1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PILER
PRESENT :: Smt.K.Symala Devi,
senior civil Judge, Piler.
Monday, this the 27th of January, 2020
OS. 49 of 2007
Between:
1. Thummala Raja Sekhar Reddy.
2. Gundluru Jayachandra Reddy.
...Plaintiffs
And
1.Nallapapireddigari Krishna Reddy.
2. Nallapapireddigari Ramachandra Reddy. 3.Nallapapireddigari Narayana REDDY>
4. Vootukuri Chinna Reddeppa.
5. M.Krishna Reddy.
6. Abbavaram Kesava Reddy.
7. Chichchili Raghunatha Reddy. ( The defendants 4 to 7 are added as per orders in
I.A.No.367 of 2007 dt:27.04.2011 ). ...defendants
This suit is coming on 20-01-2020 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Sri M.Chandra Kumar
Reddy , Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri G.Siva Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the defendants 4 to 7 and the defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement of sale dt:25-07-2006 directing 2 the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a regular registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and if the defendants failed to do so to execute a regular sale deed on their behalf in respect of the plaint schedule property under due process of law alternatively to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,94,700/- to them with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization; and for costs.
2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :
The defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property on 25.07.2006 at Rs.10,000/- per acre by offering that they are the absolute owners of an extent of Ac 19.47 cents of land for a sale consideration of Rs.1,94,700/- . Believing their version, they paid an amount of Rs.1,00,700/- towards advance and the defendants had jointly received the said amount and jointly executed an agreement of sale in their favour on a condition that they shall pay the remaining balance sale consideration amount of Rs.94,000/- on or before 25.07.2007 and the defendants 1 to 3 shall execute a regular registered sale deed either in their favour or in favour of others. The defendants 1 3 to 3 also agreed that they never executed any sort of transactions in favour of third parties in respect of the suit schedule property. Subsequently on 06-01-2007, the defendants 1 to 3 have received an amount of Rs.54,000/- from them and the same was endorsed on the reverse of the said agreement of sale in the presence of attestors and scribe.
Subsequently on 05-02-2007, the defendants 1 to 3 have received the entire balance sale consideration amount of
Rs.40,000/- from them and endorsed the same on the reverse of the agreement of sale in the presence of attestors and scribe. Thus, the defendants 1 to 3 have received the entire balance sale consideration amount and they have to execute the registered sale deed in their favour on non judicial stamp papers. In the first week of June they approached and demanded the defendants 1 to 3 by stating that they are ready and willing to get a regular registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property in their favour. But, the defendants 1 to 3 had been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The defendants 1 to 3 also requested them that they are busy with their personal inconvenience and unable to execute the regular registered sale deed in their favour. But, they are always ready to get a regular registered sale deed in their favour as per the terms and conditions of 4 the agreement of sale dt:25/07/2006. But, the defendants purposely and wantonly evaded to perform their part of contract. On 18-06-2007 they got issued a telegram notice to the defendants demanding them to come to Sub Registrar’s office, Piler to execute a regular registered sale deed having came to know that the defendants are going to create some nominal and sham documents in favour of third parties.
Having came to know the attitude of the defendants, the said telegram was issued in support of their conditions. Inspite of all these, the defendants never attended Sub Registrar’s
Office, Piler and purposely evaded to execute a regular registered sale deed. On that they are under the impression that it is not safe for them to keep quite for further long time having came to know the evil and ill motives of the defendants and their adamant attitude, they foisted this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006.
Hence the suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dt:25-07-2006 stated as supra.
03. The defendants 1 to 3 called absent and set exparte.
The fourth defendant has filed his written statement
specifically denying the allegations made in the plaint. The
5
defendants 5 to 7 filed memo adopting the written
statement of the fourth defendant. They submitted that
the defendants 1 to 3 and Nallapapaireddigari Yerram
Reddy,NallapapireddigariVenkatramanaReddy,
Nallapapireddigari Eswara Reddy and Nallapapireddigari
Yella Reddy are the absolute owners of the suit schedule
property. The defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four
persons who are the absolute owners of the suit schedule
properties had agreed to sell the same to them for a
valuable sale consideration of Rs.8,77,325/- and they
accepted for the said offer and agreed to purchase the same.
They paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards part
performance of the contract to the defendants 1 to 3 and to
the above said four persons as advance on 24-01-2007 and
on the same day, the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said
four persons had executed an agreement of sale in their
favour. As per the terms and conditions of the said
agreement of sale dt:24.01.2007 executed by the
defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons in their
favour, they have to pay the balance amount of sale
6
consideration of Rs.6,77,325/- within five months from the
date of the said agreement of sale and the defendants 1 to
3 and the above said four persons have to execute a regular
sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule
property with their expenses. They are the bonafide
purchasers with good faith entered into an agreement of
sale with the above said defendants 1 to 3 and four persons.
They are always ready and willing to perform their part of
contract. They demanded the defendants 1 to 3 and the
above said four persons to receive the balance sale
consideration of Rs.6,77,325/- and to execute a regular
registered sale deed in respect of the schedule properties
and other properties in their favour they got issued a
registered notice to them on 21-06-2007 demanding them to
be present before Sub Registrar Officer, Piler for the
purpose of executing a regular registered sale deed in their
favour by taking the balance sale consideration from them
with their expenses. But, the defendants 1 to 3 and the
above said four persons failed to execute a regular
registered sale deed in their favour though they waited
before Sub Registrar's office, Piler to perform their part of
7
contract.
They are always ready and willing to perform their part of
contract. But, the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four
persons failed to perform their part of contract. On that
they filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of this court
against the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four
persons for specific performance of contract on 29-12-2007
and the same is pending. In the said suit in O.S.No.5 of 2008,
the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons
engaged an Advocate and contesting the same. The
defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons colluded
with the plaintiffs in this suit in order to defeat their
valuable rights over the suit schedule properties had
created and fabricated an anti dated agreement of sale
alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in
their favour and got filed this suit in order to gain
wrongfully. In the present suit, the defendants 1 to 3
became exparte by giving way to the plaintiffs to get a
decree in their favour to suit their purpose. Having came to
know about the institution of this suit by the plaintiffs
against the defendants 1 to 3, they filed a petition under
8
Order 1 Rule 10 to implead them as subsequent defendants
in the suit and the same is allowed by giving an opportunity
to them to contest the suit. Having came to know about the
fabrication and creating of the sale deed in this suit, they
gave report to Kambhamvaripalle police and the said police
registered a case in Cr.No.56 of 2007 of Kambhamvaripalle
police station u/ss 120-B, 420, 423 and 426 of IPC against
the defendants 1 to 3 in this case and against N.Krishna
Reddy, N.Ramachandra Reddy, N.Narayana Reddy of
Gyarampalle Kaspa along with R.Reddappa Setty , stamp
vendor, Kalluru, G.Venkataiah, Document Writer, Devapatla
village and one Nallapareddigari Yerram Reddy of
Gyarampalle and also filed charge sheet and the same is
numbered as C.C.No.132 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Piler. The said criminal case is also
pending for trial. In the investigation made by the police, it
is revealed that the defendants 1 to 3, N.Krishna Reddy,
N.Ramachandra Reddy, N.Narayana Reddy, N.Yerrama reddy
of Gyamrampalle kaspa in collusion with the plaintiffs 1 and
9
2 and purchased the stamps from R.Reddeppa Setty of
Kallure town by putting an anti date stamp and the same is
reduced into writing with G.Venkataiah, Document writer of
Sambepalle. It clearly shows that the plaintiffs and the
defendants 1 to 3 along with six others ( plaintiffs 1 and 2
and the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.50 of 2007) colluded
together and created and fabricated the suit document with
anti date in order to defeat their valid rights under
agreement of sale executed by the defendants 1 to 3 and
N.Yerram Reddy, N.Venkatramana Reddy, N.Eswara Reddy,
N.Yella Reddy and N.Venkatramana Reddy. The alleged
agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 is not at all executed by the
defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. It is only
a created and fabricated document by purchasing a stamp by
putting false document No.3376 with anti date alleged to
have been purchased on 20-04-2006 from R.Reddeppa Setty
of Kalluru village with the help of others and the scribe of
the suit document in order to defeat their valid rights. The
alleged endorsements dt:06-01-2007 and 05-02-2007 on the
suit agreement of sale are also created in order to suit the
case of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 in this case.
10
The attestors and scribe in the alleged agreement of sale
as well as the part payment endorsements on the reverse
side of the alleged suit agreement of sale are the close
associates and henchmen of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3.
On the same day, the said R.Reddy setty of Kalluru also
alleged to have been sold a non judicial stamp worth of
Rs.50/- by putting false number as 3376 with anti date as 20-
04-2006. The said stamp paper is used by the plaintiffs in
filing the suit in O.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of this court
by the same plaintiffs against N.Krishna Reddy,
N.Ramachandra Reddy and N.Narayana Reddy on their back
in order to get collusive decree. The same document writer
has scribed both the alleged suit agreements on the same
date through the same Advocate. It clearly goes to show
that the alleged agreement of sale and endorsements on the
reverse of the suit agreement of sale are created and
fabricated ones with after thought by purchasing stamps
with anti date in order to gain wrongfully. On the date of
agreement of sale itself, the value of the land is more than
Rs.47,000/- per acre. As the land values are increased after
11
the sale agreement in their favour, the plaintiffs and the
defendants 1 to 3 along with others had created the
agreements and the endorsements by showing that they
purchased the suit properties for mere Rs.10,000/- per acre.
It also clearly shows that the alleged agreements are only a
nominal, fabricated and created ones in order to gain
wrongfully. There is no valid contract existing between the
plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the defendants 1 to 3 as alleged in the
suit. The agreements of sale as well as endorsements came
into existence only with a view to defeat their valid rights
and to get wrongful gain for them and to cause loss to
them. Hence , the suit may be dismissed with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.
1.Whether the agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 , in favour of plaintiffs, is nominal, collusive and fabricated, as claimed by D4 to D7?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract ?
12
3. Whether time is essence of the contract ?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for enforcement of specific performance of agreement of sale
dt:25.07.2006 ? Or in the alternative whether the
plaintiffs are entitled for refund of sale consideration with interest at 18% p.a. as called for ?
5. To what relief ?
05. To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exts A1 to A5 on their behalf. On the other hand, the fourth defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exts. B1 to B6 on their behalf.
06.Heard both the counsels and perused the material on record.
07.Issue Nos.1 to 4 :
The initial burden is on the plaintiffs to prove that the agreement of sale dt:25-07-2006 is not a nominal one and it is not colluded and fabricated as alleged by the defendants 4 to 7 and they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. In order to establish their case, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got examined the scribes and attestors of Exs A1 to A3 as Pws 2 to 5. PW1 has reiterated 13 his case in his chief examination and got marked Exs A1 to A5 – agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in their favour, payment endorsements
dt:06.01.2007 and 05-02-2007 made by the defendants 1 to 3
for Rs.54,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on the reverse of Ex A1 agreement of sale, true copy of telegram notice got issued by them to the defendants 1 to 3 and receipt issued by BSNL office, Madanapalle. He further stated that the defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property on 25.07.2006 at Rs.10,000/- per acre by offering that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,94,700/-.
By believing the version of the defendants, they paid an amount of Rs.1,00,700/- on that day and the defendants 1 to 3 have jointly received the said amount towards advance and executed an agreement of sale in their favour with a condition that they shall pay the remaining balance sale consideration amount of Rs.94,000/- on or before 25.07.2007 and the defendants 1 to 3 shall execute a regular registered sale deed either in their favour or in favour of anybody and that the defendants never executed any sort of transaction in favour of third parties over the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 have duly signed on the said agreement of sale in the 14 presence of attestors and scribe with their pre consent Will.
Subsequently on 06-01-2007 the Defendants 1 to 3 have received an amount of Rs.54,000/- from them and the same was endorsed on the same day and the defendants 1 to 3 h ave duly signed on the said endorsement in the presence of attestors and scribe. Subsequently on 5.2.2007s the defendants 1 to 3 have received the entire balance sale consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- from them and he endorsed the same on the said date and the defendants 1 to 3 have duly signed for the said endorsement in the presence of attestors and scribe and they will execute the registered sale deed in their favour on valuable non judicial stamp papers with delivery of possession. In the first week of June they have approached and demanded the defendants 1 to 3 by showing that they are ready and willing to get a regular registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in their favour. But, the defendants did not execute the same and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The defendants 1 to 3 requested them that they are busy withtheir personal inconvenience and unable to execute a regular registered sale deed in their favour. They are always ready to get a regular registered sale deed in their favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale 15
dt:25.7.2006 . But, the defendants purposefully and
wantonly evading to perform their part of contract.
Whereas in his cross examination he stated that the total extent of suit schedule property is Ac 19-47 cents and it is situated in seven survey numbers. He could not say the extent of each survey number and boundaries. He does not know whether the defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte in this suit or not. He does not know whether any other persons got right in the suit schedule property or not. He has not filed any record to show that the total extent of suit schedule property belong to the defendants 1 to 3. He does not know whether present market value of the suit schedule property is
Rs.10,000/- per acre or not. Sambepalle comes within the jurisdiction of Sub Registrar office, Rayachoti. There are stamp vendors at Sundupalle, Rayachoty. He purchased stamps for Ex A1 at Kalluru. The distance between
Sambepalle and Kalluru is 50 km. There is Piler town with Sub
Registrar’s office in between Sambepalle and Kalluru. He purchased stamps for Ex A1 from one Reddeppa Chetty of
Kalluru. There are document writers in Piler. One Venkataiah of his village scribed Ex A1 at Rayachoty. The distance between his village and Rayachoty is 15 Kms. The place of 16 execution ( Rayachoti) is not mentioned in Ex A1. He paid
Rs.1,00,700/- towards advance and balance amount of
Rs.94,000/- under Ex A1. He does not know the place of execution of Ex A2 endorsement. He does not remember the scribe of Ex A2 endorsement. One Yerramreddy and
Venkatramana Reddy attested on Ex A2. He paid
Rs.54,000/- under Ex A2 and Rs.40,000/- on 05-02-2007 under Ex A3. He does not know the scribe of Ex A3 endorsement. One Lakshminarayana is the scribe of Ex A3.
Lakshminarayana is a document writer. One Ramesh and
Mohana had attested on Ex A3. Lakshminaryana is the resident of Madanapalle and he came to his village and drafted Ex A3. One Yerramareddy, Venkataramana Reddy ,
Eswara Reddy of Gyarampalle attested on Ex A1 agreement of sale. The stamp for Ex A1 is purchased in his name on 20- 04-2006 even prior to the settlement of sale price. He could not say when he demanded the defendants 1 to 3 to execute sale deed after endorsement under Ex A3. He has not issued any legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3. 4 or 5 days after issuing Ex A4 notice, he filed this suit against the defendants 1 to 3. He has not mentioned two agreement of sales in Ex
A4. He issued Ex A4 at 1.35 pm on 18-06-2007 demanding the defendants to come to Sub Registrar’s Office, Piler to 17 execute sale deed on the same day itself from Madanapalle.
He issued Ex A4 to the first defendant alone but, not to other executors. He demanded the defendants 1 to 3 , ten or 20 days after Ex A3 but, they did not come. He has not issued any notice 10 or 15 days after Ex A3 though the defendants 1 to 3 refused to register sale deeds. He does not know whether the defendants 4 to 7 issued notice to the defendants 1 to 3 and others on 21-06-2007. He denied the suggestion that the value of the suit schedule property as on the date of Ex A1 was Rs.50,000/- per acre and that the police filed criminal case against the defendants 1 to 3,
Reddeppa Chetty and others for supplying fake stamps with anti date. He further denied the suggestion that himself, first plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 colluded together and created Exs A1 to A3 to defeat the claim of defendants 4 to 7 in the suit property due to raise of prices . He further denied the suggestion that Exts A1 to A4 are prepared at a time in consultation with legal adviser and that the defendants 4 to 7 purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 to 3 ,
Yerramareddy, Venkataramana Reddy, Eswara Reddy and
Yella Reddy under agreement of sale dt:24.01.2007 for
Rs.8,77,325/-. He further denied the suggestion that stamp 18 used for Ex A1 is not genuine one and that is not entitled for enforcement of Ex A1 and he is giving false evidence.
8. PW2 who scribed Ex A1 agreement of sale has reiterated the case of the plaintiffs in his chief examination with regard to the execution of Ex A1 agreement of sale and part payments endorsements Exs A2 and A3 further stated that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 1 to 3 approached him on 25.07.2006 and instructed him to scribe an agreement of sale. The defendants 1 to 3 informed him that they agreed to sell the schedule property to an extent of
Ac 19.47 cents of land situated in Gyrampalle village to the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of Rs.1,94,700/- that they are receiving an advance amount of Rs.1,00,700/- and further agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed on or before 25.07.2006 after receiving the balance sale consideration of
Rs.94,000/- and he incorporated the above said terms, read over and explained to both the parties.
Whereas in his cross examination, he stated that he is the resident of Devapatla. Since his childhood, he is having acquaintance with the second plaintiff. He does not know whether police filed charge sheet against the plaintiffs as well 19 as the defendants 1 to 3 in this case along with stamp vendor and attestors. Police filed case against him and others u/s 120-B. 417. 418, 423 r/w 34 IPC and the same is pending. He scribed Ex A1 on 25.07.2006. He does not remember where the stamp was purchased and on which contents of Ex A1 were scribed. On seeing Ex A1 he said thaat it shows that it was purchased at Kalluru from R.Reddeppa Chetty. The distance between the suit village and Rayachoty is 40 km.
The distance between his village and suit village is 20 km.
There is Sub Registrar office at Piler and non judicial stamps are also available. So also, there are document writers at
Piler. The distance between suit village and Piler town is about 15 km,. He remembers that the time mentioned in Ex
A1 is one year for execution of regular registered sale deed.
He denied the suggestion that he never scribed Ex A1 on 25.07.2006 and that at the instance of Jayachandra Reddy (P2), he scribed Ex A1 by putting anti date though none of the attestors and defendants 1 to 3 were present. He further denied the suggestion that as plaintiffs 1 and 2 are his fellow villagers, Ex A1 was created and he scribed Ex A1 in his house and that the defendants 1 to 3 have not given any instructions to him to scribe the contents of Ex A1.
20
9. PW3 who signed on Ex A2 endorsement as attestor has also reiterated the case of the plaintiff in his chief examination and further stated that on 06-01-2007, the defendants 1 to 3 received a sum of Rs.54,000/- from the plaintiffs and endorsed the same on the reverse of Ex A1. After receiving the said amount of Rs.54,000/-, the defendants 1 to 3 signed on it.
One T.Muni Reddy has scribed the said endorsement and he signed as an attestor on the said endorsement. The plaintiffs purchased an extent of Ac 19-47 cents from his father and his brothers. The lands sold by his father and his brothers to the plaintiffs are their ancestral lands. His father and his brothers sold the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiffs at
Rs.10,000/- per acre on 25.07.2006. Ex A1 agreement of sale was scribed at Rayachoty. He does not know whether the plaint schedule property comes sunder the purview of Sub
Registrar’s office, Piler. He does not know whether there are document writers in Piler or not. Ex A1 was scribed in between 5.00 to 6.00 pm by one Venkataiah ( PW2). The said
Venkataiah was called by the plaintiffs. Ex A1 was scribed by
PW2 in his office at Rayachoty in Sundupalle road. He does not know the boundaries of the plaint schedule properties but they are 21 consisting of seven items. He could not say each survey number and its extents. The defendants 1 to 3 are only having right and title over the plaint schedule property. He does not know how many stamps were used for Ex A1. The denomination of stamps used for scribing Ex A1 is Rs.50/- .
The defendants put their signatures in Ex A1 only on one paper. He does not know whether the defendants 1 to 3 in this case and one Yerramreddy, Venkataramana Reddy, Eswar
Reddy and Yella Reddy sold the plaint schedule properties to the defendants 4 to 7 or not. He does not know whether any criminal case is registered for creating Ex A1. He denied the suggestion that he does not know anything about the case and in order to help the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and to cause loss and hardship to the defendants 4 to 7, the plaintiffs , the defendants 1 to 3 himself and other attestor and scribe colluded together and created Ex A1 and that the defendants 1 to 3 and others sold the plaint schedule property to the defendants 4 to 7 at Rs.47,500/- per acre and executed Ex A1 also.
10. PW4 who scribed Ex A3 payment endorsement has also reiterated the case of plaintiff in his chief examination and further stated that on 06-01-2007, the defendants 1 to 3 received a sum of Rs.54,000/- from the 22 plaintiffs and endorsed the same on the reverse of the Ex A1 agreement of sale. After receiving the said amount of
Rs.54,000/-, the defendants 1 to 3 signed on it. One
N.Venkatramana Reddy signed on it as attestor and he scribed the payment endorsement.
Whereas in his cross examination, he stated that the endorsement on Ex A1 was scribed in his house. At the time of making endorsement on Ex A1, the first plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3, one Adinarayana Reddy, one
Venkataramana reddy and himself were present. The 2nd plaintiff gave Rs.50,000/- to Krishna Reddy. The suit schedule lands are situated adjacent to main road of Kadapa-Pileru.
The market value of the lands surrounding his village are nearly Rs.2,00,000/-. He does not know the extent covered under Ex A1. But, he came to know that the market value is
Rs.10,000/- per acre. Ex A2 endorsement was scribed at about 1.00 pm . But, he does not remember its date and day.
He denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in collusion with the defendants 1 to 3 purchased stamps which are used for scribing Ex A1 with an anti date and he in collusion with them scribed the endorsement with an anti 23 date in order to help the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. He further denied the suggestion that though he knows the transaction between the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 4 to 7, in order to help the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 1 to 3, he is deposing falsely for enriching them.
11. PW5 who is one of the attestor of Ex A3 payment endorsement has also reiterated the case stated that on 05-02-2007 the defendants 1 to 3 received a sum of
Rs.40,000/- from the plaintiffs and endorsed the same on the reverse of Ex A1 agreement of sale agreeing to execute a regular registered sale deed as and when required by the plaintiffs. After receiving the said amount of Rs.40,000/- the defendants 1 to 3 signed on it. One Lakshminarayana scribed the said endorsement. Himself and P.Mohana signed on it as attestors.
Whereas in his cross examination, he stated that he knows PW1 since 10 years and PW2 since his childhood as he is the resident of his native village. He put his signature as an attestor at Devapatla. He does not remember the date on which he attested as witness. He does not remember on how many pages, the agreement of sale was written. At the time of signing as an attestor on the agreement of sale himself, 24
N.Krishna Reddy, N.Ramachandra Reddy, N.Narayana Reddy and one Jayachandra Reddy were present. He does not know the contents of the page in which he put the signature as an attestor. He does not know on which transaction, the plaintiffs apid the amount to the defendants 1 to 3. He denied the suggestion that nothing was took place in his presence and he attested as an attestor by putting an anti date in order to help the plaintiffs.
12. As against the above evidence, the fourth defendant examined himself as DW1. He reiterated his case in his chief examination and got marked Exts B1 to B6 – office copy of plaint filed in O.S.No.5 of 2008, certified copy of First
Information Report in C.C.No.319/2013 on the file of Judical
First Class Magistrate, Pileru, Certified copy of charge sheet in
C.C.No.319/2013, certified copy of confession statement, certified copy of agreement of sale dt:24.01.2007 in O.S.No.4 of 2008, certified copy of suit agreement dt:24.01.2007 in
O.S.No.5 of 2008. He further stated that the defendants 1 to
3 and Nallapapaireddigari Yerram Reddy, Nallapapireddigari
Venkatramana Reddy, Nallapapireddigari Eswara Reddy and
Nallapapireddigari Yella Reddy are the absolute owners of
the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 and the
25
above said four persons who are the absolute owners of the
schedule properties had agreed to sell the same to them for
a valuable sale consideration of Rs.8,77,325/- and they
accepted for the said offer and agreed to purchase the same.
They paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards part
performance of contract to the defendants 1 to 3 and to the
above said four persons as advance on 24-01-2007 and on
the same day, the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four
persons had executed an agreement of sale in their favour.
As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of
sale dt:24.01.2007 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 and
the above said four persons in their favour, they have to pay
the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.6,77,325/-
within five months from the date of the said agreement of
sale and the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four
persons have to execute a regular sale deed in their favour in
respect of the suit schedule property with their expenses.
They are the bonafide purchasers with good faith entered
into an agreement of sale with defendants 1 to 3 and the
above said four persons. They are always ready and willing
26
to perform their part of contract. They demanded the
defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons to receive
the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,77,325/- and to
execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of the
schedule properties and other properties in their favour,
they got issued a registered notice to them on 21-06-2007
demanding them to be present before Sub Registrar Office,
Piler for the purpose of executing a regular registered sale
deed in their favour by taking balance sale consideration
from them with their expenses. But the defendants 1 to 3
and the above said four persons failed to execute a regular
registered sale deed in their favour though they waited
before Sub Registrar's office, Piler to perform their part of
contract. They are always ready and willing to perform their
part of contract. But the defendants 1 to 3 and the above
said four persons failed to perform their part of contract.
On that they filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2008 on the file of this
court against the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four
persons for specific performance of contract on 29-12-2007
and the same is pending. In the said suit in O.S.No.5 of 2008,
27
the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons
engaged an Advocate and contesting the same. The
defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons colluded
with the plaintiffs in this suit in order to defeat their
valuable rights over the suit schedule properties had
created and fabricated an anti dated agreement of sale
alleged to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in
their favour and got filed this suit in order to gain
wrongfully. In the present suit, the defendants 1 to 3
became exparte by giving way to the plaintiffs to get a
decree in their favour to suit their purpose. Having came to
know about the institution of this suit by the plaintiffs
against the defendants 1 to 3, they filed a petition under
Order 1 Rule 10 to implead them as subsequent defendants
in the suit and the same is allowed by giving an opportunity
to them to contest the suit. Having came to know about the
fabrication and creation of the sale deed in this suit, they
gave report to Kambhamvaripalle police and the said police
registered a case in Cr.No.56 of 2007 of Kambhamvaripalle
police station u/ss 120-B, 420, 423 and 426 of IPC against
28
the defendants 1 to 3 in this case and against N.Krishna
Reddy, N.Ramachandra Reddy, N.Narayana Reddy of
Gyarampalle Kaspa along with R.Reddappa Setty , stamp
vendor, Kalluru, G.Venkataiah, Document Writer, Devapatla
village and one Nallapareddigari Yerram Reddy of
Gyarampalle and also filed charge sheet and the same is
numbered as C.C.No.132 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Piler. The said criminal case is also
pending for trial. In the investigation made by the police, it
is revealed that the defendants 1 to 3, N.Krishna Reddy,
N.Ramachandra Reddy, N.Narayana Reddy, N.Yerrama reddy
of Gyamrampalle kaspa in collusion with the plaintiffs 1 and
2 had purchased the stamps from R.Reddeppa Setty of
Kallure town by putting an anti date stamp and same is
reduced into writing with G.Venkataiah, Document writer of
Sambepalle. It clearly shows that the plaintiffs and the
defendants 1 to 3 along with six others ( i.e. plaintiffs 1 and
2 and the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.50 of 2007) colluded
together and created and fabricated the suit document with
29
anti date in order to defeat their valid rights under
agreement of sale executed by the defendants 1 to 3 and
N.Yerram Reddy, N.Venkatramana Reddy, N.Eswara Reddy,
N.Yella Reddy and N.Venkatramana Reddy. The alleged
agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 is not at all executed by the
defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. It is only
a created and fabricated document by purchasing stamps
and by putting false document No.3376 with anti date
alleged to have been purchased on 20-04-2006 from
R.Reddeppa Setty of Kalluru village with the help of others
and the scribe of the suit document in order to defeat their
valid rights. The alleged endorsements dt:06-01-2007 and
05-02-2007 on the suit agreement of sale are also created
in order to suit the case of the plaintiff and the defendants
1 to 3 in this case. The attestors and scribe in the alleged
agreement of sale as well as the part payment
endorsements on the reverse side of the alleged suit
agreement of sale are the close associates and henchmen of
plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. On the same day, the said
R.Reddy setty of Kalluru also alleged to have been sold a
non judicial stamp worth of Rs.50/- by putting false number
30
as 3376 with anti date as 20-04-2006. The said stamp paper
is used by the plaintiffs in filing the suit in O.S.50 of 2007
on the file of this court by the same plaintiffs against
N.Krishna Reddy, N.Ramachandra Reddy and N.Narayana
Reddy on their back in order to get a collusive decree. The
same document writer scribed both the alleged suit
agreements on the same date through the same Advocate.
It clearly goes to show that the alleged agreement of sale
and endorsements on the reverse of the suit agreement of
sale are created and fabricated ones with after thought
by purchasing stamps in order to gain wrongfully. On the
date of agreement of sale itself, the value of the land is
more than Rs.47,000/- per acre. As the land values are
increased after the sale agreement in their favour, the
plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 along with others had
created the agreements and the endorsements by showing
that they purchased the suit properties for mere Rs.10,000/-
per acre. It also clearly shows that the alleged agreements
are only a nominal, fabricated and created one in order to
gain wrongfully. There is no valid contact existing between
31
the plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the defendants 1 to 3 as alleged
in the suit. The agreements of sale as well as the
endorsements came into existence only with a view to
defeat their valid rights and to get wrongful gain to them
and to cause loss to them.
13. He further stated that the suit schedule property is
situated in Gyarampalle village and its extent is Ac 18,47
cents consists of six items in two survey numbers. He could
not say the extent of each item and survey number. The
defendants 1 to 3 executed an agreement of sale in favour
of one Rajasekhar Reddy . Since 7 to 8 years there is hike in
the value of lands. The defendants 1 to 3 and their children
got right and title over the suit schedule property. He does
not know the transaction in between the plaintiffs and the
defendants 1 to 3. He knows that the defendants 1 to 3 sold
the suit lands to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per
acre. He does not know how much advance has been
received by the defendants 1 to 3 from the plaintiffs at the
32
time of execution of suit agreement of sale. He does not
know whether the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.54,000/- on
06-01-2007 under Ex A2 and Rs.40,000/- under Ex A3
endorsements. The defendants 1 to 3 executed an
agreement of sale in his favour for the suit schedule
property. One Adinarayana Reddy and others sold their
lands to him and executed an agreement of sale. A minor by
name Gunasekhar Reddy is also having a right over the lands
sold to him but on his behalf his father Narayana Reddy
executed sale agreement in his favour. The agreement of
sale executed in his favour by the defendants 1 to 3 and
others and one Adinaryana Reddy and others are executed
on the same day and the scribe and attestors are also one
and the same. The suit agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 is
prior to the agreement of sale executed by the defendants in
his favour. He denied the suggestion that there is no
agreement of sale executed after the suit sale agreement
and that the sale agreement in O.S..5 of 2008 was created
by him to deceive the plaintiffs in collusion with the
defendants 1 to 3 in this suit. He further denied the
suggestion that he never purchased and paid the advance
33
sale consideration and that he filed false criminal complaint
against the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 only in order
to win over him to his terms. He further denied the
suggestion that the plaintiffs a re entitled to get a regular
registered sale deed executed on their names and he is
intentionally came on record in order to harass the plaintiffs
and to get wrongful gain.
14. During the course of arguments while arguing the case of the plaintiffs, the counsel for plaintiffs 1 and 2 has contended that admission of a party in the proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any further corroboration and relied upon the decision reported in 2012 AIAR ( Civil) 716 in between
Ahmedsaheb (D) represented by his L.Rs. And Others Vs.
Sayed Ismail . He further contended that in the present case DW4 orally admitted that the defendants 1 to 3 executed
Ex A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2.
The evidence of PWs1 to 5 coupled with Exs A1 to A5 establish the case of the plaintiffs and requests the Hon’ble court to decree the suit with costs.
On the other hand, while arguing the case of the defendants 4 to 7, the counsel for D4 to D7 has contended 34 that it is the settled law that the party who seeks to avail of the equitable jurisdiction of a court and specific performance being equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands. In other words a party who makes false allegations does not come with clean hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief . The relief in the nature of specific performance is discretionary and a party who pleads a false case is not entitled to such equitable relief. The decree for specific performance is the discretion of the court but the discretion should not be refused arbitrarily. The discretion should be exercised on sound principles of law capable of correction by an appellate court. The party who seeks to avail of the equitable jurisdiction of a party and specific performance being equitable relief, must come to the court with clean hands. In other words the party who makes false allegations does not came with clean hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief and the discretionary relief of specific performance rightly refused by the lower courts and relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 2814 in between Lourdu Mari David and others. Vs. Louis Chinnaya
Arogiaswamy and others. He further contended that while granting specific performance of contract, the court should see that litigation is not used as instrument of oppression to 35 have unfair advantage to plaintiff. Section 20 of Specific
Relief Act preserves judicial discretion to court as to decreeing specific performance. The court should meticulously consider all facts and circumstances of the case and the court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. The motive behind the litigation should also enter into the judicial verdict. The court should take care to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff and relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2328 in between P.V.Joseph’s son Mathew V. N.Kuruvila’s son. He further contended that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 colluded together and created Exts A1 to A3 to defraud the claim of the defendants 4 to 7 in the suit schedule property due to hike in the prices of lands and Exs
A1 to A4 are prepared at a time in consultation with legal adviser. The defendants 4 to 7 purchased the schedule property from the defendants 1 to 3, one Yerram Reddy,
Venkatramana reddy, Eswara Reddy under an agreement of
sale dt:24.01.2007 for a valuable sale consideration of
Rs.8,77, 325/- and the stamp used for preparing Ex A1 is not
a genuine one and the plaintiffs filed this suit on 19.07.2007
36
itself i.e. immediately after the issuance of telegram notice.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their case by examining
second plaintiff and PW2 to 5 and marking Exts A1 to A5. On
the other hand, the cross examination of PWs1 to 5 and the
evidence of DW1 coupled with Exts B1 to B6 establish the
case of the defendants 4 to 7 and requests the Honourable
court to dismiss the suit with costs.
15. A perusal of Ex A1 agreement of sale dt:25-07-2006 discloses that it was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs on 25.07.2006 for a sale consideration of
Rs.1,94,700/- on Rs.50/- worth of non judicial stamp paper. It further discloses that the property covered under the said document i.e. Ac 19.47 cents of land is their ancestral property and got settled the sale consideration at Rs.10,000/- per acre for a total sum of Rs.1.94,700/- and they received a sum of Rs.1,00,700/- towards advance on that day and remaining sale consideration of Rs.94,000/- is to be paid on or
before 25-07-2007 and they will execute a regular registered
sale deed either in favour of plaintiffs or in favour of any third party and deliver possession over the said property. If the remaining sale consideration is not paid within the stipulated 37 time, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have no right over the property covered under it and they will not refund the advance amount.
If they failed to perform their part of contract and it they failed to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, they may pay the remaining sale consideration into the court and get a regular registered sale deed and they will pay the court expenses and they will be held responsible for taking both civil and criminal proceedings. It was scribed by
Venkataiah . It was attested by Nallapapaireddigari Yerram
Reddy,NallapapireddigariVenkatramanaReddy,
Nallapapireddigari Eswara Reddy and Nallapapireddigari
Yella Reddy .
16. A perusal of Exs A2 and A3 part payment
endorsement and endorsements disclose that they were
made on 06-01-2007 for Rs.54,000/- and on 05-02-2007 for
Rs.40,000/- by the defendants 1 to 3 stating they received
the said amounts out of the remaining balance sale
consideration and they will execute a regular sale deed on
sufficient stamp papers in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 or in
favour of any third party without any further expenses. A
perusal of Ex A4 true copy of telegram notice dt:18-06-2007
38
discloses that it was issued by K.Jitendra, Advocate,
Madanapalle to the first defendant on 18.06.2007 stating
that the first defendant and six others who executed
agreement of sale to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are evading to
execute a regular registered sale deed and trying to create
sham documents over the same properties. Hence they are
requested to come to Sub Registrar’s office, Piler on
18.06.2007 itself along with other executors or else legal
action will follows. A perusal of Ex A5 receipt discloses that
the said receipt was issued by A.O. , BSNL, Madanapalle on
18.06.2007. Whereas the second plaintiff who is examined as
PW1, the scribes and attestors of Exs A1 to A3 who are examined as PWs2 to 5 had stated that on 25.07.2006 the defendants 1 to 3 who are the absolute owners of an extent of
Ac 19.47 cents of land shown as the suit schedule property executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 by receiving an amount of Rs.100700/- towards advance at
Rs.10,000/ per acre on a condition that they would pay the remaining sale consideration on or before Dt:25.07.2007 and execute a regular registered sale deed either in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 or in favour of any third party . The 39 defendants 1 to 3 never executed any sort of transactions in favour of third parties in respect of the suit schedule property.
Later on 06-01-2007 the defendants 1 to 3 received an amount of Rs.54,000/- and on 05.02.2007 they received the entire balance sale consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- and made endorsements to that effect on the reverse of Ex A1 suit agreement of sale under Exs. A2 and A3. On 18.06.2007 the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had issued a telegram notice to the first defendant demanding them to come to Sub Registrar’s office,
Piler and to execute a regular registered sale deed having came to know that the defendants 1 to 3 are going to create some nominal and sham documents in favour of third parties.
But, either the plaintiffs or PWs2 to 5 have not stated whether the said telegram notice was received by the defendants 1 to 3 or not. Moreover, PW1 has stated that he has not filed any record to show that the total suit schedule property belongs to the defendants 1 to 3. He is the resident of Devapatla of
Kadapa District. The first plaintiff by name Rajasekhar Reddy is his relative. He filed this suit for specific performance only.
The suit schedule property is an extent of Ac 19.47 cents consists of seven survey numbers. He could not say the extent of each survey number and boundaries. Before entering into Ex A1 agreement of sale, he visited the suit 40 property and verified the same. He purchased stamps for Ex
A1 at Kalluru. The suit schedule properties are situated at
Gyrampalle village. There are stamp vendors at Sundupalle of
Rayachoty. Sundupalle comes within the jurisdiction of
Rayachoty. There are document writers in Piler. One
Venkataiah of his village has scribed Ex A1 at Rayachoty. The distance between his village and Rayachoty is 15 km. The place of execution ( Rayachoty) is not mentioned in Ex A1. He does not know the place of execution of Ex A2 endorsement.
He does not remember the scribe of Ex A2 endorsement. He does not know the scribe of Ex A3 endorsement. He purchased stamps for Ex A1 before settlement of sale price.
He could not say when he demanded the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a regular sale deed after endorsement under Ex A3.
He has not issued any legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3.
Four or five days after issuing Ex A4 telegram, he field the suit against the defendants 1 to 3. But, a perusal of plaint discloses that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed this suit against the defendants 1to 3 on 19.06.2007. He further stated that he has not mentioned two agreement of sales in Ex A4 which was issued on 18.06.2007 at about 1.35 pm demanding the defendants to come to Sub Registrar Office, Piler to execute a sale deed on the same day itself. He issued Ex A4 to the first 41 defendant alone but not to other executors from
Madanapalle. But, he demanded the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a regular sale deed on the date of Ex A3. The defendants promissed to execute sale deeds 10 or 15 days later. Again he demanded the defendants 1 to 3 10 or 20 days after Ex A3 but, they did not come. He has not issued any notice 10 or 15 days after Ex A3 though the defendants 1 to 3 refused to register a regular sale deed. He does not know whether the defendants 4 to 7 issued any notice to the defendants 1 to 3 and others on 21.06.2007 or not . He does not know whether the defendants 4 to 7 filed a suit in O.S.5 of 2008 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the defendants 1 to 3 and others. But, the plaintiffs have not offerred their explanation as to why they have got scribed Ex
A1 agreement of sale with one Venkataiah of Devapatla village at Rayachoty. They have also not offered their explanation as to why they have got issued telegram notice on 18.06.2007 to the first defendant alone from Madanapalle demanding the other defendants to come to Sub Registrar
Office, Piler to execute a regular sale deed on the same day itself at about 1.35 pm when the distance between
Gyrampalle where the suit schedule properties are situated and the defendants 1 to 3 are residing to Piler is 55 KM and it 42 was issued to first defendant alone and demanding 6 others when Ex A1 agremnt of sale was executed by the defendants 1 to 3 only. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have also not stated who are 6 others along with first defendant and also filed suit
against the defendants 1 to 3 only. They have not filed any
document or record to show that the defendants 1 to 3 are
only having right and title over the suit schedule property.
PW1 has also admitted that he does not know whether any
other persons got right in the suit survey numbers or not.
But, he has not stated as to why he got issued notice to first
defendant alone and demanded 6 others to execute a
regular sale deed in his favour and in favour of first plaintiff
and for got scribing the Ex A1 agreement of sale with one
Venkataiah of Devapatla village at Rayachoty when there are
document writers in Piler where there is Sub Registrar
Officer. PW3 who is the son of first defendant and who
signed on Ex A2 has also stated that the defendants put
their signatures on only one paper on Ex A1. But a perusal of
Ex A1 is reduced into writing on two papers. Both PW1 and
PW3 had stated that they do not know whether present
43
market value of the suit schedule property is Rs.10,000/-
per acre or not even though PW1 is doing cultivation and
cattle business. The plaint schedule property consists of
seven items and he could not say each survey number and its
extents. He does not know the boundaries of plaint
schedule property. Ex A1 was scribed by PW2 in his office at
Rayachoty in Sundupalle road. Whereas PW2 who scribed Ex
A1 suit agreement of sale h as stated that since his
childhood he is having acquaintance with second plaintiff.
He used to scribe documents at Rayachoty which is at a
distance of 16 km away from his native village. There is Sub
Registrar office at Piler and non judicial stamps can also
available. So also there are document writers at Pileru. He
has no idea about the value of the lands situated in and
around Gyrampalle revenue village. PW4 who is the scribe of
Ex A2 part payment endorsement has stated that the
endorsement on Ex A1 is scribed in his house at Gyrampalle.
At the time of making endorsement on Ex A1, the first
plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and himself were present. The
44
lands surrounding to his village are having market value of
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. He does not know the extents
covered under Ex A1. PW5 who is one of the attestor of Ex
A3 endorsement has stated that he put his signature as an
attestor at Devapatla. He does not remember the date on
which he attested as witness. He does not remember on
how many pages the agreement of sale was written. He
does not know in which page of agreement of sale, he signed
as an attestor. He does not know the contents of the page
on which he put his signature as an attestor. He does not
know on which transaction, the plaintiffs paid the amount to
the defendants. His evidence reveals that he does not know
anything about Ex A3 payment endorsement under which
the defendants 1 to 3 received the remaining sale
consideration from the plaintiffs 1 and 2. Moreover, a
perusal of Exs A1 to A3 disclose that the defendants 1 to 3
who are the executors had signed on the left side of Ets A1
to A3 instead of signing on the right side on those
transactions as executors. As against the above
documentary evidence the fourth defendant got marked Exs
45
B1 to B6. A perusal of Ex B1 certified copy of plaint in O.S.5
of 2008 discloses that the said suit was filed by the
defendants 4 to 7 herein against N.Krishna reddy,
N.Ramachandra Reddy, Yerram Reddy, N.Venkatramana
reddy, N.Eswar Reddy and N.Yella Reddy in respect of an
extent of Ac 18.47 cents situated in Sy.No.142 and 143 and
their sub divisions. A perusal of Exs B2 and B3 certified
copies of FIR and charge sheet in C.C.No.319/2013 on the file
of JFCM Court, Piler, disclose that upon the report given by
D4 to D7 against the plaintiffs1 and 2 herein and 6 others, a
case in Cr.No.56 of 2007 was registered by police on
03.08.2007 of K.V.Palle police station u/ss 120(B), 417, 418,
420, 423 r/w 34 of IPC. A perusal of Ex B3 certified copy of
charge sheet in C.C.No.319/2013 discloses that the SI of
Police, K.V.Palle P.S. has filed a charge sheet against
N.Krishna Reddy and 10 others u/ss 120-B, 420, 423, 426 IPC
r/w 34 IPC. A perusal of Ex B4 certified copy of confession
statement of D7 discloses that he is living by selling
N.J.Stamps for the last 24 years. In the month of June,
2007 the second plaintiff came to him and asked two Rs.50/-
46
non judicial stamp papers with anti date and for that, he will
pay whatever he demands. On that, he sold away two Rs.50/-
worth of non judicial stamps by noting the Sl.Nos.3375 and
3376 with anti date in his sales register on payment of
Rs.1,000/- each. But he has not handed over his sales
register to SUB Registrar as two non judicial stamps were
not sold out of the non judicial stamps kept for selling them
for higher price by him in his house at Kalluru and he has
given an undertaking that his register was found missing due
to repairs in his house. Later, he came to know that the
second plaintiff misused the stamp papers purchased from
him and the police registered a case and they are
investigating into the said case. He has also came to know
that the police came to his house on two or three occasions.
On that , today i.e. on 08.10.2007 he is going to SRO Office,
Pakala for handing over the said register and in the
meanwhile police caught hold him on the alelgations that
he supported the accused by putting anti date on stamp
papers. A perusal of Ex B5 certified copy of agreement of
sale dt:24.1.2007 in O.S.No.4 of 2008 discloses that it was
47
executed by the defendants Krishna Reddy, Ramachandra
Reddy and Narayana Reddy, , the sons of Krishna Reddy by
name Yerram Reddy, Venkatramana reeddy, Eswara Reddy,
son of Ramachandra reddy namely Yellareddy and the son of
Narayana reddy by name Gunasekhar Reddy (minor) in
favour of defendants 4 to 7 herein in respect of the plaint
schedule properties herein, except the property shown as
D.No.502, 6.34 cents paiki one acre joint consists of 6 items.
. A perusal of Ex B6 certified copy of agreement of sale
dt:24.01.2007 in O.S.No.5 of 2008 discloses that it was
executed by the defendants D4 to D7 V. Chinna Reddeppa,
Krishna Reddy, Kesava reddy, Raghunadha Reddy, son of
Nallpapireddy by nema Krishna reddy, Ramachandra Reddy,
Narayana reddy, sons of Krishna Reddy by name Yella reddy,
Gunasekhar Reddy, S/o Narayanareddy on 24.01.2007 in
respect of the plaint schedule properties herein.
17. The fourth defendant who is examined as DW1 has also stated that, the defendants 1 to 3, one Yerram Reddy,
Venkatramana Reddy, Eswara Reddy and Yella reddy are the 48 absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties. The defendants 1 to 3 along with the above said four others entered into an agreement of sale with them for a valid sale consideration of Rs.8,77,325/- and received a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- towards part payment from him and the defendants 5 to 7 on 24.01.2007 and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale dt:24.01.2007, they have to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of
Rs.6,77, 325/- within five months from the date of its execution i.e. on or before 24.06.2007 to the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four persons and obtain a regular sale deed from them. They are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and demanded the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four others to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute a registered sale deed but, they are postponing the same. On 21.06.2007 himself and the defendants 5 to 7 got issued a registered notice to the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four others demanding them to be present before Sub Registrar Office, Piler and to execute a regular sale deed in their favour by receiving the balance sale consideration from them with their expenses.
But the defendants 1 to 3 and the above said four others failed to execute a regular sale deed in their favour thought hey waited before Sub Registrar office, Piler to perform their 49 part of contract. Later on 29.12.2007 they filed a suit in
O.S.No.5 of 2008 against the defendants 1 to 3 and four
others for specific performance of contract and it is pending.
In order to defeat their valid rights over the property under agreement of sale dt:24.01.2007 , the defendants 1 to 3 and four others colluded with the plaintiffs in this suit had created and fabricated the anti dated agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by them in favour of the plaintiffs and filed this suit in i order to gain wrongfully. The defendants 1 to 3 became exparte by paving way to the plaintiffs to get a decree in their favour to suit their purpose. Having came to know about the same, they field a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead them as defendants 4 to 7 in this suit and the same is allowed by giving an opportunity to them to contest this suit. A perusal of suit docket disclose that on 18.07.2007 the defendants 1 to 3 became absent though they received the suit summons through post. Even prior to the first appears of defendants 1 to 3 in the . The defendants 4 to 7 filed I.A.367 of 2007 under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151 of CPC to implead them as defendants 4 to 7 on 13.07.2007 and the said petition was allowed on merits on 27.4.2011 in order to give an opportunity to them to establish their case. He further stated that having came to know about the fabrication 50 and creation of agreement of sale in this suit, they gave a report to K.V.Palle police u/s 120(B), 420 and 426 of IPC against the defendants 1 to 3, N.Krishna reddy,
N.Ramachandra Reddy of Gyrampalle along with stamp vendor, Kalluru, G.Venkataiah, Devapathla village and
N.Yerrama reddy of Gyrampalle and the police field charge sheet and the same is numbered as C.C.No.319 of 2009 on the file of JFCM, Piler and it is pending. A perusal of Exs B1 to
B6 corroborate his evidence on all material aspects. He further stated that the investigation made by the police, reveals that the defendants 1 to 3 N.Krishna Reddy,
Ramachadnra Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Yerram reddy in collusion with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein purchased the stamps from Reddeppa Setty of Kalluru by putting an anti date on the stamps and reduced the agreemnt of sale
dt:25.7.2006 into writing. They created and fabricated the
suit document with anti date in order to defeat their legal rights over the property covered under the agreement of sale
dt:24.01.2007 and as such the alleged suit agreement
dt:25.07.2006 is not at all executed by the defendants 1 to 3
in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. As such, Exts A1 to A3 are scribed and attested by the close associates and henchmen of plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. On the date of 51 agreement itself the value of the land is more than
Rs.47,000/- per acre and as the land values increased after the execution of agreement of sale in their favour, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 along with others created the agreements and endorsements by showing that they purchased the suit properties for mere Rs.10,000/- per acre.
The suit schedule property is a dry land. The defendants 1 to 3 and their children have got right, and title over the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3, one Adinarayana reddy and others executed an agreement of sale on the same day. The scribe and attestors are also same in both the agreement of sales. He has also denied the suggestions that after the agreement of sale in this suit , the agreement of sale in O.S.No.5 of 2008 is created by him to deceive the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendants 1 to 3 and that he never purchased and paid advance sale consideration and that he filed the criminal complaints against the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 only in order to win over them to his terms and that the plaintiffs are only entitled to get a regular sale deed and is unnecessarily came on record in order to harass the plaintiffs and to have wrongful gain. If the defendants 1 to 3 along with four others have not executed any agreement of sale in favour of the defendants 4 to 7, the defendants 1 to 3 52 would have contested this suit and they did not remain exparte. PW3 who is no other than the son of the first defendant and attestor of Exs A1 and A2 has admitted that the palintiffs purchased an extent of Ac 19.47cents from his father and his brothers. The said lands sold by his father and his brothers to the plaintiffs a re their ancestral lands. The plaint schedule property is situated adjacent to Kadapa-Piler main road. He does not know whether the value of Ac 1.00 of land is Rs.10,00,000/- or not. Except denying the suggestions that himself, first plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 colluded together and created Exs A1 to A3 to defraud the claim of the defendants 4 to7 in the suit property due to raise in prices of lands and that the defendants 4 to 7 purchased the suit schedule property from the defendants 1 to 3, one
Yerram reddy, Venkataramana reddy, Eswar reddy and Yella redy under an agreement of sale dt:24.01.2007 for a valuable consideration of Rs.877, 325/- and that the stamps used for Ex
A1 are not genuine ones and is not entitled for enforcement of Ex A1, he is not filed any document to show that the defendants 1 to 3 are alone having right and title over the plaint schedule property and that the said Yerram reddy,
Venkatramana rEddy, Eswar Reddy and Yella Reddy have no right and title and executed agreement of sales dt:24.01.2007 53 in favour of the defendants 4 to 7 along with the defendants 1 to 3. If the agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 and the endorsements under Exs A2 and A3 are genuine, the plaintiffs would have demanded the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a regular sale deed in their favaour immediately after payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- to defendants 1 to 3 and if the defendants 1 to 3 failed to execute a regular sale deed in their favour , they would have got issued a registered notice demanding the defendants to execute a regular sale deed in their favour in the month of February itself. The plaintiffs have not offered their explanation as to why they have not got issued any registered notice except telegram notice under Ex A4 on 18.06.2007 demanding the first defendant along with 6 others to execute a sale deed in their favour even though Ex A1 agreement of sale was executed by the defendants 1 to 3 only and they would have got scribed
Exs A1 to A3 with the persons residing either at Gyrampalle or at Piler where there is Sub Registrar office and document writers are available. Moreover, the first plaintiff has not examined himself to establish their case. Therefore in the light of the evidence of DW1 and Exs B1 to B6, and the decisions reported in AIR 1996 SC 2814 and AIR 1987 SC 2328 relied upon by the counsel or the defendants 4 to 7 and 54 non non examination of first plaintiff, the evidence of PWs1 to 5 and Exs A1 to A5 and the decision reported in 2012 AIAR ( Civil) 716 relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiffs no way helpful to the plaintiffs to establish their case.
18. Hence taking into consideration of the above aspects as discussed supra, this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their case that the agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 in their favour is not a nominal , collusive and fabricated document and that they are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the time is essence of the contract and thereby they are entitled for enforcement of specific performance of agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 or in alternatively they are entitled for refund of sale consideration with interest at 18% p.a. as Ex A1 agreement of sale dt:25.07.2006 itself is a nominal , collusive and fabricated document.
Issue No.5:
19. In the result,t he suit of the plaintiffs be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed by her ,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 27th day of January, 2020.
Senior civil Judge,
Piler.
55
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintif:
P.W.1 : G.Jayachandra Reddy.
PW2:G.Venkataiah.
PW3:N.Venkatramana Reddy.
PW4:T.Muni Reddy.
PW5:M.Ramesh.
For Defendants:
DW1: V.Chinna Reddeppa Reddy. .
Documents marked.
For Plaintif:
ExhibitDateDescription of document
Ex.A.125-07-2006 Agreement of sale executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs.
Ex.A206-01-2007 Endorsement made by the defendants on rear side of the first page on agreement for executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 for
Rs.54,000/-. Ex.A.305-02-2007 Endorsement made by the defendants on rear side of the first page on agreement for executed by the defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 for
Rs40,000/-. Ex.A.418-06-2007 True copy of Telegram Notice issued by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to the defendants No.1 to 3.
56
Ex.A.518-06-2007 Receipt issued by BSNL office,
Madanapalle.
For Defendants:
Ex B1: Office copy of the plaint field in O.S.4 of 2008. Ex B2: Certified copy of FIR in C.C.No.319 of 201`3 on the file of JFCM, Piler. Ex B3: Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.319 of 2013. Ex B4: Certified copy of confession statement. Ex B5: Certified copy of suit agreement dt:24.01.2007 in O.S.4 of 2008. Ex B6: Certified copy of suit agreement dt:24.01.2007 in
O.S.No.5 of 2008.
SCJ., Piler.
57
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PILER
PRESENT :: Smt.K.Symala Devi,
senior civil Judge, Piler.
Monday, this the 27th of January, 2020
OS. 49 of 2007
Between:
1. Thummala Raja Sekhar Reddy, s/o T.Prabhakar Reddy, aged about 34 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o Marripadu, Gurramkonda mandal, Chittoor District.
2. Gundluru Jayachandra Reddy, s/o G.Venkatanarayana Reddy, aged about 44 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o Reddivaripalle village, Devapatla post, Sambepalle mandal, Kadapa District.
...Plaintiffs
And
1.Nallapapireddigari Krishna Reddy, s/o N.Peddi Reddy, aged about 60 years, Hindu, cultivation.
2. Nallapapireddigari Ramachandra Reddy, s/o Peddi Reddy, aged about 58 years, Hindu, cultivation. 3.Nallapapireddigari Narayana Reddy, s/o Peddi Reddy, aged about 56 years, Hindu, cultivation. 1 to 3 are residing at Gyarampalle village, K.V.Palle mandal, Chittoor District.
4. Vootukuri Chinna Reddeppa, s/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 39 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, resident of Bandakindapalle village and post, Rompicherla mandal, Chittoor District.
5. M.Krishna Reddy, s/o Thimma Reddy, aged abour 36 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, resident of Padmavathi nagar, Piler town, post and mandal.
6. Abbavaram Kesava Reddy, s/o Jaganmohan Reddy, aged about 37 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, resident of RTC Nallagutta, Piler town, post , mandal, Chittoor District.
7. Chichchili Raghunatha Reddy, s/o Shesha Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, cultivation and business, resident of Chittoor Road, cross roads, Piler town and mandal.
58 ( The defendants 4 to 7 are added as per orders in
I.A.No.367 of 2007 dt:27.04.2011 ). ...defendants
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement of sale dt:25-07-2006 directing the defendants 1 to 3 to execute a regular registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and if the defendants failed to do so to execute a regular sale deed on their behalf in respect of the plaint schedule property under due process of law alternatively to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,94,700/- to them with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization; and for costs.
Plaint presented on :19-06-2007
Plaint filed on : 20-06-2007
Particulars of Valuation :
1. Amount received as token advance basing on the agreement for sale deed on 25.7.2006 is Rs.1,00,700/-. ii. Amount received by the defendants from the plaintiffs on 6.1.2007 is Rs.54,000/-. Iii. Amount received by the defendants from the plaintiffs on 5.2.2007 is Rs.40,000/-. Total Rs.1,94,700/-. Total value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is valued at Rs.1,94,700/- and court fee of Rs.4426/- is paid under section 39 r/w section 20 of APCF Act.
Cause of action for the suit arose : When the defendants No.1 to 3 have entered into an agreement for sale for the suit schedule property on 25.7.2006 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre for lands as described in the suit schedule property confirming for the total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,94,700/- by believing the version of the defendants, the plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.1,00,700/- on the even date to the defendants 1 to 3 and jointly received and jointly executed an agreement for sale in favour of 59 the plaintiffs. Subsequently the plaintiffs have paid the balance sale consideration amount in two installments to the defendants and out of the said installments the entire sale consideration amount was paid and that the plaintiff are entitled to obtain regular registered sale deed as and when they wish either in their name or to their choice accordingly the plaintiffs have demanded the defendants in the first week of June, 2007 and on 18.6.2007 by issuing telegraphic notice to execute regular registered sale deed but they are evading on some pretext or the other though the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contract but the defendants are evading and trying to create some sham and nominal documents, hence this suit for specific performance of contract or with alternative relief of recovery of suit amount, hence which are all taken place well within the jurisdiction of this court.
This suit is coming on 20-01-2020 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Sri M.Chandra Kumar
Reddy , Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri G.Siva Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the defendants 4 to 7 and the defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows:- 1That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed;
and
1.
2 That the plaintiffs do pay to the defendants a sum of Rs.18,175/- towards costs of the suit.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 27th day of January, 2020.
Senior Civil Judge,
Piler 60
SCHEDULE
Chittoor District, Piler Sub District-Kabhamvaripalle mandal, Gyrampalle panchayath.
1SarkarKushki D.No.142/1 Ac 1.51 cents full 2SarkarKushki D.No.142/2Ac 1.52 cents full 3SarkarKushki D.No.142/3Ac 1.52 cents full 4SarkarKushki D.No.143/1Ac 4.44 cents full 5SarkarKushki D.No.143/2Ac 5.05 cents full 6SarkarKushki D.No.143/3Ac 4.43 cents full 7SarkarKushki D.No.502Ac 6.34 cents paiki Ac 1.00 cents joint.
STATEMENT OF COSTS
For plaintif Rs. P. For Defendant4 to 7 Rs. P.
Rs.P. Stamp on plaint 3426-00 Stamp for power2-002-00 Senior Advocate’s fees10,000(as13,580-00 claimed ) Junior Advocate fee4543-004543-00 Service of process100-00- Typing charges 50-0050-00
TOTAL 18121.00 18,175-00
SCJ