs. 50,000/- was received on 10.05.2012 1.e., Ex.A9.
Page 48 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
23.PW-6/Singi Reddy Venkat Reddy stated in his chief examination affidavit that he is the third party to the suit proceedings in the above case, but he knows the Plaintiff and Defendants to the above case. He further stated that the Defendant No.1 offered to sell the suit schedule property and Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations, the total sale consideration is fixed at Rs. 14,00,000/- to the suit schedule property. On 16-01-2010, the Plaintiff paid an amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- to the Defendant No.1 by way of cash towards second installment and after receipt of the said amount, the Defendant No.1 passed a receipt in token of receipt of part sale consideration amount in favour of the Plaintiff.
PW-6 further submitted that the entire transaction taken in his presence and the Defendant No.1 subscribed his signature in his presence and D-1’s wife by name Ch. Pushpa also subscribed her signature in the said receipt and along with him. One B.Suma Shekar also acted as attestors to the said receipt. PW-6 can identify his signature and signature of the other attestors and the signatures of the Defendant No.1 and his wife in the said receipt.
Page 49 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
24.PW-6 during cross examination stated as follows:-
I know about this suit. I do not know the contents of my chief examination affidavit. Again witness stated that I know the contents of my chief examination affidavit. I do Agriculture and I am resident of Hyderabad.
I have Ac.10.00 gts of land at Kadaparthy village. I did not receive summons from Court and I came to Court to give the evidence at the instance of PW.1.
I do not know about Ex.A17. I do not know where the suit schedule property located. I know about the total sale consideration of Rs. 14 lakhs. The bond paper purchased on 03.12.2009 and I signed on 16.01.2010. I signed different signatures in different papers. In the village we did not mention the scriber name. Before Ex.A17 they mentioned scriber name. There is no need to write second time i.e., Ex.A18 about the suit schedule property belongs to which area. The amount of Rs. 7 lakhs paid by me at Defendant’s house,
Hyderabad and the Denomination is Rs.500/- (old notes). The suit schedule land is Approximately Ac.7.00 gts, The boundaries of the said land South side Bata is Linga Reddy, West side Bata is Pulla Reddy and Linga Reddy,
East side Bata is Pati Krishna Reddy and North side Bata is Suramma in
Suryey nos. 234, 250 and 253. I do not know about the balance sale consideration. The suit schedule property is an ancestral property. I do not know about the D-1 daughter. It is not true to suggest that the suit schedule property in Ex.A18 could not sign and grabbed the property. I do not know
Page 50 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
about the Ex.A17 signature on D-1 wife. It is not true to suggest that D-1 wife’s sign is fabricated in Ex.A18. I do not have any idea about the comparison of the signatures in Ex.A17 and A18. I do not know about the
Promissory notes. It is not true to suggest that I colluded with PW.1 and 2 and filed this false case. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false.
25.After the closure of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 examined himself as DW-1 and filed his chief examination with similar averments that are made in the written statement filed by them. The DW-1 marked Ex.B1, which is the Letter, dated 26.03.2014.
26.DW-1 was cross examined by the Counsel for the Plaintiff Sri
T.Kiran Kumar :
I am a Retired Employee and retired from Higher Education
Department, Hyderabad in the year 2019. I worked as a Senior Grade Clerk.
I studied up to Graduation. I did not execute the Agreement of Sale i.e.,
Ex.A17 in favour of plaintiff. I have given lease of suit schedule property to the plaintiff for the period of 2 years and executed lease agreement in favour of the plaintiff in the month of December, 2009. The original of lease agreement with the plaintiff. I do not possess even xerox copy of the said
Page 51 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
lease agreement. I have given the suit schedule property to the defendant for the lease amount of Rs. 3 lakhs per annum. The plaintiff paid an amount of
Rs. 3 lakhs towards the lease amount for the year 2009 and thereafter the period of six months the plaintiff and myself extended the lease period for another two years and for the same the plaintiff further paid an amount of
Rs. 6 lakhs towards lease of the suit schedule property.
Thereafter the plaintiff did not pay the lease amount to me at any point of time. Witness adds that when I went to Nakrekal in the year 2012 the younger brother of husband of plaintiff by name Pati Krishna Reddy and another four others when I insisted for payment of lease amount as well as cancellation of lease as I am intended to give lease of the suit schedule property in favour of third parties but the above said persons threatened me and bet me indiscriminately. I have filed a report against them before the
Police Nakrakal but the Police did not initiate any action as the said day is the Deepawali Festival. Thereafter I did not do anything. As on today the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
I have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of D-2 in the year 2013 and executed a Registered Gift Settlement deed. As on the date of execution of Gift Settlement Deed in favour of D-2 I am not in possession of
Page 52 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
suit schedule property. It is true that as such I did not deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of D-2. Witness adds that plaintiff threatening me, as such I did not deliver the possession of the suit schedule property. As on the date of execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff there is a lemon garden in the suit schedule property and now the plaintiff is cultivating the suit schedule property and has been raising paddy crop.
I myself addressed a letter to the plaintiff demanding delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property in my favour and the plaintiff did not receive said notice and I do not remember when I sent the notice to the plaintiff. Witness adds that I sent notice to the MRO and also to the District
Collector. I do not remember whether I filed the said notices before the Court.
I did not file any suit against the plaintiff for recovery of the suit schedule property. I subscribe my signatures only after going through the contents written in Telugu language in any document. Witness is confronted the
Written Statement and witness denied his signatures in the written statement. Witness is confronted with his signatures containing
Vakalatnamas and he admitted that of his signatures. I filed my written statement in the above case. I did not mention in my written statement about the giving of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by way of lease and
Page 53 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
payment of lease amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and 6 lakhs to me by the plaintiff as stated above. I do not remember whether I mentioned in my written statement when I went to Nakrekal town Krishna Reddy and Four others attacked me and I filed a complaint against them in the Police Station,
Nakrekal. I also do not remember whether I mentioned in my written statement or not about the execution of lease deed by me in favour of plaintiff. I did not mention in my written statement as I did not execute the agreement of sale i.e., A17 in favour of the plaintiff. I know the contents of my chief examination affidavit. I also did not mention in my chief examination affidavit about the above contents.
It is true, I mentioned in my written statement as well as in my chief examination as I have sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and executed the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff under Ex.A17 and by receiving sale consideration amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. I did not sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff at any point of time. I also did not execute agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property under Ex.A17. Witness is confronted with Ex.A17 i.e., Original
Agreement of Sale and he denied the execution of Ex.A17 and that the signature appearing in Ex.A17 as executant is not my signature. Witness is confronted with Ex.A18 i.e., Original receipt and he denied his signature on
Page 54 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Ex.A18. Witness is confronted with Ex.A9 receipt and he denied his signature on Ex.A9. Ex,A9 family member card is belongs to me and my family members. One Pati Linga Reddy is the father in law of plaintiff. Witness is confronted Ex.A6 to A8 Original Promissory Notes and he denied his signatures on Ex.A6 to A8. My wife name is Ch. Pushpa. Ex.A12 acknowledgment did not bear the signature of my wife Ch. Pushpa. Ex.A1
Original Passbook in respect of suit schedule property belongs to me. Ex.A5
Original Kisan Card belongs to mine. I did not receive any legal notice under
Ex.A10 from the plaintiff”.
DW-1 was further cross-examined by the Counsel for the Plaintiff
Sri. T. Kiran Kumar, in which he deposed as follows :-
It is true that the address shown in Ex.A10 i.e., Legal notice is my residential address and I have been residing from the year 2004. It is true that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to me prior to filing this suit. I do not have idea whether I gave reply to the legal notice. Witness adds that he might have issued reply notice. It is not true to suggest that I executed agreement of sale under Ex.A17 to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and by receiving an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs towards advance sale consideration amount. It is not true to suggest that the signature herein in Ex.A17 is not my
Page 55 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
signature. It is not true to suggest that I have received an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and executed Ex A18 receipt and signature is not my signature. It is true that as my instructions the plaintiff paid the loan amount of Rs.54,200/- on 28.06.2010 and Rs. 25,000/- each on two occasions i.e., 20.08.2010 and 23.08.2010 before the State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakrekal Branch and filed original receipts before the Hon'ble Court. Witness adds that the said amounts has to be paid by the plaintiff to me towards lease amount and the said amounts were paid before the bank. It is true that I did not mention about the giving of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff towards lease and the plaintiff liable to pay lease amount to me in my written statement.
Witness adds that I have instructed my counsel about the giving of the lease to the plaintiff to mention in my written statement but I do not know whether he mentioned or not in my written statement.
DW-1 further deposed that it is not true to suggest that I have not executed three promissory notes under Ex. A6 to A8 in favour of father in law of the plaintiff by receiving loan amount from plaintiff and the plaintiff adjusted the said amount towards sale consideration of the suit schedule property. It is not true to suggest that I have also executed a receipt under
Ex.A9 by receiving part sale consideration amount. It is not true to suggest that the plaintiff totally paid a sale consideration amount of Rs. 13,09,200/-
Page 56 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
out of total sale consideration amount. It is not true to suggest that the plaintiff is liable to pay only an amount of Rs. 81,800/- towards remaining sale consideration. It is not true to suggest that the pleadings in my written statement and my evidence before the Court is contrary to one and another.
It is not true to suggest that I am liable to execute the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff as I have received major sale consideration amount and the plaintifi is liable to pay only a meager amount of remaining sale consideration amount as I have utilised the said sale consideration amount since long time. It is not true to suggest that
I am deposing false as I am evaded to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is true that I have not filed any suit against the plaintiff for recovery of possession of suit schedule property. The plaintiff is in the possession of suit schedule property from December, 2009. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false”.
27.DW.2/Chappidi Kavya Reddy, who is the daughter of DW-1 filed her chief examination affidavit and stated as follows:-
The Plaintiff has filed the above suit for specific performance not only on the basis of false allegation but also belatedly. Moreover, owing to
Page 57 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
breach of contract of sale i.e., suit agreement, her father had subsequently in the year 2013 executed and registered gift deed in her favor in respect of the suit schedule property vide Document No.4136/2013. It was categorically agreed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in the suit agreement, dated 3-12-2009 and the entire amount of sale consideration should be paid before 15-4-2011 and only than the plaintiff can obtain possession and sale deed.
DW-2 further stated that she was made a party to the above suit
as 2nd Defendant vide order of this Court in I.A. No. 366/2020, dated
22-2-2020. Her father i.e., 1st Defendant has filed his chief examination affidavit categorically denying the claim of the Plaintiff and also specifically stated that he had alienated the suit schedule property in her favor way back in 2013 under a registered gift deed. But the Plaintiff has neither amended the plaint nor made any averment against her nor made out any cause of action against her. The Plaintiff has also not relief against her nor sought cancellation of the Gift deed bearing document no.4136/2013.
On this ground alone, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
DW-2 further deposed that the Plaintiff is taking advantage of his own omission to perform her part of contract and seeking huge damages by
Page 58 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
falsely fastening the liability on Defendant. The Plaintiff is not clear as to against whom she is seeking the decree as she has neither pleaded nor proved nor sought joint and several liability against them. A perusal of the list of documents would clearly show that none of the documents prove fulfillment of the suit agreement of sale much less readiness and willingness on behalf of the Plaintiff. Thus, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed not only the ground of defective plaint, but also for lack of cause of action against her and also for approaching this Hon'ble Court belatedly and with unclean hands. In any case, the Defendant No.1 is no more the owner of the suit schedule property nor in possession of the same as the said gift deed bearing document No.4136/2013 was acted upon by her following its execution and registration and ever since then she is in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.
DW-2 further deposed that the suit claim is barred by limitation.
Moreover, the agreement of sale, dated 3-12-2009 is inadmissible and illegal. The agreement of sale is without consideration. The Plaintiff has deliberately set up irrelevant money transaction falsely alleging that her father had borrowed amount from father-in-law of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has set up a false plea of handing over of patta pass book. It is absolutely false that her father i.e., Defendant No.1 had borrowed money from the
Page 59 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
father-in-law of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble
Court with false allegation and failed to plead and prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the sale contract. To cover the long delay between the alleged date of agreement of sale and the date by which the
Plaintiff was liable to pay the entire sale consideration, the Plaintiff has set up false and fabricated narrative of alleged transaction between herself and the father-in-law of the Plaintiff.
DW-2 further deposed that the Plaintiff has neither paid the appropriate Court fee nor has she made out a cause of action against her for the prayer in the suit. The suit is also liable to be dismissed for deliberately suppressing the fact of gift deed. Therefore, she prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of Justice.
28.DW-2 was Cross-examined by the Counsel for the Plaintiff Sri T.
Kiran Kumar:-
The suit land is situated at Nomula village of Nakrekal mandal,
Nalgonda District. The suit schedule property is located in Sy. Nos. 234, 250 and 253 and the total land is Ac. 7.05 gts and I do not know each Sy.No extent of land. The boundaries of the suit schedule property is North Ch.
Page 60 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Linga Reddy and Suramma, South Donka, East Ch. Linga Reddy and
Chithaluri Padma and West Ch. Linga Reddy, Bakka Reddy and Pulla
Reddy. The Plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property since 2014 from the date of institution of this suit. I did not file any suit against the plaintiff for the relief of the recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It is not true to suggest that my father sold away the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for the sale consideration of Rs.14 lakhs.
Witness is confronted with Written Statement filed by her but she denied her signatures in the written statement, my father subscribed the signatures in the written statement. Witness is confronted with Ex.A17 and A18 Agreement of sale and receipt and she denied the signatures of her father. It is true that there is an averment in the written statement that my father approached the plaintiff and proposed to sell the suit schedule land and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property and after negotiations sale consideration is fixed at Rs. 14 lakhs. It is not true to suggest that there is a averment in the written statement but my father received an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards advance sale consideration amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and after receipt of advance sale consideration amount the defendant on 03.12.2009 executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that there is an averment in written statement that my father number of times requested and demanded the plaintiff to come forward to get
Page 61 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
registration of the said property to her by paying the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 6 lakhs but the plaintiff did not come forward for the same. I visited the suit schedule property when I was 15 years old. I visited the suit schedule property prior to the execution of Gift deed by my father. I do not know whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property as on the date I visited the suit schedule property. I was not issued
Pattadar Passbook and title deed in respect of suit schedule property. I do not know whether my name entered in the Revenue record as owner and possessor in the suit schedule property. I know the contents of my chief examination affidavit. It is true that in my chief examination affidavit it is mentioned that it was categorically agreed between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 in the suit agreement Dt. 03.12.2009 that the entire amount of sale consideration should be paid before 15.04.2011 and only then the plaintiff can obtain possession and sale deed. It is not true to suggest that the pleadings of my written statement and contents of my chief examination affidavit are not one and the same and that I did not plead the contents of my chief examination affidavit in my written statement and for the first time I am deposing before the Hon’ble Court. It is not true to suggest that the D-1 executed the registered Gift settlement deed in respect of suit schedule property in my favour during the subsistence of agreement of sale under
Ex.A17 as such it is not valid. It is not true to suggest that myself and my
Page 62 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
father liable to execute the register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is not true to suggest that my father received a sale consideration of Rs. 13,09,200/- from the plaintiff from 03.12.2009 to 10.05.2012 on different occasions and that he executed agreement of sale and receipts in favour of plaintiff. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing false to evade the registration of suit schedule property.
29.DW.3/Chappidi Pushpa, who is the wife of DW-1 and mother of
DW-2 reiterated the chief examination affidavit averments of DW-2 as it is in her chief examination affidavit.
30.DW-3 was cross examined by the counsel for plaintiff in which she stated as follows: -
The suit schedule properties are located at Nomula village of Nakrekal
Mandal. It is not true to suggest that my husband sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and my husband executed agreement of sale and issued receipts in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A2. It is not true to suggest that the original Pattadar Passbook under Ex.A3 is also handed over to the plaintiff by my husband. Witness adds that she is having original Pattadar Passbook. It is not true to suggest that my husband lent
Page 63 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
money under Ex.A8 to A10 and executed Promissory notes from father in law of the plaintiff and adjusted the said amount with the sale consideration amount payable by the plaintiff to my husband under Ex.A1. It is not true to suggest that the plaintiff paid loan amount to the bank under Ex.A4 to A6 and adjusted the said amount towards the sale consideration under Ex.A1.
It is not true to suggest that the Defendant also issued receipt under Ex.A11 in favour of plaintiff. It is true that the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Witness adds that the plaintiff is not allowing us to enter into the suit schedule property. It is true that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property from the year 2009 on wards. Witness adds that they have leased out the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff before 2009 itself. It is not true to suggest that the contents of my chief examination affidavit is false and I am deposing false.
31.DW-4/B.S.Jayaraj, who is the third party to the suit proceeding in the above case, stated in his chief examination affidavit that he knows defendants and plaintiff. The Plaintiff has filed the above suit for specific performance not only on the basis of false allegation but also belatedly.
Moreover, owing to breach of contract of sale ie., suit agreement, Defendant
No.1 had subsequently in the year 2013 executed and registered gift deed
Page 64 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
in Defendant No.2 favor in respect of the suit schedule property vide
Document No.4136/2013 in his presence. He is the family friend of the both the parties.
DW-4 further submitted that the Defendant No.1 was made a party to the above suit as 2nd Defendant vide order of this Hon'ble Court in I.A. No.
366/2020, dated 22-2-2020. The Defendant No.1 has filed his chief examination affidavit categorically denying the claim of the Plaintiff and also specifically stated that he had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of Defendant No.2 way back in 2013 under a registered gift deed.
But the Plaintiff has neither amended the plaint nor made any averment against Defendant No.2 nor made out any cause of action against
Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff has also not relief against the Defendant No.2 nor sought cancellation of the gift deed bearing document No.4136/2013.
On this ground alone, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
DW-4 further submitted that the Defendant No.1 was hard working person, believes the plaintiff to look suit schedule property, but the plaintiff intentionally trying to grab the suit schedule property, not only this defendants previously one Kollu Pulla Reddy property also grabbed by the plaintiff and Kollu Pulla Reddy filed the criminal case against the Plaintiff
Page 65 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
and her family members. In the month of November 2012, the Defendant
No.1 went his suit schedule property, at that time, the plaintiff husband and his henchmen threatened and beaten the Defendant No.1. They both approached the Nakrekal Police station and lodged complaint, but with the political and economic back ground of the plaintiff's, the Nakrekal Police had not register the crime.
DW-4 further submitted that the suit claim is barred by limitation.
Moreover, the agreement of sale, dated 3-12-2009 is inadmissible and illegal. The agreement of sale is without consideration. The Plaintiff has deliberately set up irrelevant money transaction falsely alleging that
Defendant No.1 had borrowed amount from father-in-law of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has set up a false plea of handing over of patta pass book. It is absolutely false that Defendant No.1 had borrowed money from the father- in-law of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble Court with false allegation. The Plaintiff has failed to plead and prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the sale contract. To cover the long delay between the alleged date of agreement of sale and the date by which the Plaintiff was liable to pay the entire sale consideration, the Plaintiff has set up false and fabricated narrative of alleged transaction between us and the father-in-law of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has neither paid the
Page 66 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
appropriate Court fee nor has she made out a cause of action against the defendants for the prayer in the suit. The suit is also liable to be dismissed for deliberately suppressing the fact of gift deed. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
32.DW-4 was cross-examined by the Counsel for the Plaintiff in which he stated as follows:-
I am working as Home-guard in Medical college. This suit is filed by
Pati Shantha against Narayana Reddy. I know defendants who are my family friends. I know plaintiff through DW-1. This Suit Schedule Property is situated at Nomula village. I can’t say the boundaries and the Survey
Number of the Suit Schedule Property. I have visited the Suit Schedule
Property many times. I’m not the witness to the Gift the deed document No.
4136/2013. It is not true to suggest that I’m not the witness to the Ex. A-6 and A-7. Witness adds that I have not signed on Ex. A-6 and 7. I have no idea about the Court Fee paid in this suit. It is not true to suggest that in the year 2009 defendant executed agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff for
Rs.14 lakhs as sale consideration. It is true DW-1 introduced plaintiff her husband and her father-in-law to me as such I’m deposing false. It is not true to suggest that as I residing in Hyderabad as such I do not know anything
Page 67 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
about the suit and to help DW-1, I am deposing false. Presently, PW-1 is in the possession of Suit Schedule Property. DW-1 has not filed any suit for recovery of Suit Schedule Property.
33.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale of an agricultural land to an extent of
Ac.6.38 Gts out of Sy.nos. 250, 253 and 234, situated at Nomula Village of
Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District in respect of the suit schedule property and for a consequential direction to the defendant to execute and register a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration, if any found payable by this Court, and in default for execution through process of Court. The plaintiff has also sought consequential protection of possession.
34.The case of the plaintiff, is that the defendant, who is none other than the maternal uncle of the plaintiff's husband, agreed to sell the suit schedule land to the plaintiff for valuable sale consideration of Rs.
14,00,000/-, and plaintiff accordingly paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as advance sale consideration and after receiving the advance sale consideration defendant executed an agreement of sale in her favour and handed over the original Pattadar Pass Book in respect of suit schedule
Page 68 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
property to the plaintiff on 03.12.2009. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that. acting upon the said agreement, plaintiff paid an amount of
Rs. 6,00,000/- on 31.12.2011 and the remaining entire sale consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 15.04.2011 again on 16.01.2010 plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the defendant and after receiving the part sale consideration defendant executed a receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the defendant mortgaged the suit schedule property before State Bank of Hyderabad. Nakrekal Branch vide loan account no. 52203683660 and obtained loan. The plaintiff stated that on the request made by the defendant in order to execute the registered sale deed also discharged certain loan liabilities of the defendant connected with the property; that the original land pattadar and connected title documents were handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff that possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plaintiff in part performance of the contract, and that, apart from the payments forming part of the sale transaction, even debts relating to the plaintiff's father-in- law were cleared at the request or for the benefit of the defendant side.
According to the plaintiff, aller deriving all these benefits and after allowing the plaintiff to remain in possession, the defendant began to evade execution of the sale deed and took false and mutually destructive pleas in order to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiff.
Page 69 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
35.The defendant contested the suit. However, the defense, as it emerges from the pleadings and evidence, is not consistent. At one stage the defendant denied the very agreement. At another stage, he took the stand that the balance sale consideration remained to be paid, thereby necessarily acknowledging the underlying sale transaction. Significantly, the signature of the defendant on the agreement of sale has not been denied. The defendant did not take steps to send the agreement to any handwriting or forensic expert. No convincing explanation has been offered by the defendant as to why, if the document were fabricated or not intended to be acted upon, he accepted payments even after the period mentioned in the agreement, delivered possession of the land, and parted with original title-related documents.
36.On the basis of the pleadings, the principal points that arise for consideration are whether the agreement of sale has been proved, whether the plaintiff has established her continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, whether the defendant committed breach, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the equitable and statutory relief of specific performance.
Page 70 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
37.The plaintiff entered the witness box and supported the plaint averments. The evidence of the plaintiff, on a careful reading, is cogent, natural and consistent with the ordinary course of human conduct, particularly having regard to the close family relationship between the parties. Transactions between near relations do not always proceed with the formal rigidity seen in commercial dealings among strangers. Very often, payments are made in stages, periods are extended by mutual understanding. possession is delivered in confidence, and obligations are adjusted through family debts and liabilities. The mere circumstance that the parties are relatives does not weaken the plaintiff's case on the contrary, on the facts here, it explains why the plaintiff acted in trust and continued to make payments and discharge liabilities at the request of the defendant. The Court cannot be oblivious to the social and familial context in which the transaction was entered into.
38.The execution of the agreement stands proved. The most damaging circumstance against the defendant is that he has not denied his signature on the agreement of sale. Once the signature on the document is admitted, the burden on the defendant becomes heavier if he wishes to contend that the document is sham, nominal, fabricated, or not intended
Page 71 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
to be acted upon. In the present case, the defendant has not discharged that burden. He did not seek expert opinion for comparison of signatures.
He did not produce any satisfactory evidence to probabilise misuse, coercion, blank signed papers, or fabrication. He did not place before the
Court any contemporaneous protest. complaint, legal notice, or other conduct showing that he ever repudiated the document at the earliest point of time. Where a defendant admits signature but fails to lead reliable evidence to dislodge the document, and where the plaintiff's evidence remains unshaken, the Court is justified in holding that the execution is proved. The current text of the Specific Relief Act requires enforcement of a contract subject to the Act's limitations, and the plaintiff's burden under
Section 16(c) is to show performance or continuous readiness and willingness; on these aspects. conduct and surrounding circumstances are decisive.
39.It is also highly significant that nothing useful was elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiff so as to discredit the core of her case.
The witness was not shaken on the execution of the agreement, on payment of substantial consideration, on acceptance of further amounts by the defendant even beyond the stipulated period, on discharge of defendant's liabilities, or on delivery of possession and title documents.
Page 72 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Cross-examination is the principal instrument available to the contesting party to expose falsehood or exaggeration. In the present case, the failure of the defendant to extract material contradictions or admissions from the plaintiff assumes considerable importance. When oral evidence remains intact in all material particulars and is also supported by probabilities arising from the conduct of the parties, the Court has no reason to reject it merely because the defendant has chosen to set up a bare denial.
40.The conduct of the defendant after the agreement completely undermines his defense. The evidence on record shows that the defendant accepted money even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with a plea that time was intended to be strictly of the essence and that the agreement lapsed automatically on expiry of the stipulated period. Under the law of contract, where a party accepts performance at a time other than that originally agreed, the consequences of delay are not to be mechanically invoked against the performing party. In suits for sale of immovable property, time is ordinarily not regarded as the essence unless the contract, its nature, and the attending circumstances clearly indicate otherwise; and, in any event, acceptance of payments beyond time is a strong circumstance
Page 73 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
showing waiver or extension by conduct. The defendant, having accepted such subsequent payments and derived advantage there from, cannot now turn around and say that the contract became unenforceable merely by efflux of the originally mentioned period.
41.The plaintiff has also established readiness and willingness in the manner known to law. Readiness and willingness under Section 16(e) is not a matter of empty recital in the plaint; it is to be gathered from the totality of circumstances and the plaintiff's conduct before and after the suit. The plaintiff in the present case paid substantial sale consideration; continued to pay further amounts when demanded or accepted; discharged loan amounts for the defendant, cleared liabilities which, according to the plaintiff's evidence, were undertaken as part of the arrangement between the parties accepted possession of the property only because the transaction was being acted upon; and came to Court only when the defendant, despite receiving the benefits of the contract, failed to execute the regular sale deed. Such conduct is not the conduct of a person who was speculative, uncertain, or unwilling. It is, rather, the conduct of a purchaser who has continuously acted in furtherance of the contract and remained ready to complete the transaction. The consistent judicial position is that continuous readiness and willingness is a condition
Page 74 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
precedent, but it may be proved by reliable conduct and surrounding facts, not merely by ritualistic words. The plaintiff satisfies that requirement.
42.There is another important feature which goes to the root of the matter. The defendant has taken self-contradictory pleas. In one breath, he denies the agreement. In another breath, he asserts that the balance sale consideration remains unpaid. Both pleas cannot stand together. If there were no agreement at all, the question of balance sale consideration would not arise. Such mutually destructive defenses reveal that the defendant is not approaching the Court with candor. A party who sets up contradictory stands on material facts seriously impairs his own credibility. This Court is therefore not inclined to place reliance on such vacillating defense, especially when the plaintiff's case is otherwise supported by possession, payments, admission of signatures, and absence of effective challenge in evidence.
43.The delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff is a further weighty circumstance. Possession is not ordinarily delivered in relation to immovable property unless the transaction is intended to be acted upon. The handing over of the original pattadar and related
Page 75 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
documents to the plaintiff also strongly corroborates the plaintiff's version.
A prudent owner does not ordinarily part with possession and original title-related papers in favour of another person unless there is a subsisting and genuine transaction regarding transfer of rights. These circumstances are not minor, they are substantive acts in part performance and they substantially fortify the plaintiff's claim that the contract was genuine and was in fact being worked out between the parties.
44.The defendant has not shown any legal impediment or overriding equity disentitling the plaintiff to the relief. No case of fraud, coercion, undue influence, want of capacity, impossibility of performance, or any statutory bar has been established. No special hardship has been pleaded and proved which would render enforcement inequitable. On the contrary, the equities overwhelmingly support the plaintiff. If relief is refused, the defendant would unjustly retain the benefit of substantial payments, the benefit of discharge of his liabilities, the benefit of clearing related debts, and yet be permitted to resile from the very contract on the basis of which such benefits were received. Equity does not countenance such enrichment at the cost of the plaintiff.
Page 76 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
45.This Court is conscious that specific performance is a serious relief in respect of immovable property and that the Court must be satisfied not only about execution of the contract but also about the plaintiff's entitlement in equity and law. In the present case, that satisfaction is complete. The plaintiff's case is proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The agreement is proved. The defendant's signature is not denied. No forensic or expert challenge was mounted. The plaintiff's oral evidence has remained unshaken. Payments beyond the agreed period were accepted by the defendant. Possession was delivered. Original pattadar and connected documents were handed over. The plaintiff discharged liabilities for the defendant. The defendant has adopted contradictory stands and has failed to produce any dependable evidence to invalidate the transaction. The chain of circumstances is complete and unmistakably points toward a genuine contract intended to culminate in sale.
46.In these circumstances, this Court holds that the plaintiff has proved the agreement of sale and has further proved that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The defendant, after receiving substantial consideration and other financial benefits under
Page 77 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
the transaction, committed breach by failing to execute the regular sale deed. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to a decree for specific performance.
The statutory framework after the 2018 amendment reinforces that specific performance is to be enforced subject to the restrictions in the Act, and no such disabling restriction has been shown here.
47.The defendant shall execute and register a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, on the plaintiff depositing or tendering the balance sale consideration, if any remains payable after giving due credit to the amounts already paid and the liabilities discharged on behalf of the defendant as proved on record. In the event the exact balance requires calculation, the office shall draw up the decree after reflecting the payments and adjustments borne out by the evidence, and the plaintiff shall deposit such balance within the time fixed by this Court. If the defendant fails to execute the sale deed within the said period, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to have the sale deed executed and registered through process of Court in accordance with law. The defendant, his men, agents, or anybody claiming through him are further restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of
Page 78 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
the suit schedule property or from creating any third-party interest therein. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.
48.Before parting, this Court must observe that a person who enters into a sale agreement, receives substantial consideration, permits the purchaser to clear his liabilities, hands over original documents, and delivers possession cannot later be allowed to defeat the transaction by evasive and inconsistent pleas. Courts of equity and law do not aid such conduct. The relief of specific performance in the present case is not merely legally permissible it is the only just relief on the proved facts.
49.The execution of the gift settlement deed by the defendant in favour of his minor daughter, when examined in the backdrop of the admitted facts and settled legal principles, does not advance the defense in any manner rather, it exposes the underlying intention to defeat the plaintiff's lawful contractual rights and to protract the litigation.
50.It is an admitted and repeatedly affirmed position on record that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff in part performance of the agreement of sale and that such possession has remained undisturbed. This single circumstance, coupled with the
Page 79 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
continuous acceptance of consideration by the defendant, places the transaction squarely within the protective umbrella of Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act. Once possession is delivered in pursuance of a contract, the transferor is legally precluded from dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the contractual obligations. Therefore, any subsequent transfer. including a gift settlement, cannot override or extinguish the rights already created in favour of the plaintiff.
51.The gift settlement deed in the present case is stated to have been executed during the subsistence of the agreement of sale Ex-A-17 and at a time when the plaintiff was already in possession. This timing is not accidental but legally significant. A transfer made during the subsistence of a binding contract, particularly after part performance, is inherently suspect and is liable to be treated as subordinate to the prior agreement.
The fact that the donee is a minor daughter further weakens the defence.
A minor donee cannot be a transferee for value, and therefore, such a transfer does not fall within the protective exception under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The donee merely steps into the shoes of the transferor and takes the property subject to all pre-existing obligations and encumbrances, including the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.
Page 80 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
52.Equally important is the fact that the gift settlement deed has not been marked or proved in accordance with law. In the absence of formal proof, the document does not attain evidentiary value. Even assuming its execution for the sake of argument, its legal effect remains limited and subordinate. The Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference as to the genuineness and bona fides of such a document when it is relied upon but not proved. The non-marking of the document indicates either a lack of confidence in its validity or an inability to withstand judicial scrutiny.
53.The necessity or justification for executing such a gift settlement deed is conspicuously absent. No compelling reason has been placed on record to explain why, after entering into an agreement of sale, receiving substantial consideration, delivering possession, and allowing the plaintiff to act upon the contract, the defendant would choose to gratuitously transfer the property to his minor daughter. In the absence of any legitimate explanation, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the transfer was engineered as a device to defeat the plaintiff's rights and to create an artificial impediment to the enforcement of the agreement.
Page 81 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
54.The conduct of the defendant, when viewed holistically, reinforces this inference. The acceptance of consideration even beyond the stipulated time, the delivery of possession, the handing over of title documents, the issuance of threat notice Ex.B-1, dated 26-3-2014, and the execution of a gift settlement deed in favour of a minor daughter, collectively point towards a calculated attempt to avoid contractual obligations while retaining the benefits derived there from. Such conduct is neither bona fide nor legally sustainable. The letter Ex.B-1 is silent about the Gift Settlement Deed. The Ex.B-1 is clear about the possession of the plaintiff. In law, a gratuitous transfer effected under such circumstances does not create any independent or superior title in favour of the donee.
It remains subservient to the prior contractual rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be overridden by a decree for specific performance. Courts have consistently held that such transactions, especially within the family and without consideration, carry a strong presumption of notice and cannot defeat prior equitable rights.
55.Therefore, the gift settlement deed, even if assumed to have been executed, is legally inconsequential vis-à-vis the plaintiff's claim.
It neither divests the plaintiff of her rights nor creates any enforceable defense for the defendant. On the contrary, it fortifies the plaintiff's case by
Page 82 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
demonstrating the defendant's intention to defeat the agreement and lends further support to the grant of a decree for specific performance against both the defendant and the transferee.
56.In essence, the gift settlement deed is not a bona fide transaction arising out of necessity, but a colourable device, executed during the subsistence of a binding contract and after delivery of possession, with the sole object of frustrating the plaintiff's rights. Such an act cannot be countenanced in law and must yield to the prior equity created in favour of the plaintiff.
57.It is also pertinent to say that what was the necessity for the
Defendant No.1 to execute a Registered Gift Settlement deed in favour of
Defendant No.2, who was a minor by then. The very transfer creates doubt in the mind The clever move by the defendant no.1 transferring the property to minor daughter.
58.Once the defendant executed a registered gift settlement deed, the property is said to be transferred to the daughter. Because of this, the father alone cannot execute a proper and complete sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Even if the gift is wrong or unfair, legally it still exists unless
Page 83 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
the Court deals with it. In this case, it is already admitted that the plaintiff was given possession of the property and continued in possession. The gift deed was executed later, during the subsistence of the agreement of sale.
This clearly shows that the transfer was made after creating rights in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the gift deed cannot defeat the plaintiff's rights. However, the Court cannot simply ignore the gift deed. Since the property is shown as transferred to the daughter, she must also be bound by the Court's decree. Otherwise, if only the father executes the sale deed, the title will remain defective and may create future legal problems.
The DW-2 was Minor at the time of Document Gift Deed but as seen from the evidence of DW-2, it appears that the Defendant No.2 has attained 22 years and she is a major. Therefore, to give full and clear ownership to the plaintiff, the Court must ensure that the daughter is also included and bound. In law, the proper course is that both the father and the daughter should execute the sale deed. If they fail, the Court itself can execute the sale deed on their behalf. In simple terms, the gift deed does not cancel the plaintiff's rights, but it also cannot be ignored. It must be dealt with properly so that the final sale deed gives complete and clear title to the plaintiff without any future dispute.
Page 84 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
59. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance:
(1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal.
(2) The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance:-
(a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or
(b) where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff or
(c) where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce specific performance.
Explanation 1: Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause (a) or hardship within the meaning of clause (b).
Explanation 2: The question whether the performance of a contract would involve hardship on the defendant within the meaning of clause
(b) shall, except in cases where the hardship has resulted from any act of the plaintiff subsequent to the contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract.
Page 85 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
(3) The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance.
(4) The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the party.
60.The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 2002 in
NIRMALA ANAND VS. ADVENT CORPN (P) LTD., (AIR 2002 3396) and also in the year 2015 in a decision reported in ZARINA SIDDIQUI Vs.
A. RAMALINGAM (AIR 2015 SC 5801), has categorically held that the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy and it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simple for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further held that the equitable discretion to grant or not to grant a relief for specific performance also depends upon the conduct of the parties.
The necessary ingredients have to be proved and established by a party who seeks exercise of judicial discretion in its favour for grant of specific performance.
61.Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles, the factual matrix of the present case requires to be analyzed to ascertain whether the plaintiff has proved his case to the satisfaction of this Court, since the
Page 86 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
burden lies on him in this regard, for grant of specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A1 in his favour.
62.At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the legal position on the question as to whether time is essence of the contract and can it be construed in strict terms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held on this aspect in K.S. VIDYANADAM VA. VAIRAVAN (1997 (3) SCC),
PAGE-1) as under :- "It has been consistently held by the Courts in India, following certain early English decisions. that in the case of agreement of sale relating to immovable property, time is not of the essence of the contract unless specifically provided to that effect. The period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act for filing a suit is three years. From these two circumstances, it does not follow that any and every suit for specific performance of the agreement [which does not provide specifically that time is of the essence of the contract) should be decreed provided it is filed within the period of limitation notwithstanding the time limits stipulated in the agreement for doing one or the other thing by one or the other party.
That would amount to saying that the time-limits prescribed by the parties in the agreement have no significance or value and that they mean nothing. Would it be reasonable to say that because time is not made the essence of the contract, the time-limit(s) specified in the agreement have no relevance and can be ignored with impunity?
It would also mean denying the discretion vested in the Court by
Page 87 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
both Sections 10 and As held by Constitution Bench of this Court in
CHAND RANI VS. KAMAL RANI (1993 (1) SCC 519), "...... it is clear that in the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract, the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are (evident?) [1] from the express terms of the contract: [2] from the nature of the property; and [3] from the surrounding circumstances, for example the object of making the contract".
b) The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been referred by the Hon'ble High Court of AP in SHAIK MAHABOOB SAHAB
Vs. K. NAGESWARA RAO (2008 (1) L.S. 24) and has categorically held that the time being the essence of the contract has close proximity with the point of time on which relief is prayed for and thus, in turn, would have a direct hearing upon the manner in which discretion of the court is to be exercised.
c) In another decision reported in PUNDI GOVINDARAJAN VS.
SUBAS CHANDRA SAHU [2008 [1] ALT 750], the Hon'ble High Court of
AP has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
GOMATHINAYAGAM PILAI AND OTHERS VS. PALANISWAMI NADAR
(AIR 1967 SC 868) in which it is held as under:-
Page 88 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
"Fixation of the period within which the contract is to be performed does not make the stipulation as to time as the essence of the contract.
Intention to make time of the essence of the contract may be evidenced by either express stipulations or by circumstances which are sufficiently strong to displace the ordinary presumption that in a contract of sale of land stipulations as to time are not of the essence. It is true that even if time was not originally of the essence, the appellants could be notice served upon the respondent call upon him to take the conveyance within the time fixed and intimate that in default of compliance with the requisition the contract will be as cancelled".
d) Thus, a perusal of the above said decisions would indicate that though fixation of a period within which the contract has to be performed in the agreement does not make stipulation as to time as essence of the contract, but the intention of the parties in that regard has to be gathered from the evidence by express stipulations or by circumstances attending thereto.
63.It is held in Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi (Smt) and others (2000) 6 SCC 4201, in which it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the readiness and willingness to pay balance sale consideration when major portion of consideration was paid at the time of execution of contract can be taken into account, towards the willingness to pay remaining amount. It is further held in decision of a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble
Page 89 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Supreme Court in Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Baddam Pratapa
Reddy (dead) through Legal Representatives and another ((2019) 14
SCC 220}, in which in para 25. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
64.Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court has wrongly observed that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove that he demanded the performance of sale after the execution of the agreement of sale. The filing of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale is governed by
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, read with Article 54 of the
Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. In addition to this, Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribe the format of the plaint for such a suit. Thus, a plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance of an agreement/contract must comply with all these requirements.
65.Thus, on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the conspectus of the legal position as indicated above, this Court has no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has established that he is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale under Ex.A.17 and the defendants are liable
Page 90 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed and to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff in pursuance of Ex.A17 within the stipulated period of two months from the date of this judgment. These issues are answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.7 :- “To what relief”?
66. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff with costs.
1) The Plaintiff is hereby directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 90,800/- on or 15.05.2026.
2) On such deposit, the Defendants shall execute the Sale Deed within 2 months.
3) If the Defendants failed to execute the Sale Deed within the time given by this Court, the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain the Sale Deed through process of Law.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31 st day of March, 2026. [
Sd/-
IV Additional District Judge Nalgonda.
Page 91 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW.1: Pati ShanthiDW.1: Chappidi Narayana Reddy
PW.2: Pati Venkat ReddyDW.2: Chappidi Kavya Chandana
PW.3: Singireddy SomireddyDW.3: Chappidi Pushpa
PW.4: Pati Yadagiri ReddyDW.4: B.S. Jayaraj
PW.5: Ponugoti Sreenivas Rao
PW.6: Singireddy Venkat Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1: Original Pattadar passbook of Chappidi Narayana Reddy S/o. Sathaiah issued by MRO, Nakrekal
Ex.A2: Counter foil, dated 28-06-2010
Ex.A3: Counter foil, dated 20-08-2010
Ex.A4: Counter foil, dated 23-08-2010
Ex.A5: Passbook (SBH) Kisan Star Card of Chappidi Narayana Reddy ATL A/C. No.62069636751
Ex.A6: Promissory note, dated 06-03-2008 executed by Ch. Narayana Reddy in favour of Linga Reddy
Ex.A7: Promissory note, dated 06-03-2008 executed by Ch. Narayana Reddy in favour of Linga Reddy
Page 92 of 93
O.S. No. 161 of 2014
Dt: 31.03.2026
Ex.A8: Promissory note, dated 20-07-2009 executed by Ch. Narayana Reddy in favour of Pati Linga Reddy
Ex.A9: Receipt, dated 10-05-2012 acknowledging the amount of Rs.50,000/- by Ch. Narayana Reddy
Ex.A10: Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 17-11-2014
Ex.A11:Original Postal Receipt
Ex.A12: Original Postal Acknowledgment Card
Ex.A13: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2012 & 13 (2 pages)
Ex.A14: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2013 & 14 (2 pages)
Ex.A15: Attested copy of pahani for the year 2014 & 15 (2 pages)
Ex.A16: Pahani obtained through Meeseva for the year Fasli 1426, dated 28-04-2017 (4 in number)
Ex.A17: Original Agreement of Sale, Dt. 03.12.2009
Ex.A18: Original Receipt, Dt. 16.01.2010.
FOR DEFENDANTS :-
Ex.B1 : Letter, dated 26.03.2014
Sd/-
IV Additional District Judge Nalgonda.
Page 93 of 93