APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
BEFORE THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE.
PRESENT: Smt. Nikitha R. Vora,
Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Addl.
District Judge, Nellore.
Wednesday, the 25th day of March, 2026.
O.S.No.250 of 2015
Darsi Venkata Jayaprakash, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, Business, R/o. D.No.18/76, Barracks, Nellore City, S.P.S.R Nellore District. … Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Balaraju Narayana Raju (Died) S/o. Narasaraju, Aged about 40 years, Business,
2. Pusala Madhu, S/o. Malyadri, Aged about 30 years, Business, R/o. Hall Street, Kovur Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (2nd defendant added as per orders in I.A.No.139/2016
dated 30.04.2016).
3. Kokku Kavitha, 1 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
W/o. Murali Sankar, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Chandrasekharapuram, Pothireddypalem Village, Kovur Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (3rd defendant added as per orders in I.A.No.193/2017 dated 27.1.2017).
4. Nimmala Padma, W/o. Tirupati Rao, Aged about 35 years,
5. Nimmala Tirupati Rao, S/o. Krishnaiah, Aged about 44 years, 4th and 5th defendants are residents of Bandarumanyam, Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. (4th and 5th defendants are added as per orders in I.A.No.51/2017
dated 18.07.2018).
6. Balaraju Subbamma, W/o. Narasaraju, Mother of Late Narayana Raju, Aged about 70 years, House wife,
7. Balaraju Nagalakshmi, W/o. Late Narayana Raju, Aged about 49 years, House wife,
8. Balaraju Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Narayana Raju, Aged about 25 years, 2 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
9. Balaraju Revathi, D/o. Late Narayana Raju, Aged about 22 years, Defendants 6 to 9 are residents of Vivekananda Street, Lakshmi Nagar, Kovur Village and Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District. (Defendants 6 to 9 are added as legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant as per orders in I.A.No.143/2024 dated 08.01.2025)… Defendants.
This suit came on 10.03.2026 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Smt. G. Seshamma – Advocate for Plaintiff and of Smt. G. Subba
Lakshmi – Advocate for Defendants 1 and 6 to 9 (D1 died), and Sri Vemana
Gopi – Advocate for defendant No.2, Sri Ch. Sri Hari Narayana Rao –
Advocate for Defendant No.3, and Sri N. Mahadeva Sastry - Advocate for defendants 4 and 5 upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Plaintiff filed the present suit for a preliminary decree in favour of
Plaintiff directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff with regard to plaint schedule property treating the documents created during pendency of the suit i.e., Registered Sale Deeds dated 02.04.2016, 19.04.2016 and 17.12.2016 bearing document Nos.592/2016, 1681/2016 of 3 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
Sub-Registrar Office, Stonehousepet and 8751/2016 of Sub-Registrar Office,
Nellore, respectively and if they fail to do so, the same may be done through process of the Court, (or) alternatively, directing the Defendants 6 to 9 (amended as per orders in I.A.No.143 of 2024 dated 08.01.2025) to refund the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum along with subsequent interest thereon from the date of the suit till realization at 24% per annum to the Plaintiff from out of the estate of the deceased 1st Defendant (amended as per order in I.A.No.143 of 2024 dated 08.01.2025) and for costs.
2. Briefly, the averments of the plaint are as follows:
(a)The 1st defendant is owner of schedule mentioned property which was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 09.02.2010 bearing document No.245/2010 of S.R.O., Kovur from one Davanam Veera Swamy and the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. While so, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff on 09.06.2014 and offered to sell the same under Bill contract for Rs.25,00,000/- for his necessities and the plaintiff accepted the said offer and paid
Rs.15,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration on that day and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- within 1½ year from the date of agreement i.e., on or before 09.12.2015 and that the 1st defendant agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff either in his name or to his order in pursuance of the said agreement of sale on payment of balance sale consideration at the expenses of plaintiff and the said terms are reduced into writing on the even day.
4 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
(b)It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the 1st defendant made believe the plaintiff that the said property is not alienated to anybody in any manner. He further agreed that the said property has to be measured in the presence of plaintiff by the date of registration and fix the boundaries.
Thereafter, inspite of several requests by the plaintiff to execute regular registered sale deed after measuring the plaint schedule property and fixing of boundaries by receiving the balance sale consideration, the 1st defendant evaded to perform his part of contract on one pretext or the other.
(c)It is the further case of the plaintiff that he recently came to know that the 1st defendant obtained loan from a Bank by depositing the original title deed in respect of plaint schedule property suppressing the subsistence of agreement of sale in the name of plaintiff and so, the 1st defendant committed cheating and fraud.
(d)It is further submitted that the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the 1st defendant informing him that he is ready to clear the bank loan amount obtained by the 1st defendant from out of the balance sale consideration payable to him and to take back the original registered sale deed standing in the name of 1st defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property if the 1st defendant cooperates for taking measurements of the plaint schedule property and with the particulars of the amount due and payable to the bank immediately after receiving of the notice. Though the 1st defendant received notice on 18.11.2015, he did not respond and complied the demand of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.
(e)The plaintiff further submitted that during pendency of the suit without filing written statement, the 1st defendant created sham and nominal 5 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
document in the name of 2nd defendant in respect of 25 Ankanams of site which is part and parcel of plaint schedule property under registered sale deed
dated 2.4.2016 bearing document No.592/2016 of S.R.O., Kovur and hence
the 2nd defendant was impleaded in the present suit vide orders in
I.A.No.139/2016. Apart from that, the 1st defendant exclusively created another registered sale deed on 19.04.2016 registered as patta No.370/2016 before the S.R.O, Stonehousepet, Nellore, which itself shows the collusive creation as the property is situated within the limits of Sub Registrar Office, Kovur and as the plaintiff gave representation to Sub-Registrar, Kovur, the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant collusively created sham and nominal document in respect of the remaining property of plaint schedule i.e. 30 ½ ankanams or 244 Sq.
yards of vacant site with an intention to delay the proceedings in the present suit and the said document is not valid and legally binding as it amounts to lis- pendency. Hence the 3rd defendant was brought on record to avoid multifarious proceedings.
(f)The plaintiff further contended that recently, he came to know that the 2nd defendant was intended to create document in respect of 25 ankanams of site within the plaint schedule property in the name of 5th defendant. Hence the plaintiff got issued legal notice to both 2nd and 5th defendants on 10.10.2016. The 2nd defendant received the notice, but the notice to the 5th defendant was returned with an endorsement that he was out of station.
Thereafter, when the 2nd defendant again attempted to create another document in the name of 4th defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to 4th defendant on 3.11.2016, but the same was returned as ‘refused’.
Subsequently, the 2nd defendant collusively created registered document on 6 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
17.12.2016 in the name of both defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiff further submitted that the 2nd defendant himself had no right in view of creation of document by 1st defendant in the name of 2nd defendant in respect of property under the document dated 17.12.2016 as the agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property is subsisting and hence the 2nd defendant having no right cannot convey any right under the alleged registered sale deed dated 17.12.2016 bearing document No.8751/2016 of Sub-Registrar Office,
Stonehousepet, Nellore, created collusively by the 2nd defendant in the name of 4th and 5th and hence the plaintiff was constrained to add them as parties to the present suit.
(g)The plaintiff contended that he is ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- as and when directed by this Court and hence, he filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement dated 09.06.2014. Hence the suit.
3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint. The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:
(a)The 1st defendant admitted that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property and he purchased the same from Davanam Veera Swamy and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further contended that the suit agreement of sale is fabricated and that he never executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff. He further stated that in March 2013, he borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from one Gajulapalli Narayana
Reddy of Kovur for his needs and necessities and on the demand of 7 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy, he gave two signed blank papers and signed blank cheques. Thereafter, he made several part payments till March, 2014 and the outstanding balance was Rs.76,000/- as on March, 2014 against the defendant requested the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy to lend an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of running dairy farm in plaint schedule property. On that the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy insisted him to surrender the original documents of the house property of the defendant’s family which is situated opposite to the plaint schedule property and standing in the name of Defendant’s father Narasaraju. Hence the defendant gave original document to said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy and the said Gajulapalli
Narayana Reddy gave Rs.4,24,000/- after keeping Rs.76,000/- due to him and he retained the earlier signed unfilled blank stamp papers and two signed blank cheques. Thereafter, the defendant paid interest and principal amount till September, 2015 and as on September, 2015, he was outstanding he was outstanding for Rs.1,22,000/- but the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy claimed Rs.2,50,000/- by calculating higher rate of interest. Hence disputes and misunderstandings arose between him and the said Gajulapalli Narayana
Reddy. The said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy got filed the present suit through the present plaintiff by filing the said unfilled signed stamp paper executed in favour of Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy.
(b)It is further submitted that apart from filing O.S.No.191/2015, the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy got filed the present suit through the same counsel for other property of this defendant’s family basing on a forged and fabricated agreement of sale for the same relief of specific performance. This defendant was shocked and surprised on receipt of legal notice and he 8 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
immediately approached the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy as he did not sign any stamp paper till that date and the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy accepted that the legal notice was sent by him in the name of his friend.
Thereafter several mediation were held between them but the said Gajulapalli
Narayana Reddy did not accept the words of the elders. The defendant stated that he is having videographic evidence about the discussion in the mediation.
As the elders asked the defendant to wait for some time and promised to settle the dispute, the defendant remained quiet without giving any reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff. But surprisingly the defendant received summons in the present suit and another suit filed by the said Gajulapalli
Narayana Reddy. Thereafter again mediation were held and the said
Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy accepted to receive Rs.2,00,000/- and got not pressed this suit and another suit. On the advice of elders, this defendant cleared the loan to Agri business finance (AP) Limited which was obtained by him by depositing his title deeds by way of registered deed and he sold part of the plaint schedule property to one Pusala Madhu under registered sale deed in an extent of 25 ankanams which is northern portion of the plaint schedule property with an intention to clear the debt of Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy.
Thereafter, the defendant approached the Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy to clear the debt of Rs.2,00,000/- along with the elders, but surprisingly he refused to receive the same and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for not pressing the suit. As the present suit is filed basing on fabricated document, there is no cause of action and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
9 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
4.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations of the plaint. The brief averments of written statement of D2 are as follows:
(a)The 2nd defendant submitted that originally the 1st defendant purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 09.02.2010 bearing document No.245/2010 of SRO, Kovur from one
Davanam Veera Swamy and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights. He further submitted that on 22.02.2016, he entered into an agreement of sale with the 1st defendant for Rs.13,50,000/- for purchase of north side in an extent of 25 ankanams out of 58 ankanams of 61
Square meters. Out of the said sale consideration, the 2nd defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st defendant as advance. As the 1st defendant was having loan in Kovur Podupu Lakshmi Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift
Society Limited as on 02.04.2016, the 2nd defendant paid an amount of
Rs.9,50,000/- to the society in the presence of 1st defendant and cleared the loan and the same was endorsed on the back side of the agreement dated 22.02.2016. Hence the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser.
(b)He further submitted that on the same day, i.e. on 2.4.2016, the 1st defendant executed registered sale deed in his favour for consideration in document No.592/2016. Hence the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of 25 ankanams of site in the northern side. Thereafter, he started construction in his site basing on the approval plan and the same was completed. But the plaintiff with a malafide and dishonest intention for unlawful gain, filed the above suit. He further stated that the 1st defendant suppressed the existence of the suit and he came to know through the 1st defendant that the plaintiff filed 10 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
the suit basing on fabricated agreement and that he was no way connected to him and one Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy did all these things.
(c)He further contended that if really the plaintiff had entered into agreement of sale by paying Rs.15,00,000/- as advance, he would have possession of original documents relating to schedule property and if at all the 1st defendant had received Rs.5,00,000/- as advance, there was no necessity for 1st defendant to obtain loan from Kovur Podupu Lakshmi Mutually Aided
Cooperative Thrift Society Limited subsequent to date of suit agreement of sale. Hence the same shows that the plaintiff fabricated the agreement using blank stamp papers and filed the present suit for wrongful gain with active connivance of Narayana Reddy. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5.The 3rd defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations of the plaint. The brief averments of the written statement of 3 rd defendant are as follows: He contended that he purchased an extent of 30 ½ ankanams of site from the 1st defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- on 1.4.2016 by paying advance of Rs.6,10,000/- to the 1st defendant and obtained sale agreement dated 1.4.2016. He further contended that the 1st defendant duly discharged the mortgage loan due by him to Kovur Podupu
Lakshmi Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society Limited and thereafter, the 3rd defendant paid balance sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- to the 1st defendant and obtained registered sale deed dated 19.04.2016. Hence, he is a Bonafide purchaser for a valuable consideration. Since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He was not aware about the 11 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
present suit and it is a collusive suit only to harass the defendant to grab more money. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6.Defendants 4 and 5 filed their written statement denying the allegations of the plaint. The brief averments of the written statement of defendants 4 and 5 are as follows: The 4th and 5th defendants contended that they purchased one RCC building having 200 square yards construction in 1296 sq yards from the 2nd defendant on 17.12.2016 under registered sale deed bearing No.8757 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.26,70,000/- by obtaining housing loan from India Infoline Housing Finance Limited and since then they are in possession and absolute enjoyment of the said property and they are Bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. They further contended that they do not have any knowledge about the pendency of the suit and after verifying all the documents and obtaining legal opinion, loan was sanctioned to them and they got purchased the property by way of registered document. They further contended that the suit agreement of sale is fabricated and created for the purpose of the suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. The brief averments of the Rejoinder are as follows: The 3rd defendant contended that the 1st defendant after appearing in the present case, created document i.e., registered sale deed dated 2.4.2016 in the name of 2nd defendant collusively. Hence the 2nd defendant was added. After creating of the said document, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 5.4.2016 to the panchayat secretary, Kovur requesting him not to grant any permission for making any construction in the plaint schedule property as the subject matter 12 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
is in dispute and pending before the Court. Inspite of the said notice, the 1st defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant created sale deed dated 19.04.2016 bearing pending document No.370/2016 of SRO, Stonehousepet in the name of 3rd defendant through 2nd defendant in respect of plaint schedule property. Thereafter, again the plaintiff issued notice on 3.5.2016 to the 3rd defendant stating that the document created in her name is sham and nominal void and nullified in the eye of law and not binding on him and called upon the 3rd defendant to cancel the said document. Inspite of receiving the same, there was no response from the defendants 1 to 3. Hence, he got impleaded the 3rd defendant in the suit by filing I.A.No.193/2016 to implead the 3rd defendant. After issuance of the notice to the Panchayat Secretary, the plaintiff also made publication in Sakshi daily on 6.7.2016 informing the general public not to enter into any agreement with regard to plaint schedule property thereby giving knowledge about the pendency of the suit. While so, the plaintiff again issued notice on 3.11.2016 to the defendants 2 and 4 calling upon them not to enter into any agreement with regard to plaint schedule property during pendency of the suit. But the 4th defendant having knowledge about the contents of notice wantonly refused to receive the same. The 2nd defendant at the instance of 1st defendant created another document in the name of defendants 4 and 5. Hence he filed I.A.No.51/2017 to implead defendants 4 and 5. As the documents were created during the subsistence of agreement as well as suit, all the said transactions are sham and nominal and void and invalid in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant created all the aforesaid documents in collusion with the 13 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
defendants 2 to 5, who are his henchmen with an evil intention to evade performance of his part of contract in the suit agreement of sale.
8.1st defendant died during pendency of the suit. Hence defendants 6 to 9 were added as per orders in I.A.No.143/2024 dated 8.1.2025, but they did not choose to file any written statement, hence their written statements was recorded as NIL.
9. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed on 13.10.2022.
(1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by 1 st defendant is true, valid and binding?
(2) Whether the 1 st defendant performed his part of contract on the agreement of sale?
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?
(4) To what relief?
Thereafter, on 6.12.2022, the following additional issue is framed:
(1) Whether the sale deeds dated 2.4.2016, 19.04.2016 and others on the file of SRO, Nellore are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
10.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. Ex.A1 is Original agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by the 1st Defendant. Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice
dated 17.11.2015. Ex.A3 is Postal acknowledgment of the 1st Defendant.
Ex.A4 is Office copy of legal notice dated 03.05.2016. Ex.A5 is Postal 14 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
acknowledgment of the 1st Defendant. Ex.A6 is Postal acknowledgment of the 3rd Defendant.Ex.A7 is Office copy of legal notice dated 03.11.2016. Ex.A8 is
Returned postal cover of 4th Defendant. Ex.A9 is Office copy of legal notice
dated 05.04.2016. Ex.A10 is Paper publication in Sakshi Daily dated
06.07.2016 (Subject to objection raised by counsel for D3 regarding non production of request letter and bill). Ex.A11 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 02.04.2016 bearing Document No.592/2016 of S.R.O., Kovur.
Ex.A12 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19.04.2016 bearing
Document No.1681/2016 of S.R.O., Stonehousepet. Ex.A13 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 17.12.2016 bearing Document No.8751/2016 of
S.R.O., Nellore. He also examined one third party by name K. Suresh Babu as
PW2, who is one of the attestor of suit agreement of sale under Ex.A1. He also examined one G.Chandra Sekhar, who is 2nd attestor of suit agreement of sale under Ex.A1 as PW3.
11.On the other hand, the 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Ex.B1 is SI.No.1163 dated 13.02.2013 purchased by Darsi Venkata Jayaprakash from Dasari Koteswari of Amancharla Licensed
Stamp Vendor and Ex.B2 is SI.No.1164 dated 13.02.2013 purchased by Darsi
Venkata Jayaprakash from Dasari Koteswari of Amancharla Licensed Stamp
Vendor. He also examined one third party namely Navuru Suneel as DW2.
The 2nd defendant was examined as DW3. The 3rd defendant was examined as DW4. The 4th defendant was examined as DW5.
12.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of the 3rd defendant.
15 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
13.To substantiate his case, the plaintiff got filed his chief-affidavit as PW1 in lieu of his chief-examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure by reiterating the plaint averments. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the name of the scribe and the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the agreement of sale confronted to him, which was supplied to 1st defendant. It was further elicited that it did not contain the seal of the
Court. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of the witnesses were obtained just before filing of the suit, hence the signatures of the witnesses were not found in the copy supplied to the other side.
14.He further deposed that he knew one Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy for the last 10 years and he went to Court to depose on behalf of Gajulapalli
Narayana Reddy in O.S.No.191/2015. He further stated that one year ago, he went to the plaint schedule property and enquired about its market value. He further stated that the agreed sale consideration for the plaint schedule property was Rs.25 lakhs and it was fixed based on the previous market value, but it is not mentioned in Ex.A1 that the sale consideration is fixed based on the prevailing market value. He further deposed that he is income tax assessee, but his income tax returns does not reflect the payment of
Rs.15 lakhs towards advance, as he paid the same by way of cash. He further deposed that he did not take the original title deed from 1st defendant, as sale was not registered.
16 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
15.He further stated that as per recitals of Ex.A1, the 1st defendant was in need of money and accordingly, he entered into Ex.A1-agreement. He further stated that the plaint schedule property is a vacant site. He further stated that the stamps on Ex.A1 stands in his name. He further stated that he does not know whether the person in need of money has to purchase stamp papers in his name. He further agreed that as per Ex.A1, two stamp papers in Ex.A1 were purchased at Amancharla from Dasari Koteswari on the same date and he further stated that the 1st defendant purchased the said stamp papers in the name of plaintiff. He further stated that he alone approached the 1st defendant with Rs.10 lakhs on 17.11.2015 without registration charges and any surveyor.
He further deposed that 1st defendant did not mention about the existence of mortgage of plaint schedule property in favour of bank. He pleaded ignorance as to whether there is a mortgage in the name of the bank. He further stated that he visited the plaint schedule property twice. He further stated that there is no agreement between him and the 1st defendant with regard to discharging of the loan pending in the bank. He further stated that he did not make any effort for knowing the name of the bank. He further deposed that he came to know about the sale of the plaint schedule property by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendant in 2016. He further stated that he did not demand refund of advance amount as he wants that site.
16.He further pleaded ignorance about financial transactions between 1st defendant and Narayana Reddy in the year 2013. He further stated that he did not conduct any enquiry with respect to encumbrances and title from the date of inspection till the date of entering into agreement of sale. He further 17 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
deposed that on the date of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, he verified the
Encumbrance certificate, but he did not file the said E.C. before this Court. He further deposed that as per the said E.C., the property was standing in the name of 1st defendant without any encumbrances as on the date of Ex.A1. He further pleaded ignorance about the 1st defendant obtaining any loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Kovur Podupu Lakhsmi Mutually aided cooperative thrift society.
He further stated that there is no other proof except Ex.A1 for payment of 15 lakhs to 1st defendant. So also he did not have any proof to show that he was having 15 lakhs as on the date of Ex.A1. He further stated that he did not take any steps to issue general notice to the public at large about the existence of agreement of sale and he agreed that the 2nd defendant might not have any knowledge about Ex.A1 and further stated that if he had registered Ex.A1, the 2nd defendant could not have purchased the property. He further admitted that the 2nd defendant constructed a house on the property purchased from the 1st defendant with the approval of Kovur panchayat. He further agreed that the 2nd defendant sold out the said constructed house to defendants 4 and 5. He further stated that Ex.A1 stamp papers purchased by 1st defendant stands in his name one year prior to the agreement of sale.
17.During his further cross-examination, he stated that one Penchala
Swamy was the document writer of Ex.A1, himself, Narayana Raju and two witnesses namely Chandra Sekhar and Sureh Babu were present. He further deposed that he filed proof to show that he was having balance amount of 10 lakhs on the date of filing the suit. He further stated that he issued legal notice through his advocate after filing of the suit to the sub-registrar calling upon him 18 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
not to register any transaction with respect of suit schedule property. He pleaded ignorance as to whether the suit schedule property is not found in the prohibition property list. He further pleaded ignorance about the 1st defendant taking loan on suit schedule property from Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative thrift society. He further stated that he didn’t file any proof to show that the 1st defendant was their customer as he used to come for purchase.
18.During his further cross-examination, he stated that the rate was fixed one year prior to the date of agreement. He further stated that Gajulapalli
Narayana Reddy was not his friend. He further stated that he did not file the
E.C along with the plaint. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether he filed any document to prove the ownership of the 1st defendant over the suit schedule property except for Ex.A1-agreement of sale. He further deposed that he cannot depose about the date on which he requested the 1st defendant to register the plaint schedule property. He further stated that he did not give any police complaint against 1st defendant for cheating. He stated that he issued legal notice to 5th defendant. He further stated that he did not specifically mentioned the details of easements in Ex.A1. He further stated that he filed the present suit only for registration of suit schedule property. He further stated that he did not take any steps for cancellation of registered sale deed executed in favour of Defendants 2 to 5. He further agreed that he did not deposit the remaining sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs in the court nor he kept the amount in FDR to prove his readiness. He further pleaded ignorance as to the date on which, he met the 1st defendant and offered to pay Rs.10 19 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
lakhs. He pleaded ignorance about the pending loan in India Info-line Housing
Finance Limited which was subsequently transferred to LIC.
19.The plaintiff examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as PW2 and during his chief-examination, he deposed about the execution of Ex.A1-agreement of sale in the presence of himself and one Chandra Sekhar and scribed by
Penchala Swamy, document writer and payment of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards advance sale consideration to the 1st defendant and the remaining sum of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid within 1 ½ year from the date of agreement.
During his cross-examination, he stated that he knew the plaintiff for the past 10 years as plaintiff was his classmate. He stated that he did not see the original title deed. He further deposed that Ex.A1 was purchased in the name of plaintiff in the year 2014. But he pleaded ignorance as to from whom it was purchased. He further pleaded ignorance as to who paid the documentation charges and what amount. He further pleaded ignorance about the denomination on the stamp on which Ex.A1 was executed. He further stated that he did not count the money at the time of execution of Ex.A1. He further stated that Ex.A1 was scribed in English and as such, he cannot say its contents. But he categorically stated that he put his signature on Ex.A1. He further stated that he did not advice plaintiff to take the link documents.
20.During his further cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance as to when the 1st defendant offered to sell the plaint schedule property and when the plaintiff accepted to purchase the same. He further stated that the plaintiff called him to the shop and accordingly, he along with Chandra Sekhar went to 20 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
the shop of the plaintiff. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether who prepared Ex.A1 was a stamp vendor or not. He further stated that at about 11.30 AM in the morning they went to S.R.O., Kovur and the 1st defendant delivered stamp papers to the document writer. He further stated that he did not ask the 1st defendant about the execution of agreement of sale on old document when new documents were available in SRO Office. He further stated that the 1st defendant informed him about the receipt of amount of
Rs.15 lakhs. He deposed that he did not make any enquiry about the encumbrances of the property. He further stated that he did not have any acquaintance with the 1st defendant. But he has acquaintance with the 2nd attestor and pleaded ignorance as to what happened subsequent to Ex.A1.
21.During his further cross-examination, he stated that Ex.A1 does not contain the name of the scribe or signature of the person who prepared it. He further stated that stamp paper on Ex.A1 was sold to the plaintiff for self- purpose. He further stated that he did not inspect the schedule property and he does not know about the details and boundaries of the property.
22.Another attestor by name G. Chandra Sekhar was examined as PW3 and his evidence is in lines with PW2. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had acquaintance with the plaintiff for the last 15 years and they belong to same community. He pleaded ignorance about the denomination of stamps and in whose name the stamp papers were purchased and from whom, they were purchased. He further pleaded ignorance about the sale consideration so also denomination. He further 21 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
pleaded ignorance about the extent, boundaries and location. He further stated that he was not acquainted with the 1st defendant prior to Ex.A1 and on the request of plaintiff, he went to SRO, Kovur. He further stated that when he visited the plaintiff’s shop, the 1st defendant was present and they all went to
SRO, Kovur. He further stated that the time stipulated in Ex.A1 is 1 ½ years. It took abut 2 ½ to 3 hours for execution of Ex.A1. He further stated that no documents were verified or referred including market value certificate in his presence. He stated that the plaintiff signed in English. He also signed in
English, but he did not observe whether the 1st defendant signed in English or
Telugu. He further pleaded ignorance about the name of the document writer, his fees and who paid the fees.
23.During his further cross-examination, he further deposed that though the SRO, Nellore is situated near the shop of PW1 but he did not enquire the reason for executing Ex.A1 in SRO, Kovur. He further stated that no separate receipt was executed for passing of sale consideration under Ex.A1. He further deposed that Ex.A1 was scribed after they went to Kovur. He stated that Defendant No.1 purchased the stamp paper but he does not know from whom the said stamp paper was purchased.
24.During his further cross-examination he stated that he came to know that the 1st defendant was the owner of the suit schedule property through 1st defendant when he came to sell the property. He further stated that he did not verify the document to ascertain the ownership of the 1st defendant.
22 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
25.On the other hand, the 1st defendant filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure reiterating his averments as found in the written statement. During his cross- examination he stated that part of plaint schedule property was sold to 3rd defendant under registered sale deed bearing document No.1681/2016 of
SRO, Stonehousepet on 19.04.2016 and the 1st defendant discharged the mortgage in Kovur Podupulakshmi Cooperative society with the finance amount received from 3rd defendant and that the 3rd defendant did not have knowledge about the pendency of the present suit.
26.During his cross-examination he admitted his signatures on Ex.A1. He further admitted that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He stated that one road is dividing his house from the suit schedule property. He further stated that his junior paternal uncle was having cattle shed in the said property and denied the suggestion that the cattle shed belongs to the 1st defendant and not his junior paternal uncle. He further deposed that as per practice, purchaser of the property would purchase the stamp paper in his name. He further stated that he handed over 10 blank signed papers to Narayana Reddy for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- taken from him and he obtained the photo copies of all he stamp papers handed over to Narayana Reddy. He further stated that he did not file those photo copies along with his written statement either in the suit or in the suit filed by Narayana Reddy in O.S.No191/2015 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge, Kovur. He further stated that he did not obtain any receipt for
payment from Narayana Reddy for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. He admitted 23 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
the receipt of Ex.A2 notice and deposed that he did not give any reply to
Ex.A2 notice. He further stated that he did not take any photograph for the mediation between himself and Narayana Reddy. He further stated that he did not file any application to revenue authorities to show that his house was inundated by floods. So also he stated that he did not file any photograph or video-graph to show that his household articles were damaged in floods. He further stated that he did not file Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 along with his written statement.
27.During his further cross-examination, he stated that he did not take photograph of cheques and blank promissory notes from Gajulapalli Narayana
Reddy. He further admitted that on the same day of purchase, he took copies of stamp papers. He further stated that he did not give any reply mentioning about obtaining photo copies of stamp papers. So also, he stated that he did not obtain any receipt from Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy for payment of interest on Rs.3,00,000/-. He further agreed that he obtained loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- from Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy for the purpose of running diary in the plaint schedule property. But he stated that he did not have any dairy farm in plaint schedule property. He further stated that he did not mention in his pleading about the date and person with whom mediation was conducted.
28.The defendant got examined one N.Suneel as DW2. During his chief- examination he deposed that one Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy used to lend money on security basis and used to take signatures on blank stamp papers 24 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
and whenever any dispute arose, he used to file the suit using those papers.
He further stated that he came to know Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy obtained signatures of Nagaraju and filed suit through Jaya Prakash and there is no direct transaction between Nagaraju and Jaya Prakash (plaintiff and defendant). During his cross-examination, he stated that he never obtained any loan from anybody including any bank. He stated that he had land in
Inamadugu, but he cannot say the survey number. He further pleaded ignorance as to which property was kept as security by D1. He further stated that he does not know the plaintiff.
29.The 2nd defendant filed his chief-affidavit as DW3 in lieu of his chief- examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reiterated the averments in written statement. During the cross-examination of
DW3, he pleaded ignorance as to whether the 1st defendant received any notice on the date of his purchasing the property. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether DW1 was not aware about the plaintiff filing the present suit. He stated that he knows Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether Ex.A1 was executed in favour of PW1 by
DW1. During his further cross-examination, he stated that since 2009, he is engaged in real estate business. He pleaded ignorance about the signature of 1st defendant. He further pleaded ignorance about the date of filing vakalat in the present suit by the 1st defendant. So also receipt of summons by 1st defendant. He deposed that he obtained legal opinion before purchasing suit property but he does not remember the date and he did not file the copy of legal opinion in the Court. He deposed that he did not verify about the pending 25 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
cases with regard to the suit schedule property. He further stated that he did not file any agreement of sale. He further deposed that he did not mention in the recitals of Ex.A11 about the agreement of sale and discharge of debt through bank transaction. He further pleaded ignorance about the number of pages in Ex.A11, so also stamp value paid under Ex.A11. So also time of registration of Ex.A11. He further pleaded ignorance whether the plaintiff got issued legal notice to 1st defendant prior to filing of the suit. He further pleaded ignorance about the survey number, door number and boundaries of suit schedule property. He further stated that there are two criminal cases pending against him relating to land. He pleaded ignorance about the date of agreement of sale and sale consideration under the said agreement. He further pleaded ignorance about the loan in NABARD. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether he filed any document along with the written statement. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether the present suit was pending on the date of Ex.A11. He further pleaded ignorance as to whether the present suit was pending on the date of Ex.A11. He further pleaded ignorance about the relief in the present suit.
30.During his further cross-examination, he stated that he does not know about Ex.A10. He further admitted that plaintiff issued legal notice to him on 5.4.2016 and on that day, he got knowledge about the pendency of the present suit. But he pleaded ignorance about the date of sale, sale consideration, extent, boundaries and witnesses under Ex.A13. He further deposed that he did not mention the mode of sale consideration in Ex.A11. He further stated that he did not file any copy of permission or approval. He 26 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
further pleaded ignorance about the date of approval. He further stated that he did not verify the suit document except Ex.A1. He further pleaded ignorance about Ex.A1 transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. He further pleaded ignorance as to what are the documents executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. He further pleaded ignorance about the financial dealings of the 1st defendant. He further stated that he did not suffer any loss with regard to the suit schedule property.
31.The 3rd defendant filed her chief affidavit as DW4 in lieu of her chief- examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reiterated the averments as found in the written statement. During her cross- examination, she stated that prior to purchasing the property from 1st defendant on 19.04.2016, she obtained Encumbrance certificate and verified attachment orders, mortgage and encumbrance certificates, etc. During her further cross-examination, she stated that she was resident of Kovur and the suit schedule property located in Kovur and there is a registration office in
Kovur, but Ex.A12 was registered at Nellore. She further admitted that in
Ex.A12 there is no mention about the discharging of debt due to Kovur
Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society and payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- to 1st defendant. She further pleaded ignorance as to whether the 1st defendant was due to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society. She further pleaded ignorance about the discharge of debt due to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society and issuance of any receipt in proof of discharge. She further stated that she does not remember the date of discharge. She further stated that as 27 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
on the date of Ex.A12, her father was admitted in Garika Sathish Babu
Hospital due to accident. It was further elicited that on 19.04.2016 she was with her father in the hospital. She further stated that she did not enter into any sale agreement with the 1st defendant prior to Ex.A12. She further pleaded ignorance as to whether Ex.A12 was given regular number or disputed (pending) number. She further stated that she did not verify about pending Court cases at the time of Ex.A12. During her further cross- examination, she stated that her father verified and purchased the property for her and he took care of the sale under Ex.A12. She further stated that her father was in hospital for more than a week. She further stated that after her father’s retirement, the Sugar factory was closed but she pleaded ignorance as to whether the sugar factory did not pay salaries and claims and benefits for 15 years and the claims are still pending. She further stated that she purchased the property for Rs.26,00,000/-, but it was registered for
Rs.6,10,000/-. She further stated that she did not pay the sale consideration either through bank transfer or D.D or cheque.
32.The 4th defendant filed her chief-affidavit as DW5 in lieu of his chief- examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reiterated her averments found in the written statement. During her cross- examination, she pleaded ignorance about the total extent of plaint schedule property and its boundaries. She stated that she knows the boundaries of her house and her house is situated in Sy.No.87, 51. She further stated that the present suit is filed against five defendants and she does not know about the pendency of the suit by the date of Ex.A13-sale deed in her favour. She 28 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
further pleaded ignorance as to whether Ex.A1 was issued to her informing not to purchase the property as it is lis-pendence. She further pleaded ignorance about Ex.A10-general public notice. She further pleaded ignorance about Ex.A9. She further stated that she did not file Encumbrance certificate and other records which she verified. She further stated that she does not know about the Ex.A1 and she did not verify Ex.A1 after receiving summons.
She further stated that the plaintiff filed the present suit against the 1st defendant for suit schedule but she pleaded ignorance as to whether the suit was filed basing on Ex.A1.
Now, with this evidence available on record put forth by both sides,
this Court shall proceed further to appreciate the same and answer the
issues.
Issue No.1:
Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by the 1 st defendant is true, valid and binding?
33.It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant being absolute owner of plaint schedule property offered the same for sale and he agreed to purchase the same and accordingly, Ex.A1-agreement of sale was executed with sale consideration of Rs.25 lakhs and he paid Rs.15 lakhs as advance on the same day. The 1st defendant in his written statement contended that though he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, he never executed any agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and Ex.A1 is fabricated 29 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
by using blank signed stamp papers executed by the 1st defendant in favour of one Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy in connection to loan obtained from him and inspite of repaying the said loan, the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy did not return the blank signed stamp papers. To substantiate the said plea, the plaintiff got examined himself and he also examined both attestors of Ex.A1 as
PW2 and PW3 and PW1 to PW3 deposed about the execution of Ex.A1 and inspite of lengthy cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants, nothing was elicited so as to disbelieve their evidence with regard to execution of Ex.A1. Added to this, during the cross-examination of PW1 he categorically admitted that the signature in Ex.A1 belongs to him.
34.Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder of the instrument. According to Section 118 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, until the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed inter alia that every negotiable instrument was made, drawn, accepted or endorsed for consideration. It is also presumed that, consideration is present in every negotiable instrument until the contrary is proved. There is no gainsaying that once the issuance of Negotiable Instrument is admitted by the drawer, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play.
35.It has been held time and again that the said presumption is a rebuttable one and its only effect is to shift the initial burden of proof on the drawee. It is also well settled that in order to rebut the presumption and shift 30 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
back the burden of proof on the drawer, the drawee is only required to raise a probable defence and he cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof i.e. standard of proof for rebutting the presumption raised under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is "preponderance of probabilities". It is also well settled that the drawee can rebut the said presumption either directly or by bringing on record preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. The drawee, for this purpose, is also entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the drawer as well. It is also trite that
Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act is an example of reverse onus clause and the drawee cannot be expected to disprove the existence of legally recoverable debt or liability by direct evidence. In fact, the drawee does not necessarily need to bring any evidence on record, he can disprove the case of the drawer from the evidence already placed on record by the drawer. The said ratio was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohit
Bhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in [2019] 5
S.C.R. 417. However, at the same time it is also to be remembered that bare denial of the existence of legally enforceable debt or other liability cannot be said to be sufficient to rebut the presumption and something which is probable has to be brought on record to shift the onus back to the drawer.
36.In the light of the above position of law as the 1st defendant categorically admitted his signature in Ex.A1-agreement of sale, it has to be presumed that execution of Ex.A1 is admitted and it is also to be presumed that Ex.A1 was executed for consideration. Hence, it is for the defendant to prove that no 31 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
consideration was passed under Ex.A1. In as much as the 1st defendant took a plea that he issued 10 blank signed promissory notes to one Gajulapalli
Narayana Reddy in connection with a loan of Rs.3 lakhs and inspite of discharging the same, the said Narayana Reddy did not return the said pronotes and foisted the present suit through the plaintiff, it is for the defendant to substantiate the said contention by adducing any cogent evidence on record. But the defendant failed to substantiate the said plea by putting forth any material on record.
37.Here it is vital to note that the 1st defendant filed Ex.B1 which contains his signature in two blank stamp papers. But it is not explained as to why the defendant did not file the said stamp papers at the earliest point of time i.e., filing of his written statement and he also failed to explain the reason for not filing 10 blank signed stamp papers and as to why he filed only two blank signed stamp papers, when he contended that he signed on 10 blank signed stamp papers and took xerox of the same and further no explanation is offered as to what happened to the other eight stamp papers. Further, even if it is assumed that the defendant had taken xerox copies of said blank signed papers, it shows that he is a very prudent man. When such is the case, it is not believable that if he had really discharged the said debt due to the said G.
Narayana Reddy, he would not obtain return of the said blank signed papers from him.
38.Further, it is not explained as to why he did not take any steps for return of blank signed stamp papers if really they were in the illegal custody of the 32 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
said Gajula Narayana Reddy. Further, the 1st defendant did not give any complaint or issue any notice with regard to the said blank signed stamp papers against the said Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy. Further, it is not believable that such a prudent man would not obtain receipt for payment and discharge of the said loan.
39.The 1st defendant further contended that after receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff, mediation was held between him and Narayana Reddy in the presence of elders and he had videographed the said discussion at the time of mediation, but he did not choose to file any such evidence in the court and pleaded that the said evidence was washed out due to floods in November, 2021. He himself admitted that he did not give any application to revenue authorities for inundation of his house in floods and no material is placed to show that his house was completely inundated during floods and hence, the said plea does not inspire the confidence of this Court Further, it is not believable that the 1st defendant who had taken the xerox copies of blank signed stamp papers and photographed the said mediation discussions, will not obtain return of blank signed stamp papers after discharging the debt and the same shows that the said defence is created for the purpose of avoiding the suit claim.
40.The contention of defendants is that Ex.A1 stamp papers are dated 13.02.2013 at Sl.No.1163 and 1164 and that if 1st defendant was in need of money, he would have purchased stamp papers in his name instead of purchasing the stamp papers in the name of plaintiff, who was unknown to him 33 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
till 2023. In this regard, it is vital to note that the 1st defendant admitted his signature in Ex.A1 which is executed in two stamp papers with date of purchase as 13.02.2013 at Sl.No.1163 and 1164 and the same were purchased in the name of plaintiff and hence the said admission is contrary to the plea of 1st defendant and negatives his case that he executed empty blank signed stamp papers in the name of Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy. The said plea of 1st defendant that plaintiff was unknown to him till 2023 is not tenable as the case is filed in the year 2015 itself. The contention of 1st defendant that the stamp papers ought to be purchased in the name of the person who was in need of money does not seem to be tenable. The admission of 1st defendant that the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to him which is executed on stamp papers in the name of plaintiff at Sl.No.1163 and 1164 dated 13.02.2013 shows that 1st defendant executed Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of plaintiff but only to avoid suit claim, he is taking contrary plea that he executed blank signed stamp papers in the name of one Gajulapalli Narayana Reddy.
Further there is no suggestion by the defendants to the plaintiff on that aspect.
Hence, the same is not considered.
41.The contention of 1st defendant is that mere admission of signature on
Ex.A1 does not amount to admission of execution of Ex.A1, but the said plea is not tenable in the light of evidence of PW1 to PW3, who deposed in lines with regard to execution of Ex.A1. As the execution of Ex.A1 is proved through
PW1 along with attestors as PW2 and PW3, the said plea of 1st defendant holds no water.
34 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
42.Hence the plaintiff with his evidence along with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and also cross-examination of DW1 coupled with Ex.A1 is able to prove the execution of Ex.A1-agreement of sale and hence a presumption arises in his favour that Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding, which is not rebutted by the 1st defendant in any manner and hence, it has to be construed that agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by the 1st defendant is true, valid and binding. Accordingly, 1st issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the 1st defendant.
Additional Issue No.1:-
Whether the sale deed dated 2.4.2016, 19.04.2016 and others
on the file of SRO, Nellore are true, valid and binding on the
plaintiff?
43.The 1st defendant contended that he sold part of plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant for a valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed dated 2.4.2016 vide document No.592/2016. Prior to said sale, the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd defendant on 22.02.2016 by paying an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and after discharge of loan in Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society for Rs.9,50,000/- on 2.4.2016, sale deed was registered. The 1st defendant further contended that at the time of discharging the said loan, the same was endorsed on the back side of agreement of sale dated 22.02.2016 and the C.E.O of Kovur
Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society signed with stamp as 1st 35 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
attestor and the remaining sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by way of cash. Hence the 2nd defendant is a Bonafide purchaser for value under the above agreement of sale and subsequent sale deed dated 2.4.2016. So also the 2nd defendant has contended in lines with the 1st defendant. But the plaintiff contended that the said sale deed is not valid and binding as it was registered during pendency of the case and is hit by doctrine of lis pendence and he further contended that the said sale deed is collusive document created by the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant only to avoid the claim in the present suit. In this regard, when looked into the material available on record, it could be seen that the suit is presented on 10.12.2015 and the same was numbered on 31.12.2015 and summons were served to the 1st defendant on or before the 1st hearing i.e., 3.2.2016 and the defendant entered his appearance through his advocate on 3.2.2016, hence it could be culled out that by 3.2.2016 the 1st defendant was aware about the present suit filed by the plaintiff. But as per the defendants, the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd defendant on 22.2.2016, which clearly shows that it is executed after receipt of summons and entered his appearance in the present suit through his advocate on 3.2.2016 and having knowledge about the present suit and the same shows the intention of the 1st defendant to create litigation by entering into agreement of sale with the 2nd defendant in respect of suit schedule property.
44.The contention of the 2nd defendant is that Ex.A1-agreement of sale is not registered and as such, he was not aware about the agreement of sale and the 1st defendant did not inform him about the said agreement of sale and 36 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
pendency of the suit and hence, he is a Bonafide purchaser. In this regard, when looked into the evidence of DW3/2nd defendant, it could be seen that the 2nd defendant is engaged in real estate business since 2009 and he stated that he obtained legal opinion prior to purchasing the suit schedule property but he did not choose to file the same in the Court. Though he is engaged in real estate business for a long time, his averments that he did not verify about the pending litigation with regard to suit schedule property does not inspire the confidence of this Court. He further did not choose to file the said agreement of sale in the court and he did not even choose to file the registered sale deed
dated 2.4.2016 in the court, but it was the plaintiff who got filed Ex.A11 i.e.,
sale deed dated 2.4.2016 and a perusal of said Ex.A11 shows that there is no mention about the agreement of sale.
45.It is further vital to note that the 2nd defendant pleaded that prior to registration under Ex.A11, the 1st defendant discharged the loans due to Kovur
Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society which was endorsed on the back side of the agreement of sale but for the reasons best known to the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant, the said agreement of sale is not filed in the
Court and further, it is elicited that as per recitals of Ex.A11, there is no mention about the agreement of sale or discharge of debt due to Kovur
Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society. If at all, there was any debt due to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society, it is for sure that it would have been reflected in the EC. But no such evidence is filed
in the court. Further, as seen from the evidence of DW3 (2nd defendant), he
pleaded ignorance about the suit schedule property, survey number, 37 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
boundaries, sale consideration, date of agreement, loan amount etc, which shows that he does not seem to be a Bonafide purchaser for value. Further, if at all the 2nd defendant had made any payment for discharge of debt to Bank, it is not explained as to why no such document is filed in the court to substantiate the same, which shows that it is nothing but a concocted story created for the purpose of defence in the present suit.
46.The averment of 2nd defendant being in real estate business for long time that he did not verify about the pending cases and pleading ignorance about the plaint schedule property, etc, shows that his plea that he is a
Bonafide purchaser is not genuine. Hence from the above evidence, it is categorically clear that 2nd defendant is not bonafide purchaser, as such it has to be concluded that the said sale deed dated 2.4.2016 is not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff.
47.It is further contended that the 1st defendant sold an extent of 30 ½ ankanams of site to 3rd defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/- under sale agreement dated 1.04.2016 by receiving an advance of
Rs.6,10,000/- and the 3rd defendant contended that the 1st defendant duly discharged the mortgaged loan due by him by Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society and after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.6,10,000/-, the 1st defendant executed registered sale deed dated 19.04.2016 and hence the 3rd defendant is bonafide purchaser for valuable sale consideration. In this regard, when looked into the evidence of
D.W.4/3rd defendant coupled with Ex.A12, it could be seen that there is no 38 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
mention of discharging of debt to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society and payment of balance sale consideration of
Rs.6,10,000/- to 1st defendant. Added to this, during the cross-examination of
DW4, she pleaded ignorance as to whether the 1st defendant was due to
Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society group, which is contrary to her own plea as found in her written statement and chief-affidavit, wherein she stated that the 1st defendant was due to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society. She further pleaded ignorance about the discharge of debt due to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society and issuance of receipt in proof of discharge. She further pleaded ignorance as to the date of discharge.
48.The above evidence of DW4/3rd defendant shows that she is taking contrary pleas by deposing on one hand that the 1st defendant discharged the loan to Kovur Podupu Lakshmi mutually aided cooperative society and on the other hand, she pleaded ignorance about the said loan and discharge of the same. Further, from the evidence of DW4, it could be seen that her father was hospitalized on 19.04.2016 i.e., date of registration of Ex.A12 and she was in hospital along with her father and hence it is doubtful as to how she got registered sale deed under Ex.A12. Further, she could not depose as to whether the document was registered or given any pending dispute number.
Further, it was elicited that she did not verify pending litigation on the date of
Ex.A12. Though she stated that her father took care of sale transaction under
Ex.A12 but the said plea does not seem to inspire the confidence of this
Court, as she herself stated that her father was hospitalized for more than a 39 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
week. Further, she stated that she purchased the property for 26 lakhs but got it registered only for Rs.6,10,000/-. She further stated that she paid the entire sale consideration by way of cash which again goes to creates a doubt about the said transaction. Hence, from the cross-examination of DW4, it is categorically elicited that she is not a bonafide purchaser and she purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and it is the duty of the purchaser to be aware and verify all the relevant records before entering into sale transaction. In the present case on hand, as DW4 miserably failed to substantiate anything on record to show that she is bonafide purchaser for value, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the sale deed dated 19.04.2016 is not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff.
49.It is further contended by the defendants that the 2nd defendant after purchasing the part of plaint schedule property under Ex.A11, sold the same to 4th and 5th defendants under Ex.A13. In this regard, it is vital to note that the plaintiff got issued Ex.A9-legal notice to 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and panchayat secretary informing about the pendency of the present suit and requested not to grant any permission for construction of building. Hence, it is clear that by the date of Ex.A9-notice, the 2nd defendant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit and the same is admitted by him during his cross- examination but inspite of the same, he constructed the building and sold the same to D4 and D5 under Ex.A13 dated 17.12.2016. The 2nd defendant did not choose to fie the copy of permission or approval before this Court and he further pleaded ignorance about the date of approval, the details of Ex.A13 40 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
which shows that the said document is only a created document for the purpose of the case.
50.Further, the plaintiff issued Ex.A1-notice dated 3.11.2016 to 2nd defendant and 4th defendant informing about the pendency of the dispute and not to create any document with regard to plaint schedule property but the said notice was refused by the 4th defendant, which shows the collusion between the defendants. The evidence of DW5 shows that she does not know the extent, survey number, etc of the plaint schedule property and she did not put forth any document to show that she verified the records before purchasing the property. Without verifying Ex.A1, she stated that Ex.A1 is fabricated which shows that she is colluded with other defendants. Hence, it has to be culled out that the sale transaction under Ex.A13 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 4th and 5th defendants is not Bonafide and hence the sale deed dated 17.12.2016 executed by 4th and 5th defendants is not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue Nos.2 and 3:
Whether the 1 st defendant performed his part of contract on the agreement of sale?
Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract 41 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
51.In as much as this Court came to the conclusion in earlier issue the suit agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff is true, valid and binding and as per the contention of the plaintiff, inspite of his several requests, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute regular sale deed after measuring the properties and fixing the boundaries and further, the plaintiff had shown his readiness by issuing legal notice dated 17.11.2015 under Ex.A2 which was duly received by the 1st defendant under Ex.A3, but inspite of receiving the same, he did not choose to issue any reply or execute regular sale deed, hence, it has to be construed that inspite of readiness and willingness shown on behalf of plaintiff, the 1st defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale.
52.The case of the plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement of sale with the 1st defendant on 09.06.2014 for a sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- by paying an advance of Rs.15,00,000/- and the balance amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid within 1½ year from the date of agreement i.e., on or before 09.12.2016 and got executed the regular sale deed. The plaintiff contended that the property was to be measured in his presence by the date of registration for fixing boundaries but inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff to execute regular sale deed after measuring the plaint schedule property and fixing the boundaries by receiving balance sale consideration, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute his part of contract. Though the defendant took a plea that he never executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale, but in view of the discussion in the earlier issue, this Court already came to 42 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
the conclusion that Ex.A1-agreement of sale was executed by the 1st defendant and the same is true, valid and binding.
53.The plaintiff in order to show his readiness got issued legal notice to 1st defendant under Ex.A2 on 17.11.2025, which was duly received by 1st defendant under Ex.A3, but inspite of receiving the same, the 1st defendant did not come forward to execute regular sale deed or chose to issue any reply.
The plaintiff further contended that he is ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- as and when directed by this Court.
54.It is vital to note that in Veeramreddy Nagabhushanarao Vs. Jyothula
Venkateswararao reported in 2011 (2) ALD 629 (DB) it was held that “once the defendant has failed to prove that the suit agreement of sale is fabricated, all other defences taken by him such as readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and there is no requirement of selling the suit schedule property are all being supplementary, based on which, equitable relief of decreeing the suit cannot be refused to the plaintiff when it is otherwise legal and justified to do so”.
55.In another decision in Nasindeyit Singh Vs. North State Estate
Promoters Ltd., reported in 2012 (5) ALD 21 (SC), it was held that “Mere absence of specific pleading about continued readiness and willingness of the respondent to perform its part of the agreement and availability of funds necessary for payment of the sale consideration are not the grounds to upset the finding in the second appeal.” It was further held that “It is significant to 43 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
note that the appellant and his father had set up the case of total denial. They repeatedly pleaded that the agreement for sale was a fictitious document and the respondent had fabricated the same in connivance with Col.Harjit Singh and Vijay Bhardwaj. However, no evidence was adduced by the appellant to substantiate his assertion. That apart, he did not challenge the finding recorded by the trial Court on the issue of readiness and willingness of the respondent to perform it’s part of the agreement. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less justification for exercise of power by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court which was approved by the High Court.” Their
Lordships further observed as follows — “We are also inclined to agree with the lower appellate Court that escalation in the price of the land cannot, by itself, be a ground for denying relief of specific performance.”
56.In another decision in Prakash Chandra vs Angadlal And Ors reported in AIR 1979 SC 1241, wherein it was held that “the ordinary rule is that specific performance should be granted. It ought to be denied only when equitable considerations point to its refusal and the circumstances show that damages would constitute an adequate relief”.
57.In the light of the above citations, it could be seen that the plaintiff has shown his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for specific 44 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
performance of agreement of sale. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
58.In view of the enunciation in earlier issues that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, his prayer for refund of advance amount is liable to be negatived.
Issue No.4:
To what relief?
59. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants 6 to 9, being the legal representatives of D1, to execute regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property within two months from today i.e., 25.03.2026, on receipt of balance sale consideration, failing which, the plaintiff shall deposit the balance sale consideration into the Court on the next day after expiry of 60 days from the date of this judgment and get the sale deed executed through process of law.
Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court, on this the 25th day of March, 2026.
Sd/- Smt. Nikitha R. Vora
Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.
45 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
F or Plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Darsi Venkata Jaya Prakash.
P.W.2 : Kolipakula Suresh Babu.
P.W.3 : Gundlapalli Chandrasekhar.
For Defendants: .
D.W.1 : B. Narayana Raju. (1st Defendant)
D.W.2 : Navuru Suneel. (Third Party)
D.W.3 : Pusala Madhu. (2nd Defendant)
D.W.4 : Kokku Kavitha. (3rd Defendant)
D.W.5 : Nimmala Padma. (4th Defendant)
Documents marked
F or Plaintiff:
Ex.A1: Original agreement of sale dated 09.06.2014 executed by the 1st
Defendant.
Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 17.11.2015.
Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment of the 1st Defendant.
Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dated 03.05.2016.
Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgment of the 1st Defendant.
Ex.A6: Postal acknowledgment of the 3rd Defendant
Ex.A7: Office copy of legal notice dated 03.11.2016.
46 of 47
APFC080004962015
Fair Judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2015
Dated 25.03.2026
Ex.A8: Returned postal cover of 4th Defendant.
Ex.A9: Office copy of legal notice dated 05.04.2016.
Ex.A10: Paper publication in Sakshi Daily dated 06.07.2016 (Subject to objection raised by counsel for D3 regarding non production of request letter and bill).
Ex.A11: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 02.04.2016 bearing
Document No.592/2016 of S.R.O., Kovur.
Ex.A12: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 19.04.2016 bearing
Document No.1681/2016 of S.R.O., Stonehousepet.
Ex.A13: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 17.12.2016 bearing
Document No.8751/2016 of S.R.O., Nellore.
F or Defendants:
Ex.B1: SI.No.1163 dated 13.02.2013 purchased by Darsi Venkata
Jayaprakash from Dasari Koteswari of Amancharla Licensed Stamp
Vendor.
Ex.B2 : SI.No.1164 dated 13.02.2013 purchased by Darsi Venkata
Jayaprakash from Dasari Koteswari of Amancharla Licensed Stamp
Vendor.
Sd/- Smt. Nikitha R. Vora
Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Nellore //True copy// 47 of 47