Sri M. Shankar Rao

O.S.No.07 of 2018 1 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE::

( SENIOR DIVISION) ANANTHAPURAM

Present:- Sri M.Shankar Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of January, 2025

Original Suit No.07/2018

Between:

G.Nageswara Rao.......Plaintiff

And

M.Nagendra...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day i.e on 28.1.2025 for hearing before me in the presence ofSri K.Sreenatha Reddy advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

J.Sanjeevaiah, advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount with future interest and costs.

2. The plaint averments in brief are as follows:

The case of the plaintiff is on 20.6.2015 defendant herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,00-00 from him for his family necessities and executed A marked suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum, again on 15.9.2015 defendant had borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,00-00 from him for his family necessities and executed B marked suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum, and on 25.10.2015 the defendant had

O.S.No.07 of 2018 2 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,00-00 from him for his family necessities and executed C marked suit promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum. In spite of oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay either principal or interest and hence on 11.11.2017 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice demanding the defendant to pay the amount due under the above said three promissory notes, and the same were served on the defendant. The defendant is not an agriculturist,and hence he is not entitled for any Agricultural benefits. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statements denying the petition averments, he submitted that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakhs on 20.6.2015 and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest , accordingly he paid interest on every month to the plaintiff, at that time the plaintiff has obtained two other empty promissory notes for him stating that for security purpose,later the plaintiff created B and C marked promissory notes for his wrongful fain and there is no such cash consideration with regard to the B and C marked promissory notes, as they are taken from him for security purpose, in fact the plaintiff has not taken permission from the

Government for doing interest business, and the plaintiff has not submitted income tax returns to the department every year with regard to his income, he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff, in fact no notice were served on him and there are no demands from the plaintiff at any point of time, as the defendant never borrowed amounts under B and C marked suit promissory notes and there is no caus of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action is invented for the purpose of suit and hence the suit is not maintainable and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

O.S.No.07 of 2018 3 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial;

1.Whether the prontes dt.15.9.2015 and 25.10.2015 for Rs.1,00,000-

00 each which are referred as B and C marked pronotes are true, valid

and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff fabricated B and C marked pronotes without any transactions mentioned therein?

3.Whether the defendant has been paying interest for the A

marked pronote dt.20.6.2015?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as claimed by

him?

5. To what relief.

5. To establish his case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. When the suit is coming for defendant side evidence, there is no representation from the defendant, hence the defendant’s side evidence is closed and posted for arguments.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

ISSUES 1 and 2:

Whether the prontes dt.15.9.2015 and 25.10.2015 for Rs.1,00,000-00

each which are referred as B and C marked pronotes are true, valid

and binding on the defendant?

Whether the plaintiff fabricated B and C marked pronotes without

any transactions mentioned therein?

7. The plaintiff as P.W.1 deposed that on 20.6.2015 defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 from his for his family necessities and executed

Ex.A.1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest

O.S.No.07 of 2018 4 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

at the rate of 24% per annum and again on 15.9.2015 defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 from his for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.2 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and again on 25.10.2015 defendant borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 from his for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.3 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and inspite of oral demands made by him the defendant did not pay either principal or interest . P.W.1 further deposed on 11.11.2017 he got issued a legal notice Ex.A.4 to the defendant demanding to pay the amount due under Exs.A.1 to A.3 promissory notes, and the same were served on the defendant under Ex.A.5, the defendant is not an agriculturist, since he is an employee he is not entitled for any Agricultural benefits.

8. The contention of defendant is Ex.A.2 and A.3 I.e B and C marked suit promissory notes empty blank promissory notes have obtained at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff for the security purpose and the plaintiff created the Exs.A.2 and A.3 promissory notes for wrongful gain and there is no cash consideration with regard to the B and C marked suit promissory notes as they are taken from the defendant for security purpose and he has no necessity for him to borrow such huge amounts from the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice and served on the defendant are all invented by the plaintiff by managing the Postal Department and in fact no notice was served on him and there are no demands at any point of time.

9. During cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that the P.W.1isretired as Attender in R and B Office, and the defendant is working as Record

Assistant, in R and B Office, Anantapuram. P.W.1 admitted that all the

O.S.No.07 of 2018 5 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

promissory notes under Exs.A.1 to 3, the reasons for borrowing amounts is one and the same I.e for family necessities of defendant. In all Ex.A.1 to A.3 the witnesses were one and the same and they were scribed by one Kiran

Kumar and he is an income tax assessee. Witness volunteers that he was retired in the year 2002 and except the above elicited facts nothing material is elicited to discredit the testimony of P.W.1. It is the contention of defendant that plaintiff obtained empty blank promissory notes from him for security purpose of the debt covered under Ex.A.1 but there is no specific denial of his signature on Exs.A.2 and A.3. Further more defendant has not taken any steps to send the Exs.A.2 and A.3 to the Hand Writing Expert to establish the plea that he P.W.1 created them and none were examined on his behalf and those documents are not supported by cash consideration. In view of above discussion and since the defendant not let in any evidence to establish his contention this court holds that Exs.A.2 and A.3 are true valid and binding on the defendants.

Accordingly the Issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

Whether the defendant has been paying interest for the A marked

pronote dt.20.6.2015?

10. P.W.1 deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 under Ex.A.1 on 20.6.2015 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum. Defendant also admitted that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.A.1 and he is paying interest regularly and in support of his contention defendant did not let in any evidence. It is the testimony of P.W.1 that in spit of oral demands made by him, the defendant neither paid the interest nor the principal. Though the

O.S.No.07 of 2018 6 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note dt.20.6.2015but the burden is on the defendant to establish his plea of paying interest for A marked pronote, but as stated above no evidence was let in by the defendant. Hence in view of his own admissions, this court holds that the defendant failed to establish that he is paying interest k for A marked suit promissory note dt.20.6.2015.

Accordingly the Issue No.3 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.4:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as claimed by

him?

11. In view of my discussion under issues No.1 to 4 this court holds that the plaintiff this court holds that the defendant borrowed Rs.3 lakhs from the plaintiff under Exs.A.1 to A.3 for Rs.1,00,000-00 each and in spite of the oral demands made by the plaintiff he did not repay the due amount and hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant.

Accordingly the Issue No.4 answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.5: To what relief?

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.4,68,195/-(Rupees four lakhs sixty eight thousand, one hundred and ninety five only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of

O.S.No.07 of 2018 7 Prl. S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the

principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.(Rs.1,00,000/-+Rs.1,00,000/-+Rs.1,00,000/-)

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of January, 2025.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

P.W.1: C.Nageswara Rao-NONE-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1: Original A marked pronote executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000-00

Ex.A.2:Original B marked pronote executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000-00

Ex.A.3:Original C marked pronote executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000-00

Ex.P.4: Office copy of legal notice dt.11.11.2017 issued to the defendant

Ex.P.5: Served acknowledgment card

Exhibits marked for defendant

-NIL-

P.S.C.J/ATP

O.S.No.136 of 20241Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

:: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE ::

( SENIOR DIVISION) ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri M.Shankar Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 30th day of January, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.136/2024

Between :

Kadiyala Raghu Rami Reddy …Plaintiff

And

1.Guntipalli Adinarayana 2.Nettam Lakshmi Narayana 3.Pothuru Ramanji 4.K.Veeranaramma 5.J.Samanthakamani 6.K.Venugopal

7.K.Suresh Chowdary...Defendants

This suit coming on 28.1.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Sreenatha Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs and grant such other reliefs as the honorable court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case of plaintiff is being absolute owners of suit schedule property defendants have agreed sell the same to him for a sum of Rs.42,00,000-00,

O.S.No.136 of 20242Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

accordingly on 9.6.2023 they entered intoan agreement of sale with him and executed an agreement of sale in his favour by receiving advance amount of

Rs.41,10,000-00 from him (out of Rs.41,10,000-00, 1st defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,00-00, 2nd defendant has received a sum of

Rs.6,85,000-00, 3rd defendant has received a sum of Rs.20,55,000-00, 4th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 5th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 6th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 7th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00). In the agreement no time limit is fixed for payment of balance of sale consideration amount. In spite of oral requests made by him, the defendants are postponing the same on some pretext or other. The defendants did not come forward to execute regular sale deed in his favour, he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 20.9.2024 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants calling them to come and execute the regular sale deed by fixing a date I.e.3.10.2024 and the defendants 3 to 7 received notices, notice of D.2 returned with an endorsement that no such addressee in the said address. The plaintiff had waited up to 3-00 PM at Sub Registrar Office,

Ramnagar, Anantapuram, but the defendants did not come and execute a regular sale deed in his favour and hence the plaintiff has obtained Rs.100-00 worth (4) NJ stamps to prove his performance. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants remained ex-parte.

4. To prove his case, the plaintiff produced the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also got marked Ex.A.1 to A.6.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused record.

6. Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

O.S.No.136 of 20243Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

P O I N T:-

7.The plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement of sale by the defendants after receiving balance sale consideration from him.

To substantiate his contention, plaintiff produced the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 and got marked documents Ex.A.1 to A.7.

8. In his plaint and evidence, P.W.1 reiterated all the contents as mentioned in his plaint. P.W.1 deposed being absolute owners of suit schedule property defendants have agreed sell the same to him for a sum of Rs.42,00,000-00, accordingly on 9.6.2023 they entered into an agreement of sale with him and executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale in his favour by receiving advance amount of Rs.41,10,000-00 from him (out of Rs.41,10,000- 00, 1st defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,00-00, 2nd defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 3rd defendant has received a sum of

Rs.20,55,000-00, 4th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 5th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 6th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00, 7th defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,85,000-00).

P.W.1 further deposed in the agreement no time limit is fixed for payment of balance of sale consideration amount and in spite of oral requests made by him, defendants are postponing to perform their part of contract on some pretext or other and he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. P.W.1 further deposed he got issued legal notice Ex.A.3 dt.20.9.2024 to the defendants calling them to come and execute the regular sale deed by fixing date i.e.3.10.2024 and he had waited up to 3-00 PM at

Sub Registrar’s Office, Ramnagar, Anantapuram, but the defendants did not come and execute a regular sale deed in his favour and to prove his readiness and willingness he have obtained Rs.100-00 worth (4) NJ stamps to prove his performance.

O.S.No.136 of 20244Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

9. In support of his contention plaintiff got examined P.W.2 one of the attestor of Ex.A.1. He corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all material aspects. Further he also deposed that he attested Ex.A.1 dt.9.6.2023 as an attestor along with another attestor P.V.B.Naidu.

10.The recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale shows, the defendants 1 to 7 who are absolute owner of suit schedule property agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.42,00,000-00 and received

Rs.41,10,000-00 as advance on 9.6.2023, and also agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.90,000-00 whenever he calls him for registration with balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed in the name of plaintiff or in favour of his nominee at the expenses of plaintiff and the evidence of P.W.1 further reveals, though the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration amount, the defendant intentionally not coming forward to perform his part of contract and not executing registered sale deed in her favour.

11.The defendants remained exparte, they did not submit their contentions and did not challenge the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. The unchallenged evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, categorically proved the defendants executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, received advance amount of

Rs.41,10,000-00 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount when ever calls him for registration of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff, but they failed to perform their part of contract. Hence the defendants are liable to execute the regular reg.sale deed in favour of plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.90,000/-.

Accordingly the point is answered.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants, to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff within two months from the

O.S.No.136 of 20245Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

date of decree by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- from the plaintiff. In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the same through process of law.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of January, 2025.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

P.W.1:K.Raghurami Reddy NONE

P.W.2:Suryanarayana Reddy

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1: Original sale agreement executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff dt.9.6.2023

Ex.A.2: Postal Receipt

Ex.A.3: Legal Notice dt.20.9.2024 issued to the defendants

Ex.A.4: NJ Stamps worth of Rs.100/- (4)

Ex.A.5: Served acknowledgment cards to D.2 to D.7

Ex.A.6: Returned cover of D.1

Exhibits marked for defendants

- NIL -

P.S.C.J/ATP

O.S.No.60 of 20221Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

:: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE ::

( SENIOR DIVISION) ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri M.Shankar Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 30th day of January, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.60/2022

Between :

B.Obulapathi…Plaintiff

And

1.G.Ahobilam 2.B.Narayana Swamy (died by Lrs. D.5 to D.7) 3.B.Peddanna 4.B.Peddanna 5.Badigorla Lakshmi Narasamma 6.Badigorla Ramanji

7.Badigorla Shivakrishna...Defendants

(D.5 to D.7 impleaded as per orders in I.A.685/2022 dt.15.2.2023)

This suit coming on 28.1.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Sreenatha Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs and grant such other reliefs as the honorable court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

O.S.No.60 of 20222Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

2. The plaint averments are, in brief, as follows:-

The case of plaintiff is being full and absolute owners of suit schedule property defendants have executed an unregistered agreement of sale on 30.10.2021 with regard to plaint schedule properties in favour of plaintiff for a proper and valid consideration of Rs.35,00,000-00, on the date of agreement of sale itself the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale time is not fixed for performance of the remaining part of the contract and at the time of execution of regular registered sale deed the defendants have to get plaint schedule properties surveyed by the Surveyor. The plaintiff is ready and wiling to perform his part of contract, but the defendants have been postponing the same on some pretext or other. During pendency of the suit D.2 died on 10.6.2022 leaving behind the defendants 2 to 7 as his legal representatives and his estate devolved upon them. As the defendants have not responded to their requests to perform their part of contract on 13.11.2021 the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to be present at

Sub Registrar Office, Anantapuram Rural on 25.11.2021 between 11-00 AM and 1-00 PM and the plaintiff will be present for the performance of the remaining part, the defendants have received the said notice but failed to be present at the Sub Registrar Office, Anantapuram Rural on that day. To show that the plaintiff present at Sub Registrar Office, Anantapuram Rural they purchased two Rs.50/- NJ Stamp papers, he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendants have not come forward to execute regular sale deed in his favour. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants remained ex-parte.

O.S.No.60 of 20223Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

4. To prove his case, the plaintiff produced the evidence of P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused record.

6. Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

P O I N T:-

7.The plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of unregistered agreement of sale executed by the defendants. To substantiate his contention, plaintiff produced the evidence of P.w.1 and got marked documents Ex.A.1 to A.5.

8. In his plaint and evidence, P.W.1 reiterated all the contents as mentioned in his plaint. P.W.1 deposed being full and absolute owners of suit schedule property defendants have executed an unregistered agreement of sale Ex.A.1 on 30.10.2021 with regard to plaint schedule properties in his favour for a proper and valid consideration of Rs.35,00,000-00. P.W.1 further deposed on the date of agreement of sale itself he has paid entire sale consideration and as per the terms and conditions of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale time has not fixed for performance of the remaining part of the contract and at the time of execution of regular registered sale deed the defendants have to get surveyed plaint schedule properties by the Surveyor.

9.P.W.1 further deposed he is ready and wiling to perform his part of contract, but the defendants have been postponing the same on some pretext or other and as the defendants have not responded to his requests to perform their part of contract on 13.11.2021 he has issued a legal notice

Ex.A.2 calling upon them to be present at Sub Registrar’s Office, Anantapuram

Rural on 25.11.2021 between 11-00 AM and 1-00 PM and the plaintiff will be

O.S.No.60 of 20224Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

present for the performance of the remaining part, having received the said notice under Ex.A.3 and A.4 the defendants failed to be present at the Sub

Registrar Office, Anantapuram Rural on that day. P.W.1 further deposed to show that he was present at Sub Registrar Office, Anantapuram Rural he purchased two Rs.50/- NJ Stamp papers Ex.A.5, he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendants have not come forward to execute regular sale deed in his favour.

10.The recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale shows, the defendants

G.Ahobilam, B.Narayana Swamy, B.Peddanna and B.Peddanna, who are absolute owner of suit schedule property agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.35,00,000-00 and received the entire sale consideration on 30.10.2021, and agreed to execute the sale deed in the name of plaintiff or in favour of his nominee at the expenses of plaintiff and the evidence of P.W.1 further reveals, though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract at all material points of time, but the defendants intentionally not coming forward to perform their part of contract and not executing registered sale deed in his favour.

11.The defendants remained exparte, they did not submit their contentions and did not challenge the evidence of Pw.1. The unchallenged evidence of

P.W.1 and the recitals of Ex.A.1 unregistered agreement of sale, categorically proved the defendants executed Ex.A.1 to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, received total consideration amount of Rs.35,00,000- 00 and agreed to execute regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff when ever calls him for registration, but they failed to perform their part of contract. Hence the defendants are liable to execute the regular reg.sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly the point is answered.

O.S.No.60 of 20225Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants, to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff within two months from the date of decree. In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the same through process of law.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of January, 2025.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

P.W.1:B.Obulapathi NONE

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1: Original Unregistered agreement of sale dt.30.10.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff dt.9.6.2023

Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt.13.11.2021

Ex.A.3:Regd.Postal receipts four in number

Ex.A.4: Served acknowledgment cards4 in number

Ex.A.5: Rs.50/0-NJ Stamp papers 2 in number

Exhibits marked for defendant

- NIL -

P.S.C.J/ATP

O.S.No.138 of 20241Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

:: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE ::

( SENIOR DIVISION) ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri M.Shankar Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 30th day of January, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.138/2024

Between :

1.Bandi Ramesh 2.Undala Sreekantha…Plaintiffs

And

Bandi Krishna Reddy ...Defendant

This suit coming on 28.1.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.L.V.Prasad, and K.Sreenatha Reddy, advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants set exparte and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant to execute the sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs and grant such other reliefs as the honorable court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The plaint averments are, in brief, as follows:-

The case of plaintiffs is being absolute owner of suit schedule property defendant has agreed sell the same to them for a sum of

Rs.23,00,000-00, accordingly on 5.6.2024 he entered into an agreement of sale with them and executed an agreement of sale in their favour by receiving advance amount of Rs.22,00,000-00 from them and as per terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiffs have to pay the balance of sale

O.S.No.138 of 20242Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 4.8.2024, even though they made several requests the defendant is postponing the same on some pretext or other. Time is not essence of the contract and the have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. On 16.9.2024 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant calling him to come and execute the regular sale deed by fixing a date I.e.24.10.2024 and he had waited up to 5-00

PM at Sub Registrar Office, Ramnagar, Anantapuram, but the defendant did not come and execute a regular sale deed in their favour and hence the plaintiffs have obtained Rs.100-00 worth (4) NJ stamps to prove their performance. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant remained ex-parte.

4. To prove their case, the second plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused record.

6. Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

P O I N T:-

7.The plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement of sale by the defendant after receiving balance sale consideration from them.

To substantiate their contention, plaintiffs produced the evidence of P.w.1 and got marked documents Ex.A.1 to A.5.

8. In their plaint and evidence, P.W.1 reiterated all the contents as mentioned in his plaint. P.W.1 deposed being absolute owner of suit schedule property defendant has agreed sell the same to them for a sum of

Rs.23,00,000-00, accordingly on 5.6.2024 he entered into an agreement of sale with them and executed an agreement of sale in their favour by receiving advance amount of Rs.22,00,000-00. P.w.1 further deposed as per terms and

O.S.No.138 of 20243Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

conditions of the agreement himself and the 1st plaintiff have to pay balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 4.8.2024, even though they made several requests defendant is postponing the same on one pretext or other. Time is not essence of the contract and they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. On 16.9.2024 they got issued legal notice to the defendant calling him to come and execute the regular sale deed by fixing a date I.e.24.10.2024 and he had waited up to 5-00

PM at Sub Registrar’s Office, Ramnagar, Anantapuram, but the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and hence the plaintiffs have obtained

Rs.100-00 worth (4) NJ stamps to prove their performance.

9. The recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale shows, the defendant Bandi

Krishna Reddy S/o late Bandi Basappa who is absolute owner of suit schedule property agreed to sell suit schedule property to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.23,00,000-00 and received Rs.22,00,000-00 as advance on 5.6.2024, and also agreed to receive balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.1,00,000-00 on or before 4.8.2024 for registration and to execute the sale deed in the name of plaintiffs or in favour of their nominee at the expenses of plaintiffs and the evidence of P.W.1 further reveals, though they are ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration amount, the defendant intentionally not coming forward to perform his part of contract and not executing registered sale deed in their favour.

10.The defendant remained exparte, and did not submit his contentions and did not challenge the evidence of Pw.1. The unchallenged evidence of

P.W.1 and the recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, categorically proved the defendant executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs, received advance amount of Rs.22,00,000-00 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount on or before 4.8.2024 for registration of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff, but he failed to perform his part of contract within prescribed period mentioned in

O.S.No.138 of 20244Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

Ex.A.1 agreement ofsale and postponing the same. Hence the defendant is liable to execute the regular reg.sale deed in favour of plaintiffs by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly the point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant, to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs within two months from the date of decree by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the same through process of law.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of January, 2025.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiffs Defendant

P.W.1: Undala Sreekantha NONE

Exhibits marked for plaintiffs

Ex.A.1: Original sale agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiffs dt.5.6.2024

Ex.A.2: Postal Receipt

Ex.A.3: Legal Notice dt.16.10.2024 issued to the defendant

Ex.A.4: NJ Stamps worth of Rs.100/- (4)

Ex.A.5: Served acknowledgment card

Exhibits marked for defendant

- NIL -

P.S.C.J/ATP

O.S.No.138 of 20241Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

:: IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE ::

( SENIOR DIVISION) ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri M.Shankar Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 30th day of January, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.138/2024

Between :

1.Bandi Ramesh 2.Undala Sreekantha…Plaintiffs

And

Bandi Krishna Reddy ...Defendant

This suit coming on 28.1.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.L.V.Prasad, and K.Sreenatha Reddy, advocates for the plaintiff and the defendants set exparte and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant to execute the sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs and grant such other reliefs as the honorable court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The plaint averments are, in brief, as follows:-

The case of plaintiffs is being absolute owner of suit schedule property defendant has agreed sell the same to them for a sum of

Rs.23,00,000-00, accordingly on 5.6.2024 he entered into an agreement of sale with them and executed an agreement of sale in their favour by receiving advance amount of Rs.22,00,000-00 from them and as per terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiffs have to pay the balance of sale

O.S.No.138 of 20242Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 4.8.2024, even though they made several requests the defendant is postponing the same on some pretext or other. Time is not essence of the contract and the have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. On 16.9.2024 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant calling him to come and execute the regular sale deed by fixing a date I.e.24.10.2024 and he had waited up to 5-00

PM at Sub Registrar Office, Ramnagar, Anantapuram, but the defendant did not come and execute a regular sale deed in their favour and hence the plaintiffs have obtained Rs.100-00 worth (4) NJ stamps to prove their performance. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant remained ex-parte.

4. To prove their case, the second plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused record.

6. Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

P O I N T:-

7.The plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement of sale by the defendant after receiving balance sale consideration from them.

To substantiate their contention, plaintiffs produced the evidence of P.w.1 and got marked documents Ex.A.1 to A.5.

8. In their plaint and evidence, P.W.1 reiterated all the contents as mentioned in his plaint. P.W.1 deposed being absolute owner of suit schedule property defendant has agreed sell the same to them for a sum of

Rs.23,00,000-00, accordingly on 5.6.2024 he entered into an agreement of sale with them and executed an agreement of sale in their favour by receiving advance amount of Rs.22,00,000-00. P.w.1 further deposed as per terms and

O.S.No.138 of 20243Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

conditions of the agreement himself and the 1st plaintiff have to pay balance of sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 4.8.2024, even though they made several requests defendant is postponing the same on one pretext or other. Time is not essence of the contract and they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. On 16.9.2024 they got issued legal notice to the defendant calling him to come and execute the regular sale deed by fixing a date I.e.24.10.2024 and he had waited up to 5-00

PM at Sub Registrar’s Office, Ramnagar, Anantapuram, but the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and hence the plaintiffs have obtained

Rs.100-00 worth (4) NJ stamps to prove their performance.

9. The recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale shows, the defendant Bandi

Krishna Reddy S/o late Bandi Basappa who is absolute owner of suit schedule property agreed to sell suit schedule property to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.23,00,000-00 and received Rs.22,00,000-00 as advance on 5.6.2024, and also agreed to receive balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.1,00,000-00 on or before 4.8.2024 for registration and to execute the sale deed in the name of plaintiffs or in favour of their nominee at the expenses of plaintiffs and the evidence of P.W.1 further reveals, though they are ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration amount, the defendant intentionally not coming forward to perform his part of contract and not executing registered sale deed in their favour.

10.The defendant remained exparte, and did not submit his contentions and did not challenge the evidence of Pw.1. The unchallenged evidence of

P.W.1 and the recitals of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale, categorically proved the defendant executed Ex.A.1 agreement of sale to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs, received advance amount of Rs.22,00,000-00 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount on or before 4.8.2024 for registration of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff, but he failed to perform his part of contract within prescribed period mentioned in

O.S.No.138 of 20244Prl.S.C.J. Ananthapuramu

Ex.A.1 agreement ofsale and postponing the same. Hence the defendant is liable to execute the regular reg.sale deed in favour of plaintiffs by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly the point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant, to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs within two months from the date of decree by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the same through process of law.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of January, 2025.

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiffs Defendant

P.W.1: Undala Sreekantha NONE

Exhibits marked for plaintiffs

Ex.A.1: Original sale agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiffs dt.5.6.2024

Ex.A.2: Postal Receipt

Ex.A.3: Legal Notice dt.16.10.2024 issued to the defendant

Ex.A.4: NJ Stamps worth of Rs.100/- (4)

Ex.A.5: Served acknowledgment card

Exhibits marked for defendant

- NIL -

P.S.C.J/ATP