IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Smt. K. RADHA RATNAM, I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.
Wednesday, this the 15th day of March, 2023
Original Suit No.61/2015
Between:
Sri Gottimukkala Srinivasa Varma, S/o Narayana Raju, Hindu, Aged 53 years, Flat No.C/203, KSR Apartments, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam.
…Plaintiff A n d:
(1) Karri Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Business, S.V.F. Fruits and Co., Near Visakha International School, S.S. Korukonda Post, Vizianagaram District.
(2) Sri Kovvuri Narsi Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Hindu, Business Partner, S.V.F. Fruits and Co., Near Visakha International School, S.S. Korukonda Post, Vizianagaram District.
(3) Sri Tetali Suryanarayana Reddy (died).
(4) Smt. Tetali Mahalakshmi, W/o late Tetali Suryanarayana Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Hindu, R/o D.No.7-193/1, Nallamilli Appareddy Street, Dharanikota, Anaparthi – 533 342, East Godavari District.
(5) Smt. Mallidi Jayalakshmi, W/o late Venkatakrishna Reddy, D/o late Tetali Suryanarayana Reddy, Aged about 40 years, rest ditto.
(6) Smt. Goluguri Bharathi, W/o Srinivasa Reddy, D/o late Tetali Suryanarayana Reddy, Aged about 34 years, rest ditto.
(Defendants 4 to 6 are added as per orders in I.A.114/2019, dt.25.04.2019).
…Defendants
The suit coming on 23.02.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.G.
Santhosh and Sri V.V.R. Subrahmanyam, Advocates for the Defendants 1 and 4 to 6, and the 2nd Defendant remained exparte; 3rd Defendant having reported died, and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 2 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023)
J U D G M E N T
The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale
dated 26.05.2007 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 with respect of plaint ‘A’
and ‘B’ schedule lands after receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff or in alternative, for refund of advance amount of Rs.49,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only) from the defendants to the plaintiff.
02.The plaint averments are as follows :
That the defendants 1 to 3 are the owners of the plaint schedule lands under different registered sale deeds. The plaint schedule is shown as in three parts i.e., ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The plaint ‘A’ schedule is consisting of Ac.20-82 cents in different survey numbers. That the defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell the plaint ‘A’ schedule land measuring
Ac.20-82 cents and also another extent of Ac.15-00 cents which they are in possession under unregistered transaction and contemplating to get registered sale deeds, totaling Ac.36-00 cents @ Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) per Acre and executed an agreement of sale of land on 26.05.2007 and received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in favour of the plaintiff with the terms and conditions incorporated in the said agreement. That subsequently the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on 29.05.2007 and
Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) on 27.06.2007 towards advance sale consideration and the same was endorsed on the back of the suit agreement of sale. Thus, the plaintiff paid Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Nine Lakhs only) in total including the advance paid on the date of agreement to the defendants.
03.Apart from those amounts, on 20.02.2010 the plaintiff sent another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- through his men and the 2nd defendant received the said amount and acknowledged the same under the endorsement, dt.20.02.2010 on the suit agreement of sale.
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 3 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023)
04.That thereafter the plaintiff got issued a notice on 26.12.2012 calling upon them to furnish the documents like R.O.R. Pass Books etc., while expressing his readiness and willingness to go forward with the agreement of sale and such notices were got returned by the defendants, thereafter owing to inaction of the defendants, the plaintiff out of frustration got issued another notice, dt.29.01.2013 demanding for refund of the amount of
Rs.49,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only) paid till then, for which the defendants sent reply notice, dt.08.02.2013 admitting the suit transaction and payment made by the plaintiff except the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) allegedly paid on 20.02.2010 and alleged that it is a forged and fabricated endorsement and further pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
05.The plaintiff after coming to know that the defendants acquired some more lands described as ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule lands, got issued another notice dt.08.01.2015 withdrawing the earlier notice, dt.29.01.2013 with a demand to enforce the suit agreement. The said notice was got returned to the plaintiff, as such a paper publication was given on 14.02.2015, for which the defendants got issued a legal notice, dt.19.02.2015 furnishing the addresses of the defendants. Thereafter, the plaintiff got sent copy of the notice to the defendants through their counsel, but there is no response from the defendants. The plaintiff submits that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. That after knowing the financial capacity and business activities of the plaintiff, only the defendants have entered into the suit agreement of sale.
06.It is further submitted that the suit agreement of sale since not cancelled, as the defendants suppressed the acquisition of ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, only after coming to know about said acquisition of lands by the defendants, the plaintiff got real cause of action to demand for
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 4 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) specific performance of contract. Thus, after issuing legal notice, filed the present suit.
07.After filing written statement, the 3rd defendant died. His legal representatives are brought on record as defendants 4 to 6.
08.The defendants 1 and 3 filed written statement, the same has been adopted by the 2nd defendant. The legal representatives of the 3rd defendant, defendants 4 to 6 filed adoption memo, adopting the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 3.
09.In the written statement, the defendants admitted execution of the suit agreement of sale, dt.26.05.2007 in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to sell away their property to an extent of Ac.20-82 cents for Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) per Acre. It is also admitted that the defendants agreed to sell Ac.15-00 cents of land which are yet to be registered in their favour for the same consideration.
10.The defendants further admitted that they have received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) on 26.05.2007 towards advance sale consideration and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on 29.05.2007 and receipt of another amount of Rs.19,00,000/- on 27.06.2007 and the payment endorsement made on the respective dates on the back of the suit agreement of sale. Thus, the defendants admitted that they have received total amount of Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) from the plaintiff. That as per the terms and conditions, the parties fixed date on 31.08.2007 for payment of entire sale consideration.
11.The defendants alleged that after payment of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only), the plaintiff not extended to perform his part of contract and not come forward with the balance sale consideration on or
before 31.08.2007 the date fixed for performance. Therefore, the time which
is the essence of the contract is frustrated on that date itself from which date the limitation starts for enforcing the agreement of sale and which would
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 5 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) expire by 30.08.2010. Therefore, by 30.08.2010 itself, the suit agreement of sale is barred by limitation and that the suit is not maintainable as it was filed in the year 2015.
12.The defendants further submit that they have not received notice said to have been issued by the plaintiff, dt.26.12.2012 and they received notice, dt.29.01.2013 which is replica of the earlier notice, dt.26.12.2012, for which the defendants got issued a reply notice, dt.20.02.2010 setting forth their case that the suit agreement of sale is time barred and further denying the alleged payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) allegedly made by the plaintiff on 20.02.2010 and the endorsement thereon in the suit agreement of sale alleging that the said endorsement is rank forged and fabricated one.
13.The defendants denied mediation through one Botcha Srinivasa
Rao of Chinnapuram alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants further submitted that the property which was acquired by the 1st defendant on 03.08.2013 in respect of Ac.4-70 cents under document No.1052/2013 was purchased only after three years when the suit agreement of sale was barred by limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff has no legal strength to file the present suit.
14.The defendants further submit that in the notice got issued by the plaintiff, dt.29.01.2013, the plaintiff demanded for return of advance amount, wherein the plaintiff has categorically expressed that he is not interested to purchase the land from the defendants. For the said notice, the defendants got issued a reply notice, dt.08.02.2013 stating that the agreement itself is frustrated as the plaintiff has not come forward within the time stipulated in the agreement and further the agreement itself is frustrated and hit by limitation, therefore by the date of issuance of 1st notice itself, the agreement is frustrated and hit by limitation. That subsequently, the plaintiff got issued another notice, dt.08.01.2015 with a different stand
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 6 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) seeking enforcement of agreement of sale which is not permissible under
Law. The defendants further submit that even for refund of amount claimed, the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants specifically denied the alleged payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) made by the plaintiff on 20.02.2010 and alleged that it is a forged and fabricated endorsement. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled either for specific performance or for refund of advance amount.
15.The defendants further submit that from the round stamp of the
Administrative Officer of District Court, Visakhapatnam, dt.19.02.2013 on the suit agreement, it seems that the agreement of sale was pressed into service and it was filed before the District Court at Visakhapatnam and by suppressing the said fact that the plaintiff filed the suit before the District
Court at Visakhapatnam, filed the present suit.
16.Basing on the above pleadings, the following Issues have been settled for trial by this Court on 24.07.2017:
(1) Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 20.02.2010 ?
(3) Whether a mediation through Botsa Srinivasa Rao was made ?
(4) Whether the foot note made in the suit agreement is form part of the suit agreement ?
(5) Whether the defendants agreed to sell the properties covered under
B & C schedule to the plaintiff ?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract ?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance ?
(8) To what relief ?
17.At this juncture, this Court felt that an issue regarding alternative relief of refund of advance amount is to be framed. Hence, the following
Additional Issue is framed :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of refund of advance amount as prayed for ?
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 7 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023)
18.In support of their respective contentions, the plaintiff himself gave evidence as P.W.1 and the plaintiff further examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf, and Exs.A.1 to A.5, Ex.A.5(a) to Ex.A.11 are marked for the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendants 1 and 2 gave evidence as
D.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and Ex.B.1 is marked for the 1st defendant.
19.Heard arguments of both counsels on record.
20.The plaintiff’s case in brief is that the defendants 1 to 3 are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The plaint ‘A’ schedule is consisting of Ac.20-82 cents. The defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell the same and also agreed to sell another extent of Ac.15-00 cents unregistered land in their possession to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) per Acre. Accordingly, the plaintiff executed the suit agreement of sale which is marked as Ex.A.1 on 26.05.2007. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Lakhs only) on the date of Ex.A.1, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs only) on 29.05.2007 and further an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees
Nineteen Lakhs only) on 27.06.2007, and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 20.02.2010 towards advance sale consideration and the same was endorsed on the back of Ex.A.1. The defendants disputed the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 20.02.2010 and contended that it is forged and fabricated payment endorsement.
21.The plaintiff further stated that on 26.12.2012 he got issued a legal notice to the defendants under Ex.A.2 and such notice was returned.
Hence, the plaintiff again issued another legal notice with similar content as in Ex.A.2 under Ex.A.3 to the defendants calling upon the plaintiff to refund the advance sale consideration and expressing that the plaintiff is not willing to purchase the property, for which the defendants got issued a reply notice, dt.08.02.2013 refusing either to refund or for specific performance of Ex.A.1.
Again on 08.01.2015 the plaintiff issued another legal notice under Ex.A.6 to
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 8 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) the defendants withdrawing the earlier notice under Ex.A.3, calling upon them to enforce the suit agreement of sale/Ex.A.1. The plaintiff got issued a paper publication on 14.02.2015 reiterating the contents of Ex.A.6 notice and upon showing the same, the defendants got issued a reply notice under
Ex.A.8, dt.19.02.2015 calling upon the plaintiff to send the copy of the notice under Ex.A.6 and informing that the plaintiff has taken different stands which is not permissible under law, upon which the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and in alternative for refund of advance amount.
22.The defendants 1 to 3 have admitted execution of the suit agreement of sale in respect of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties to an extent of
Ac.20-82 cents and in respect of unregistered lands to an extent of Ac.15-00 cents for consideration of Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Thirty Five
Thousand only). Further, the defendants admitted receipt of advance sale consideration paid by the plaintiff, except the alleged payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), dt.20.02.2010. The defendants are contending that the said payment endorsement on the reverse of Ex.A.1 is with the alleged signature of the 2nd defendant is forged and fabricated. Thus, according to the defendants, they have received an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) from the plaintiff towards advance sale consideration, but not Rs.49,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only) as contended by the plaintiff.
23.The defendants’ main contention is that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the suit agreement of sale is frustrated and closed as per law, hence the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance or for refund of advance amount. It is further contended that when the defendants requested the plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration, the plaintiff expressed his inability to perform because of financial incapacity, but now
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 9 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) came forward with forged payment endorsement to save limitation and to gain wrongfully as such the suit is liable for dismissal.
24.The defendants having admitted the transaction under suit agreement of sale, denied either for specific performance or for refund of advance amount on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. To decide the same, the Issue No.1 is to be taken up at first.
25.ISSUE No.1:- The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that as per the terms and conditions agreed in the suit agreement, the time is fixed for performance of the contract that the plaintiff has to pay the total balance sale consideration by 31.08.2017, but the plaintiff failed to do so. On the other hand, the plaintiff created the payment endorsement, dt.20.02.2010 by forging the signature of the 2nd defendant in order to save limitation, as such the suit is barred by limitation.
26.In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in this case, the parties never intend to treat the time as essence of the contract by their acts and deeds, as such the suit filed within three years from the date of refusal of the defendants to execute the suit agreement of sale is within time, hence the case of the defendants that the suit is barred by time is not avail to them.
27.The limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, in terms of
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused.
28.In the present case, the suit agreement of sale is dated 26.05.2007. As per the recitals of Ex.A.1, the date fixed for performance is mentioned as 31.08.2007. If the same is taken into consideration, the suit ought to have been filed by on or before 30.08.2010. But in this case, the suit is filed on 12.06.2015 i.e., nearly 4 ½ years after lapse of time. But in order to consider the same, it is to be seen whether parties have taken note
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 10 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) of the date fixed in Ex.A.1 as essence of contract and whether they ignored the same.
29.In order to assess whether the parties have treated the time as essence of the contract or not, the conduct of the parties plays an important role. Before going into that aspect, it is to be noted that the property covered under Ex.A.1 is immovable property. It is well established principle of Law that in a suit for specific performance with regard to immovable property, there is no presumption as to time is essence of contract. In this regard, this Court is relying upon the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Smt. Chand Rani (dead) by L.Rs., Vs. Smt Kamal Rani (dead), reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C., 1742, wherein it is held that :
“In the case of sale of immovable property, there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract”.
It is further held that :
“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 :
(1) from the express terms of the contract; (2) from the nature of the property; and (3) from the surrounding circumstances, for example: object of making the contract”.
30.Thus, by relying on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as above, as the subject matter of the suit agreement of sale is immovable property, it can be said that time is not essence of contract in this case.
31.However, in view of the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen whether the parties to the suit have treated the time as the essence of the contract or not.
32.To consider the same, the obligations cast upon the parties to the agreement is to be seen.
33.The suit agreement of sale is dated 26.05.2007. The parties to the agreement are the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. The properties
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 11 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) covered under the suit agreement are Ac.20-82 cents of registered land and
Ac.15-00 cents of unregistered land which were in the possession of the defendants. The agreed sale consideration is Rs.3,35,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs and Thirty Five Thousand only) per Acre. The advance sale consideration was paid on the date of agreement is Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs only) in cash. The plaintiff agreed to pay an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by 03.06.2007 and further amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) by 30.06.2007 and agreed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration by 31.08.2007, upon which the defendants agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of the person opted by the plaintiff. In respect of unregistered land, the defendants expressed that they will make necessary arrangements.
There is a foot note with heading of conditions at the fag end of the agreement stating that the defendants are ready to execute registered sale deeds in favour of unregistered lands to get registration in their favour and otherwise, no assurance was given regarding unregistered lands. The agreement was signed by the defendants 1 to 3, there are no attestors, the foot note was signed by the 2nd defendant with endorsement of scribe.
34.There are three payment endorsements. The first payment endorsement is dated 29.05.2007 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and the second payment endorsement is for Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees
Nineteen Lakhs only) on 27.06.2007 with the signatures of the 1st defendant, and the 3rd payment endorsement is on 20.02.2010 for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with the signature of the 2nd defendant. As per the above terms and conditions and the payment endorsements on the reverse of Ex.A.1, it can be said that the plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration on endorsements basis that he agreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on or before 03.06.2007 and Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) on or before 30.06.2007 and the remaining
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 12 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) balance sale consideration payable by 31.08.2007. Accordingly, he paid
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on 29.05.2007 and Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) on 27.06.2007, , besides the advance payment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) on the date of the agreement, as agreed.
35.According to the defendants, the plaintiff paid in total
Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) and he failed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration by 31.08.2007, the time fixed for payment of balance sale consideration, as such the suit filed on 12.06.2015 i.e., beyond three years from the date fixed for performance is barred by limitation.
36.In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 20.02.2010 and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd defendant and said payment was made even after the time fixed for performance and accepted by the 2nd defendant, as such the time is not essence of contract in this case.
The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the defendants are disputing the said alleged payment on 20.02.2010 and according to them, the said endorsement on the back of Ex.A.1 is a fabricated by forging the signature of the 2nd defendant.
37.The plaintiff did not choose to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove the genuinity of the said payment endorsement, dt.20.02.2010. He did not even choose to send the said endorsement with the alleged signature of the 2nd defendant to the handwriting expert to get opinion of the expert in his favour and to establish that the said signature belongs to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff examined P.W.2, his father-in-law and P.W.3 his Manager to prove the said endorsement. Their evidence reveals that they both have not seen while the 2nd defendant putting
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 13 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) signature under the said endorsement, which is mandatory for proof of attestation.
38.It is not out of place to mention that the plaintiff has taken a specific plea that if the 2nd defendant on oath deposed that he did not receive the said payment and the said signature does not belong to him, the plaintiff is ready to pay the said amount to the defendants along with balance sale consideration. This case of the plaintiff giving scope of suspicion that the plaintiff is not sure about the said payment and acknowledgment made by the 2nd defendant. As such, the said alleged payment dated 20.02.2010 by the plaintiff is to be viewed suspiciously. If the said endorsement is not considered, it can be said that the plaintiff has failed to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 31.08.2007, the time fixed under agreement and in consequence, the suit filed on 12.06.2015 is barred by limitation.
39.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that on careful reading of the recitals of the suit agreement of sale, this Court noticed that the only obligation cast upon the plaintiff is to pay balance sale consideration on or before 31.08.2007. No obligations are cast upon the defendants to perform on their part, except execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receipt of balance sale consideration.
40.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the obligations are cast upon the defendants to inform about obtaining R.O.R. Pattadar Pass
Book and title deed for the suit lands which are necessary for registration of agricultural lands and further obligation is cast upon the defendants to inform about the registration of unregistered lands in their favour and till then the plaintiff was not in a position to pay the balance sale consideration as there was no certainty of the extent of the land with regard to both registered as well as unregistered lands and hence, till the defendants fulfilled their obligation within time fixed, no obligation is cast upon the plaintiff to pay
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 14 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) balance sale consideration within that time. Hence, it is argued that the time is not essence of contract.
41.Though the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is convincing to some extent, the agreement is silent regarding the alleged obligations pointed out by the learned counsel to be fulfilled by the defendants. In the absence of any specific terms in the agreement, specifying the obligations put forth on the part of the defendants, no such obligations can be inferred on assumptions.
42.Even otherwise, with regard to unregistered lands, as per the foot note in the agreement, the defendants categorically stated that they are ready to execute registered sale deeds in respect of unregistered lands oafter getting registration from their vendors, and they have not given any assurance with regard to unregistered lands.
43.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the said foot note is not part and parcel of the suit agreement of sale, as such the same cannot be considered. According to the defendants, the said foot note is part and parcel of the suit agreement, as such the same is to be taken into consideration. Even assuming for a moment, such foot note is not part and parcel of the suit agreement, as per the terms of the main agreement, the recitals goes to show that the defendants are going to make arrangement regarding unregistered lands. This recital goes to show that if they get registration of the unregistered lands from their vendors on or before 31.08.2007, the plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration for the total extent of Ac.36-00 cents, if it was not informed the plaintiff has to get ready for balance sale consideration in respect of the registered lands of Ac.20-82 cents as the extents of registered lands and unregistered lands are specified.
So, even assuming that the plaintiff has not received any information regarding the registration of unregistered lands in their favour from the defendants, the plaintiff ought to have get ready with the balance sale
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 15 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) consideration in respect of Ac.20-82 cents of registered lands. But there is no action on the part of the plaintiff that he is ready with balance sale consideration, at least for the extent of registered lands within the time fixed.
So, whether foot note is part and parcel of suit agreement is immaterial.
44.In this case, though the defendants pleaded that the time is essence of contract on the ground that the plaintiff has not come forward with the balance of the sale consideration within the time fixed, it is also to be taken into consideration that the defendants did not respond even after lapse of the date fixed for performance in any manner canceling the agreement on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to perform his obligation within the time fixed either by their acts or deeds. Absolutely no action was there on the part of the defendants till receipt of notice got issued by the plaintiff under Ex.A.3, dt.29.01.2013. If really the defendants considered that the time fixed for performance is essence of contract, they ought to have issued a notice to the plaintiff informing that the suit agreement of sale was cancelled for non-performance of contractual obligation by the plaintiff.
Apart from that the plaintiff was also kept quiet till the date of issueing
Exs.A.2 and A.3 notices in the years 2012 and 2013 respectively either for seeking specific performance or for refund of advance amount. For the first time in the notices got issued in Exs.A.2 and A.3, the plaintiff alleged that he was ready to perform his contract, but the defendants are not coming forward. There is no evidence from the plaintiff that till the date of Exs.A.2 and A.3, the plaintiff was made ready with balance sale consideration, except his oral evidence. From this, it can be inferred that the parties to the agreement never intend to treat the time is essence of contract.
45.Apart from the above, this Court observed that the defendants in the reply notice stated that they informed to the plaintiff that they obtained a pattadar pass book for Ac.20-82 cents on 18.09.2008 i.e., much subsequent
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 16 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) to 31.08.2007 the date fixed for performance. This also goes to show that the defendants never intend to treat the time as essence of contract.
46.Under the circumstances discussed above all, this Court hold that the parties have never treated the time as essence of contract, as such the suit filed on 12.06.2015 beyond three years of 31.08.2007 the date fixed in the agreement cannot be treated as barred by time.
47.Thus, the first limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in this case.
48.As per the second limb of Article 54 of Limitation Act, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years when the plaintiff has noticed that the performance is refused.
49.In this case, initially the plaintiff issued Exs.A.2 and A.3 dated 26.12.2012 and 29.01.2013 with similar contend to the defendants seeking refund of advance amount expressing he was not willing to purchase the property. The defendants gave a reply on 08.02.2013 under Ex.A.11 refusing either for refund or for specific performance. So, the first refusal was made on 08.02.2013, the suit was filed on 12.06.2015. If the same is taken into consideration, the suit is within time, i.e., within three years from the date of refused as per second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
50.In this case the plaintiff has given third notice on 08.01.2015 withdrawing earlier notices under Exs.A.2 and A.3 and seeking specific performance of the suit agreement of sale. The defendants gave reply on 19.02.2015 refusing for specific performance and suit was filed on 12.06.2015. If the same is considered, the suit is within time. So, even as per second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit, it is to be considered thqat suit was filed within time. Hence, the suit is not barred by limitation. Hence, Issue No.1 is decided accordingly.
51.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance, for which Issue Nos.5 and 7 are to be taken up.
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 17 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023)
52.ISSUE Nos.5 & 7:- It is an admitted fact from both parties, that the defendants have executed the suit agreement of sale/Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to sell registered lands in an extent of Ac.20-82 cents and also agreed to sell Ac.16-00 cents of land which were yet to be registered in their names. The registered lands are shown at plaint ‘A’ schedule, while the unregistered lands referred in the agreement are shown in ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule.
53.During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is restricting his claim to the extent of ‘A’ schedule registered lands and the plaintiff is not claiming any relief in respect of ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. In view of the said submissions, this Court is not going to give any finding regarding ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties of the plaint which is subject matter of Issue No.5.
54.It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff paid advance sale consideration to the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he paid total amount of Rs.49,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only) towards advance sale consideration. But according to the defendants, they received
Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) towards advance sale consideration on different dates and the same was also endorsed on the reverse of Ex.A.1 by acknowledging the same. Thus, there is no dispute that on 26.05.2007 the plaintiff paid Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only), on 27.06.2007 the plaintiff paid further amount of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees
Nineteen Lakhs only), and on 29.05.2007 the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and also there is no dispute regarding the three payment endorsements made on the reverse of Ex.A.1. The dispute is with regard to payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), dt.20.02.2010 and the endorsement thereon. The defendants are disputing the said endorsement and alleged that the alleged signature of 2nd defendant is rank
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 18 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) forged and the said endorsement is a fabricated one. This Issue will be decided at later point of time, while dealing with Issue No.2.
55.When coming to the Issue regarding the relief of specific performance, as the defendants admitted execution of the suit agreement of sale, now it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed for.
56.Before filing the suit, there were exchange of notices between both parties. The 1st notice was got issued by the plaintiff on 26.12.2012 vide under Ex.A.2. The 2nd notice was got issued by the plaintiff on 29.01.2013 vide Ex.A.3. The contents of both the notices under Exs.A.2 and A.3 are one and the same. In those notices, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants have not obtained pattadar pass book and title deed, though the plaintiff is ready to obtain the registered sale deed and subsequently verified the revenue records and came to know that the property is in possession of some other and records are in others names and the same was informed to the defendants, but the defendants did not rectify the same and not intimated the same to the plaintiff that the property is free from encumbrances, as such the plaintiff is not willing to purchase the lands mentioned in the agreement and requested the defendants to return the advance money received by the defendants along with interest @ 24% p.a., etc. The sum and substance of both the notices are one and the same in para-wise. Thus, initially the plaintiff elected for refund of advance amount from the defendants expressing that he was not willing to purchase the property.
57.For those notices, the defendants got issued a reply notice, dt.08.02.2013 vide under Ex.A.11 denying the allegations in the said notices and alleging that the defendants have informed to the plaintiff that they obtained pass book for an extent of Ac.20-60 cents on 18.09.2008 itself and the same is known to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract with the balance sale consideration and after
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 19 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) lapse of time by creating the payment endorsement, dt.20.02.2010 for
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) got issued those notices only to save limitation and to cover up his financial incapability and thereby denying either to execute registered sale deed or to refund of the advance money. It is informed to the plaintiff that the agreement of sale is time barred and became frustrated and closed, as per law, hence the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief under the said agreement of sale.
58.Thus, the defendants denied for refund of advance amount or to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
59.That subsequently, the plaintiff kept quiet for a period of two years and got issued another legal notice, dt.08.01.2015 vide under Ex.A.6, withdrawing the earlier notices got issued by him and demanded the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in his favour in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale, expressing his ready and willingness to perform his part of contract.
60.The plaintiff alleged that those notices have been returned from the defendants as unclaimed, as such he got issued a paper publication (not filed), for which the defendants got issued a reply notice vide under Ex.A.8, dt.19.02.2015 intimating to the plaintiff that in the earlier notice, the plaintiff demanded for refund of advance amount and in the present notice the plaintiff is demanding for execution of sale deed and such different stands taken by the plaintiff is not permissible and maintainable under law and thus, the defendants refused to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
61.The important aspect involved in this case is, whether once the plaintiff elected for refund of advance amount can he opt for seeking for specific performance at later point of time is permissible under law.
62.In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has withdrawn the earlier notice for refund of advance amount
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 20 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) and sent a fresh notice opting for specific performance and there is no bar in opting for specific performance.
63.In this regard, both the parties have not submitted any authority.
This Court has relied upon the following Judgments in this aspect :
In Sundaramayyar v. Jagadeesan, reported in AIR 1965 MADRAS 85, wherein it is held that :
“Where a party to the contract of sale made a claim for damages, on the footing of the breach by the other party, it would amount to definite election on his part to treat the contract as at an end and thereafter no suit for specific performance can be maintained by him, for, by such election, he had disabled himself from making the averment that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract”.
InRoop Chand Chaudhari v. Ranjit Kumari, reported in AIR 1991 PH 212, wherein it is held that :
“Once a suit for return of the earnest money/advance is filed, the plaintiff disentitles himself to the alternative relief of specific performance, even if claimed in that suit and he cannot be allowed to amend his plaint later and this is primarily on the basis that a claim for return of earnest money is based on repudiation of the contract and when once the contract is repudiated, the relief for specific performance would not be available either as an alternative relief or even by way of an amendment to the plaint. It is thus seen that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff had clearly and categorically elected to treat the agreement dated 1.2.1983 as at an end resulting in the discharge of both the parties from the obligations thereunder and thereafter, it is not open to the plaintiff to seek by way of an amendment, the relief of specific performance”.
In Ayissabi v. Gopala Konar, reported in AIR 1989,
KERALA 134, wherein it is held that :
“Where the plaintiff had once repudiated the contract and elected to sue for damages, he cannot thereafter claim specific performance of that contract. This decision also would support the case of the defendant that the plaintiff cannot, at this stage, be permitted to include the relief of specific performance earlier abandoned by him”.
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 21 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023)
64.In application of law laid down in the above referred Judgments, it can safely be concluded that once the plaintiff elected for refund of advance amount, it is deemed that the plaintiff treated the agreement as cancelled or put to an end to it. As such, he cannot withdraw such demand and claim a fresh relief of specific performance of agreement. Thus, this Court hold the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance. Accordingly, Issue
No.7 is decided as against the plaintiff’s case.
65.ISSUE No.6:- Since it is hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance, this Court felt that there is no need to look into the aspect of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. Even otherwise, admittedly even as on the date of issuance of first notice, the plaintiff sought for refund of advance amount. In the said notice, though it was alleged that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, no material or circumstances have been placed before the
Court in proof of the same. Admittedly the plaintiff has not offered to pay the balance sale consideration to the plaintiff within that date fixed in the contract i.e., on or before 31.08.2007, nor by the date of issuance of third legal notice vide under Ex.A.6 demanding for specific performance showing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Moreover, in the first notice, the plaintiff opted for refund of advance amount expressing that he was not willing to get registered sale deed that itself shows that the plaintiff has cancelled the suit agreement and elected for refund of advance amount. Under those circumstances, this Court felt that there is no necessity to give any finding regarding the ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract and as such, no finding was given for
Issue No.6.
66.ISSUE No.3:- The plaintiff alleged that there was a mediation through one Botcha Srinivasa Rao for the purpose of settlement before the parties. The claim of the parties is based on agreement of sale with some
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 22 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) terms and conditions imposed thereon. Though the plaintiff alleged that some mediation proposals have taken place, in view of the findings of this
Court in respect of other issues, this Court felt that there is no necessity to give any finding regarding the alleged mediation. Hence, no finding is given in respect of Issue No.3.
67.ISSUE No.4:- There is a footnote at the fag end of the suit agreement of sale with the signature of the 1st defendant with a heading “conditions” and said footnote is in reference to unregistered land and under which the defendants have not given any assurance for execution of a registered sale deed in respect of unregistered land. Though the plaintiff has contended that said footnote is part and parcel of the suit agreement of sale, no adverse evidence has been let in by him in this regard. The 1st defendant as D.W.1 deposed that said footnote is part and parcel of the suit agreement of sale. While discussing the Issue No.1, this Court touched the aspect of footnote while considering the aspect whether the time is essence of the contract, the learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted arguments with reference to foot note. Thus, it can be concluded that foot note is part and parcel of suit agreement of sale. The unregistered lands referred in the footnote are shown as ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties in the plaint.
Admittedly the plaintiff has restricted his claim in respect of registered lands shown in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. So, the plaintiff is not claiming any relief in respect of the properties referred in the footnote. Hence, this Court felt that no much importance is to be attached to the footnote, however this
Court hold that the said footnote is part and parcel of the suit agreement of sale. Thus, the Issue No.4 is decided accordingly.
68.This Court already came to conclusion while discussing Issue
No.7 that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance of the suit agreement of sale. Now, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 23 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) for refund of advance amount for which additional issue framed at the time of arguments is to be taken into consideration.
69.ADDITIONAL ISSUE:- It is admitted case of both the parties that on the date of suit agreement of sale, dt.26.05.2007, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only); on 29.05.2007 the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only); on 27.06.2007 the plaintiff paid Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) towards balance sale consideration. Thus, in total the plaintiff paid an amount of
Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) to the defendants on different occasions and payment endorsements were also made on the reverse of suit agreement of sale. To this extent, the defendants did not raise any dispute and admitted that they have received Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on different occasions and they acknowledged the same on the reverse of Ex.A.1.
70.According to the plaintiff, he paid further amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 20.02.2010 and the 2nd defendant acknowledged the same by way of endorsement. The 2nd defendant and other defendants have categorically denied the said payment and endorsement on Ex.A.1. The defendants are contending that the said endorsement was brought into existence by fabrication and by forging the signature of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff denied the said contention of the defendants. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.2 and 3 in proof of said endorsement. On careful reading of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the attestors of the said endorsement, they both have stated that at the request of the plaintiff, they went to the house of 2nd defendant and paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the 2nd defendant and he obtained endorsement with the signature of 2nd defendant. On careful reading of their evidence, it is clear that they both did not witness while 2nd defendant putting his signature under the said endorsement. Their evidence
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 24 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) reveals that the person who scribed the said endorsement went inside the house and brought back the agreement with the signature of the 2nd defendant. The defendants have denied the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and disputed that they are closely related to the plaintiff, as such they are planted witnesses. Admittedly P.W.2 is the father-in-law of the plaintiff while
P.W.3 is the Manager of the plaintiff. In view of the said close relationship of them with the plaintiff and further on the ground that they both have not witnessed while the 2nd defendant putting his signature, the question remains that whether the said signature is a forged one as contended by the defendants. The plaintiff except examining P.Ws.2 and 3 did not take steps to send the disputed endorsement with the alleged forged signature of the 2nd defendant to the handwriting expert with is admitted signatures available in the suit agreement of sale/Ex.A.1 to get the opinion of the expert in his favour that the said signature belongs to the 2nd defendant.
71.When this Court compared the said disputed signature of the 2nd defendant along with the admitted signatures in the suit agreement of sale as a second signatory, this Court found that lot of variation in both the signatures creating a suspicion that the alleged signature of the 2nd defendant at payment endorsement is not that of the 2nd defendant. In the suit agreement of sale, the 2nd defendant’s signature is found with free hand movement and the same is not found place throughout the disputed signature. Under those circumstances, this Court suspect that the payment endorsement on 20.02.2010 for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with the alleged signature of the 2nd defendant is a fabricated and forged endorsement. Thus, the alleged payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) on 20.02.2010 cannot be considered. If the same is not considered as part of the payment of advance sale consideration made by the plaintiff to the defendants, the advance sale consideration that was paid
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 25 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) by the plaintiff to the defendants is considered as Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Nine Lakhs only) which was also admitted by the defendants.
72.Now, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the said amount. In this regard, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claim in respect of the refund of the amount is barred by limitation. In this regard, an elaborate discussion was made while discussing Issue No.1, the issue regarding limitation and this Court has arrived at conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within time and it was not barred by limitation.
73.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date fixed for performance of contract. In the agreement, the date fixed for performance is 31.08.2007 and by that date, the plaintiff ought to have paid the entire balance sale consideration. Thus, according to the defendants, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit on or before 30.08.2010 either for relief of the specific performance or for refund of advance amount. This Court while discussing Issue No.1, clearly explained with reasons that the parties in this case have not intended to treat the time as essence of contract, as such the time fixed for performance is not criteria in this case and first limb of Section 54 of the Limitation Act has no application. So, the suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff within three years from the date of refusal in the demand made by the plaintiff. In this case the plaintiff got issued first notice for refund of amount on 26.12.2012 and the suit was filed on 12.06.2015 seeking relief of specific performance and the same is well within time.
However, this Court denied the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff.
74.With regard to refund advance amount, the limitation for filing the suit is envisaged in Article 62 of the Limitation Act as the purchaser has got a statutory charge over the property to the extent of interest of the seller and hence the period of limitation shall be 12 years from the date of which
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 26 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023) the right to sue for the refund of the advance amount accrues. In this case, even assuming for a moment the time fixed for performance is to be taken into consideration i.e., on 31.08.2007. The suit filed on 12.06.2015 is well within time i.e., within 12 years from 31.08.2017 which would expire by 30.08.2019. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants in this regard that the suit for relief of refund of advance amount is barred by time is of no avail to him.
75.In the suit agreement, there is no forfeiture clause in the event of failure to perform the contractual obligation. Under those circumstances, this
Court felt that with a view to rendering complete justice between the parties, deem it appropriate to direct the defendants (vendors) to repay the advance amount along with 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till entire amount is paid back, till then a charge has been created over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property U/s.55 of Transfer of Property Act U/s.55 (6)(b) of Transfer of Property Act, since the buyer shall have a statutory charge over the immovable property to the extent of the vendor’s interest in it. Thus,
Additional Issue is decided accordingly, ordering refund of advance amount
of Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) by the defendants to the plaintiff along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till it’s realization.
76.ISSUE No.8:- In the result, the suit is partly decreed against the defendants for the alternative relief of refund of advance amount directing the defendants, to pay the advance sale consideration to the tune of
Rs.39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs only) to the plaintiff along with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum thereon from the date of suit till the date of its realization, till then a charge has been created on plaint ‘A’ schedule properties. The suit in respect of rest of the claim of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Under the circumstances, the parties do bear their own costs.
I A.D.J. Court, VZM 27 O.S. 61/2015 (Specific Performance) (dt.15.03.2023)
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of
March, 2023.
Sd/- K. RADHA RATNAM,
I Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined.
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:-
P.W.1: Sri Gottimukkala Srinivasa Varma. D.W.1: Karri Ramakrishna Reddy.
P.W.2: Buddaraju Veerabhadra Raju. D.W.2: Kovvuri Narsireddy (D-2).
P.W.3: Lavudi Suryanarayana.
Documents Marked
For Plaintiff: -
Ex.A.1: Suit Agreement of sale, dt.26.05.2007 for an extent of Ac.20-82 cents @ Rs.3,35,000/- per Acre.
Ex.A.2: Legal notice, dt.26.12.2012 issued to the defendants informing about R.O.R. Pass Books.
Ex.A.3: Legal notice, dt.29.01.2013 issued to the defendants.
Ex.A.4: Sale deed, dt.25.07.2013 under which the defendants acquired ‘C’ Schedule lands.
Ex.A.5: Sale deed, dt.03.08.2013 under which the defendants acquired ‘C’ Schedule lands.
Ex.A.5(a): Sale deed, dt.03.08.2013 (certified copy) bearing Document No.1052/2013, in favour of defendants 1 and 2.
Ex.A,.6: Legal notice, dt.08.01.2015 issued to the defendants, withdrawing Item No.3 notice.
Ex.A.7: Three returned covers of Item No.6.
Ex.A.8: Reply notice, dt.19.02.2015 sent by the defendants.
Ex.A.9: Legal notice, dt.18.03.2015 sent along with copy of notice Item No.6 to the Advocate for defendants.
Ex.A.10: Acknowledgment.
Ex.A.11: Reply Legal notice, dt.08.02.2013 issued by the defendants.
For Defendants: -
Ex.B.1: Acknowledgment.
Sd/- K. RADHA RATNAM,
I Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.