1 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
APAN0B0000372020
Presented on : 06-03-2020
Registered on : 10-03-2020
Decided on : 27-04-2026
Duration : 6 years, 1 months, 21 days Duration : 6 years, 1 months, 21 days
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KADIRI IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: KADIRI
Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI,Present: Smt. S. JAYALAKSHMI, Civil Civil J Judge (udge (S Senior enior D Division), ivision), Kadiri Kadiri..
Mon Mon day, this the 27 day, this the 27 th th (Twenty Seventh) day of April, (Twenty Seventh) day of April, 2026 2026 (Two Thousand Twenty Six) (Two Thousand Twenty Six)
O.S.No.7/2020 O.S.No.7/2020
Between: Between: Mittapalli Neelakanta Reddy, S/o Adinarayana Reddy, aged about 36Mittapalli Neelakanta Reddy, S/o Adinarayana Reddy, aged about 36 years, Agriculturist, residing at Door No.3-21, Damavandlapalle, H/o Kadiriyears, Agriculturist, residing at Door No.3-21, Damavandlapalle, H/o Kadiri
Poolakunta, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.Poolakunta, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.
… … Plaintiff. Plaintiff.
And: And:
1) Shaik Ameena Bee, W/o Hydervali, aged about 65 years, Cultivation,1) Shaik Ameena Bee, W/o Hydervali, aged about 65 years, Cultivation, residing at Door No.6-137, Gundluru Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoorresiding at Door No.6-137, Gundluru Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor
District.District.
2) Shaik Raziya Banu, D/o Hydervali, aged about 36 years, Housewife,2) Shaik Raziya Banu, D/o Hydervali, aged about 36 years, Housewife, residing at Door No.6-137, Gundluru Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoorresiding at Door No.6-137, Gundluru Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor
District.District.
… … Defendants. Defendants.
2 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
This suit is presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on This suit is presented before me for Judgment today i.e., on 27.04.2026 in the presence of the learned advocate for the plaintiff Sri.27.04.2026in the presence of the learned advocate for the plaintiff Sri.
A.P.Siddartha Sai Kumar Reddy and the learned advocates for DefendantsA.P.Siddartha Sai Kumar Reddy and the learned advocates for Defendants
Sri.K.Narasimhulu and Sri. S.Kareemulla, having heard and after perusingSri.K.Narasimhulu and Sri. S.Kareemulla, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivers the following,the material on record, this Court delivers the following,
J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T
1) Nature of the Suit: Specific performance of agreement of sale dated1) Nature of the Suit: Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019/Ex.A1.08.11.2019/Ex.A1.
2) Reliefs claimed: i) Specific performance of agreement of sale dated2) Reliefs claimed: i) Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019/Ex.A1 directing defendants to execute registered sale deed in08.11.2019/Ex.A1 directing defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance of sale consideration offavour of the plaintiff by receiving balance of sale consideration of
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh only) failing which to obtain it throughRs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh only) failing which to obtain it through the process of the Court, ii) the process of the Court, ii) award costs and award costs and iii) iii) other reliefs. other reliefs.
3) Pleadings of the plaintiff in compact, a) 3) Pleadings of the plaintiff in compact, a) that the defendants being the that the defendants being the absolute owners of the suit schedule property under registered gift deedabsolute owners of the suit schedule property under registered gift deed
dated 10.01.2019 have agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him fordated 10.01.2019 have agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him for
total sale consideration of Rs.49,20,000/- under agreement of sale datedtotal sale consideration of Rs.49,20,000/- under agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 (Ex.A1).08.11.2019 (Ex.A1).
b) He submits that on the date of the agreement, defendants have receivedb) He submits that on the date of the agreement, defendants have received an advance amount of Rs.9,20,000/- as advance sale consideration and itan advance amount of Rs.9,20,000/- as advance sale consideration and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- would bewas agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- would be paid on or before 07.01.2019 from the date of the agreement. He furtherpaid on or before 07.01.2019 from the date of the agreement. He further submits that though time is stipulated in the agreement of sale but it is notsubmits that though time is stipulated in the agreement of sale but it is not made as the essence of the contract. made as the essence of the contract.
3 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
c) He states that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part ofc) He states that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and requested the defendants several times to receive thethe contract and requested the defendants several times to receive the balance of sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed in hisbalance of sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed in his favour, but the defendants have been postponed the same. Therefore, he isfavour, but the defendants have been postponed the same. Therefore, he is constrained to issue legal notice dated 13.01.2020 (Ex.A2) to theconstrained to issue legal notice dated 13.01.2020 (Ex.A2) to the defendants and orally informed them to appear before Sub-Registrardefendants and orally informed them to appear before Sub-Registrar
Tanakal on 29.01.2020. But the defendants avoided the notice.Tanakal on 29.01.2020. But the defendants avoided the notice.
d) He further states that he has attendedd) He further states that he has attendedthe Sub-Registrar Office, Tanakalthe Sub-Registrar Office, Tanakal on 29.01.2020 and purchased Non-Judicial stamps (Ex.A5) and are ready toon 29.01.2020 and purchased Non-Judicial stamps (Ex.A5) and are ready to deposit the balance of sale consideration. As the defendants have failed todeposit the balance of sale consideration. As the defendants have failed to execute the register sale deed in his favour in pursuance of agreement ofexecute the register sale deed in his favour in pursuance of agreement of sale and are making efforts to create collusive documents, he is constrainedsale and are making efforts to create collusive documents, he is constrained to file this suit. to file this suit.
4) Summons was served on the Defendants. They entered appearance and4) Summons was served on the Defendants. They entered appearance and opposed the suit claim. opposed the suit claim.
5) Pleadings of Defendants in nutshell, a) apart from denying the5) Pleadings of Defendants in nutshell, a) apart from denying the averments in the plaint para-wise, they submit that the son of defendant-1,averments in the plaint para-wise, they submit that the son of defendant-1, namely Khajapeer, had earlier executed an unregistered agreement of salenamely Khajapeer, had earlier executed an unregistered agreement of sale
dated 03.12.2018 in favour of the plaintiff and one Bavaji in respect of thedated 03.12.2018 in favour of the plaintiff and one Bavaji in respect of the
plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the said Khajapeer executed aplaint schedule property. Subsequently, the said Khajapeer executed a registered gift deed dated 10.01.2019 in favour of the defendantsregistered gift deed dated 10.01.2019 in favour of the defendants concerning the same property.concerning the same property.
b) They contend that on 11.01.2019, Khajapeer approached them and obtained their signatures on a prepared agreement of sale purportedly in favour of the plaintiff and Bavaji. They assert that the plaintiff, Bavaji, and
Khajapeer did not pay any sale consideration under the said agreement 4 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
dated 11.01.2019.
c) They state that on 27.02.2019, the plaintiff along with Khajapeer again approached them and procured their signatures on another prepared agreement of sale, representing that the earlier agreement dated 11.01.2019 had lapsed. It is alleged that no consideration was paid under this agreement as well.
d) Again, on 03.08.2019, the plaintiff and Khajapeer allegedly obtained the defendants’ signatures on yet another prepared agreement of sale, stating that the previous agreement had become inoperative. They submit that no consideration was paid under it.
e) Subsequently, on 08.11.2019, the plaintiff and Khajapeer once again approached the defendants and secured their signatures on another prepared agreement of sale, asserting that the earlier agreement dated 03.08.2019 had lapsed. They categorically denied receipt of any sale consideration under any of the alleged agreements.
f) They further submit that, upon enquiry, they came to know that the plaintiff is not financially capable of paying the balance sale consideration and is, in fact, a real estate broker who engages in transactions with third parties based on agreements of sale. Thus, they allege that, in collusion with
Khajapeer- son of defendant-1, the plaintiff obtained multiple agreements of sale from them without paying any consideration.
g) Thus, they contend that the plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands, having suppressed the existence of prior agreements.
They further allege that the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation with the assistance of Khajapeer- 5 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
son of Defendant-1. They state that there exists no valid relationship of vendor and purchaser between the plaintiff and the defendants, and that the alleged agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 is devoid of consideration and hence unenforceable.
h) They also denied having received any legal notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff’s advocate. They contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance and accordingly, sought to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6) ADMITTED FACTS: 6) ADMITTED FACTS:
- Defendant -1 is the mother of defendant-2 and one Khajapeer.
- The son of defendant-1 and the brother of defendant-2 executed registered gift deed infavourof defendants- 1 and 2 on 10.01.2019 regarding the suit schedule property.
7) Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are7) Basing on the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial.settled for trial.
ISSUES: ISSUES:
1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 is true, valid and1) Whether the suit agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?binding on the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.9,20,000/- as part of sale2) Whether the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.9,20,000/- as part of sale consideration out of total sale consideration of Rs.49,20,000/- to theconsideration out of total sale consideration of Rs.49,20,000/- to the defendants on 08.11.2019?defendants on 08.11.2019?
3) Whether time is an essence of contract?
4) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his 6 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
part of contract as per the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019?
5) Whether the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the previous agreements of sale dated 11.01.2019, 27.02.2019, 03.08.2019 and 08.11.2019 as alleged by the defendants?
6) Whether the agreement of sale is devoid of consideration?
7) Whether the plaintiff by playing fraud and misrepresentation on the defendants with the help of son of D1-Khajapeer obtained their signatures on agreement of sale, as alleged by the defendants?
8) Whether the son of D1 i.e., one Khajapeer executed registered gift deed infavourof defendants on 10.01.2019 regarding the plaint schedule property as alleged by the defendants?
9) Whether the plaintiff has no amount with him and that there was no relationship between purchaser and seller between the plaintiff and defendants as alleged by the defendants?
10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019? and
11) To what relief?
EVIDENCE
8) Plaintiff to substantiate his case got examined himself as PW1, two8) Plaintiff to substantiate his case got examined himself as PW1, two attestors of Ex.A1 as PW.’s 2 and 3 and the son of defendant-1 as PW4,attestors of Ex.A1 as PW.’s 2 and 3 and the son of defendant-1 as PW4, besides got exhibited Ex.'s.A1 to A5 namely, agreement of sale executed bybesides got exhibited Ex.'s.A1 to A5 namely, agreement of sale executed by the defendants infavourof the plaintiff dated 08.11.2019, Office copy of legalthe defendants infavourof the plaintiff dated 08.11.2019, Office copy of legal 7 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
notice dated 13.01.2020, postal receipts (2) dated 13.01.2020, postalnotice dated 13.01.2020, postal receipts (2) dated 13.01.2020, postal returned covers (2) and Non Judicial stamps of Rs.400/- dated 29.01.2020. returned covers (2) and Non Judicial stamps of Rs.400/- dated 29.01.2020.
9) Per contra, D2 got examined herself as DW1. 9) Per contra, D2 got examined herself as DW1. Ex.’s B1 to B4 namely Ex.’s B1 to B4 namely agreement of sale dated 03.12.2018, agreement of sale dated agreement of sale dated 03.12.2018, agreement of sale dated 11.01.2019, agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 and agreement of 11.01.2019, agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 and agreement of sale dated 03.08.2019 are marked during the cross-examination of sale dated 03.08.2019 are marked during the cross-examination of
PW1. PW1.
10)This Court has considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the10)This Court has considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants and has perused the material on record. plaintiff and defendants and has perused the material on record.
11) The learned advocate for the plaintiff has enclosed the following 11) The learned advocate for the plaintiff has enclosed the following decisions to his written arguments. decisions to his written arguments.
- Madhavan (Dead) v. Kanakavally- 2024 (1) (SC) 111- Wherein the
Hon'ble Lordships has held that the relief of specific performance is
discretionary and equitable. Court is not bound to grant relief merely because it is lawful to do so. Court must satisfy itself that granting relief is equitable under the circumstances of the case. Relief should be denied when the plaintiffs conduct and pleadings are inconsistent with equitable principles and evidence assert that the defendant has no title or right in property.
- S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by
L.Rs- AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 – Wherein the Hon’ble Lordships has held that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of the law. It is observed that a fraud is an act of deliberatedeception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage. A litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he 8 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
with holds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.
- P.D.’Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu- AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4472 –
Wherein the Hon’ble Lordship has held that where a Court upon consideration of the material on records had arrived at a finding of fact that plaintiff had all along been ready and willing to perform his part of contract such findings are binding unless it is shown that while arriving at the said finding the Court had taken into consideration any irrelevant fact or failed to take into consideration any relevant fact. It is indisputable that in a suit for specific performance of contract the plaintiff must establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. The question as to whether the onus was discharged by the plaintiff or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down in this behalf. The readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract would also depend upon the question as to whether the defendant did everything which was required of him to be done in terms of the agreement for sale.
- Arunima Baruah v. Union of India & Ors-AIR 2007 (SCW) 4609 –
Wherein the Hon’ble Lordships has held that the Court while refusing to grant a relief to a person who comes with a genuine grievance in an arguable case should be given a hearing. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would 9 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.
- Lata Construction and others v. Dr.Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah
and another-AIR 2000 Supreme Court 380 - Wherein the Hon’ble
Lordships has held that one of the essential requirements of 'Novation'; as contemplated by Section 62 of the contact act, is that there should be complete substitution of a new contract in place of the old. It is in that situation that the original contract need not be performed. Substitution of a new contract in place of the old contract which would have the effect of rescinding or completely altering the terms of the original contract, has to be by agreement between the parties. A substituted contract should rescind or alter or extinguish the previous contract. But if the terms of the two contracts are inconsistent and they cannot stand together, the subsequent contract cannot be said to be in substitution of the earlier contract.
- The Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros- AIR 1959 Supreme
Court 1362 – Wherein it is observed that the contract stand finally concluded in terms of the settlement and no party. Substituted agreement gave a new cause of action and obliterated the earlier ones. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that the three contracts were settled and the third settlement contract was in substitution of the 10 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
three contracts and after its execution, all the earlier contracts were extinguished and the arbitration clause contained therein also perished along with them. The new contract was not a conditional one and after its execution the parties should work out their rights only under its terms.
- M.P.Mathur and Ors. v. D.T.C. and Ors- AIR 2007 Supreme Court 414 -
Wherein the Hon’ble Lordship has held that discretion to grant specific performance has to exercised on well settled principles. Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality, the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff - Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.
- Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr v. Agarwal Steel- 2009 SCC online 1720
- Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a document is signed by the party, there is a presumption that the party has read the document properly and understood it, unless there is proof of fraud. The presumption is stronger in case of businessmen, they being careful people.
- Panchanan Dhara & Ors. V. Monmatha Nath Maity (Dead) Th. LRs. &
Anr- AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2281 - Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the limitation for agreement to sell immovable property in terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is three years. The period of three years prescribed therein shall begin from the date fixed for the performance of the contract. If time is extended, extension is not 11 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
necessarily to be inferred from written document. It could be implied also and conduct of parties in this behalf is relevant. Time to file a suit shall be deemed to start running only when the plaintiff had notice that performance had been refused.
12) Now, the points for determination are:12) Now, the points for determination are:
ISSUE-2 ISSUE-2
13) This issue is taken up for consideration at first, as the findings thereon,13) This issue is taken up for consideration at first, as the findings thereon, are germane to the adjudication of Issue- 1. The burden to prove this issueare germane to the adjudication of Issue- 1. The burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. He claims that he paid Rs. 9,20,000/- to the defendantslies on the plaintiff. He claims that he paid Rs. 9,20,000/- to the defendants on 08.11.2019 as part of the total sale consideration of Rs. 49,20,000/-on 08.11.2019 as part of the total sale consideration of Rs. 49,20,000/- under Ex.A1-Agreement of sale. To support his claim, the plaintiff has gotunder Ex.A1-Agreement of sale. To support his claim, the plaintiff has got examined himself as PW1, the attestors of Ex.A1 as PW2 and PW3 and theexamined himself as PW1, the attestors of Ex.A1 as PW2 and PW3 and the son of Defendant-1 as PW4. Therefore, their evidence must be carefullyson of Defendant-1 as PW4. Therefore, their evidence must be carefully examined.examined.
14) PW.’s 1 to PW3 have stated in their chief-examination that the defendants received Rs. 9,20,000/- on 08.11.2019. However, during cross- examination of PW1 on 08.01.2025, he admitted that he and one Bavaji had actually paid this amount earlier, under a different agreement dated 03.12.2018 (Ex.B1). He clearly stated that he did not pay any amount under
Ex.A1. This admission weakens the plaintiff’s claim.
15) PW2, in his cross-examination dated 28.04.2025 has deposed that the amount paid earlier was carried forward into later agreements. However, this fact was not mentioned in the plaint or in Ex.A1.Hence, the evidence which is outside the pleadings cannot be considered and relied upon.
12 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
16) Similarly, PW3 admitted in his cross-examination that no payment was made under Ex.A1. He also said that the defendants told him that the amount had been received earlier and that Ex.A1 was only a re-agreement.
These details were not mentioned in the plaint or in the testimony of PW1, so his evidence which is beyond the plaint pleadings, also cannot be accepted.
17) PW4 stated that the amount of Rs. 9,20,000/- paid on 03.12.2018 to him was returned to the plaintiff which was paid to defendants and that no payment was made under Ex.A1, except for the alleged carrying forward of the earlier amount. This version is not only outside the pleadings but also contradicts PW1’s evidence, and therefore cannot be accepted. It is an well settled position of law that one could be permitted to let in evidence only in tune with his pleadings. Rule of pleadings is based on the principle of
secundum allegata et probate - A party is not allowed to succeed
where he has not set up the case which he wants to substantiate.
Hence, the testimonies of PW.’s 1 to 4 which are beyond the pleadings cannot be believed.
18) In view of the above, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he paid Rs. 9,20,000/- under Ex.A1 dated 08.11.2019 as part of the total sale consideration of Rs. 49,20,000/-.
Accordingly, Issue-2 is determined infavourof the defendants and Accordingly, Issue-2 is determined infavourof the defendants and against the plaintiff. against the plaintiff.
ISSUE-1 ISSUE-1
19) The findings on Issue- 2 clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff has failed19) The findings on Issue- 2 clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff has failed 13 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
to establish payment of Rs. 9,20,000/- under Ex.A1 dated 08.11.2019to establish payment of Rs. 9,20,000/- under Ex.A1 dated 08.11.2019 towards part of the total sale consideration of Rs. 49,20,000/-. In viewtowards part of the total sale consideration of Rs. 49,20,000/-. In view thereof, this Court can safely hold that Ex.A1 is not valid. thereof, this Court can safely hold that Ex.A1 is not valid.
20) Plaintiff has asserted that the defendants have executed agreement of20) Plaintiff has asserted that the defendants have executed agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 under Ex.A1 to him. Defendants did not deny theirsale dated 08.11.2019 under Ex.A1 to him. Defendants did not deny their signatures on agreement of sale, but contends that they do not know thesignatures on agreement of sale, but contends that they do not know the contents of agreement of sale.contents of agreement of sale.
21) In order to establish the execution of the agreement of sale (Ex.A1), the21) In order to establish the execution of the agreement of sale (Ex.A1), the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1, the attestors to Ex.A1 as PW2 andplaintiff got examined himself as PW1, the attestors to Ex.A1 as PW2 and
PW3 and the son of Defendant-1 as PW4. Among these testimonies, thePW3 and the son of Defendant-1 as PW4. Among these testimonies, the evidence of PW1, being self-serving in nature, does not carry substantialevidence of PW1, being self-serving in nature, does not carry substantial evidentiary value. Consequently, the material witnesses for determining theevidentiary value. Consequently, the material witnesses for determining the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff are, PW.’s 2 toexecution of Ex.A1 by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff are, PW.’s 2 to
4. It therefore becomes necessary to carefully assess the credibility and4. It therefore becomes necessary to carefully assess the credibility and reliability of the testimonies of PW.’s 2 to 4. reliability of the testimonies of PW.’s 2 to 4.
22) PW2 and PW3, in their chief-examination affidavits, have consistently22) PW2 and PW3, in their chief-examination affidavits, have consistently deposed at paragraph-2 that the defendants executed the agreement ofdeposed at paragraph-2 that the defendants executed the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff in their presence, and thatsale dated 08.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff in their presence, and that they attested the said document. In cross-examination, PW2 admitted thatthey attested the said document. In cross-examination, PW2 admitted that the signature shown to him in Ex.A1 as Attestor-1 is his own. He furtherthe signature shown to him in Ex.A1 as Attestor-1 is his own. He further stated that the defendants executed the agreement of sale in favour of thestated that the defendants executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 08.11.2019 at Kadiri in his presence, as well as in the presenceplaintiff on 08.11.2019 at Kadiri in his presence, as well as in the presence of the other attestor and the scribe. Nothing material was elicited in hisof the other attestor and the scribe. Nothing material was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony or to cast doubt on thecross-examination to discredit his testimony or to cast doubt on the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendants.execution of Ex.A1 by the defendants.
23) Similarly, PW3, in his cross-examination dated 28.04.2025, deposed 14 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
that Ex.A1 was drafted at Kadiri by a document writer from Tanakallu. He categorically denied the suggestion that the defendants did not execute the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. His testimony, therefore, also supports the case of the plaintiff regarding due execution of Ex.A1 by the defendants.
24) PW4, the son of Defendant-1 and brother of Defendant-2, in his chief- examination affidavit at paragraph-2, has stated that he was present at the time of execution of the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019. He deposed that the defendants signed the document after reading and understanding its contents. In his cross-examination also, nothing material was elicited to discredit his version. He denied the suggestion that the defendants executed the agreement at his instance.
25) A cumulative assessment of the testimonies of PW.’s 2 to 4 clearly establishes that the defendants executed Ex.A1 by voluntarily subscribing their signatures thereto. In such circumstances, the onus shifts to the defendants to establish that they were unaware of the contents of the document and that their signatures were obtained by the plaintiff at the instance of PW4. However, apart from the self-serving testimony of DW1, no cogent or independent evidence has been adduced by the defendants to substantiate such a plea.
26) On the contrary, the pleadings of the defendants, particularly their written statement, indicate that they have executed agreements of sale under Ex.’s B1 to B4 as well as Ex.A1. This admission lends support to the inference that they were aware of the nature and contents of the document at the time of execution, otherwise it would be impossible to refer to the document as an agreement of sale.
15 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
27) Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court holds that the defendants executed the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff knowing its contents.
28) However, the findings in Issue-2 indicate that the said agreement is devoid of consideration. Though execution of Ex.A1 is proved, but as it is not supported by consideration, it is not legally binding on the defendants.
Accordingly, Issue-1 is determined infavourof the defendants and Accordingly, Issue-1 is determined infavourof the defendants and against the plaintiff. against the plaintiff.
ISSUE-3 ISSUE-3
29) The determine this issue, it is required to peruse the29) The determine this issue, it is required to peruse the recitals in Ex.A1. recitals in Ex.A1.
They indicate that the plaintiff has to pay the remaining balance of saleThey indicate that the plaintiff has to pay the remaining balance of sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 07.01.2020. Thus, theconsideration of Rs.40,00,000/- on or before 07.01.2020. Thus, the defendants contend that the time is essence of the contract. At this point,defendants contend that the time is essence of the contract. At this point, this Court intends to mention the decision in, Ganuga Ranganath andthis Court intends to mention the decision in, Ganuga Ranganath and another Vs. Hotel Garudadri (private) Limited, rep. by its Managing another Vs. Hotel Garudadri (private) Limited, rep. by its Managing
Director, Hindupur, Anantapur District- 2018 (2) ALT 473 (D.B.) Director, Hindupur, Anantapur District- 2018 (2) ALT 473 (D.B.) particularly at paragraphs 16 to 25, the Hon’ble High Court has examinedparticularly at paragraphs 16 to 25, the Hon’ble High Court has examined the issue as to whether time could be construed to be the essence of thethe issue as to whether time could be construed to be the essence of the agreement of sale dt.14.10.2009, and has held that the principle that time isagreement of sale dt.14.10.2009, and has held that the principle that time is not ordinarily the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property isnot ordinarily the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property is a well-settled and time-honoured rule. Though, on occasion, courts havea well-settled and time-honoured rule. Though, on occasion, courts have expressed reservations regarding its rigid application, the said principle hasexpressed reservations regarding its rigid application, the said principle has not been displaced by any authoritative judicial pronouncement. Thenot been displaced by any authoritative judicial pronouncement. The recognised exception arises where the agreement itself fixes a time forrecognised exception arises where the agreement itself fixes a time for 16 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
performance in the backdrop of special circumstances, thereby indicatingperformance in the backdrop of special circumstances, thereby indicating the intention of the parties to treat time as the essence of the contract. Merethe intention of the parties to treat time as the essence of the contract. Mere fixation of a period within which the contract is to be performed does not, byfixation of a period within which the contract is to be performed does not, by itself, render time the essence of the contract. Upon a careful perusal of theitself, render time the essence of the contract. Upon a careful perusal of the recitals in Ex.A1, the Hon’ble lordships has held that the stipulation as torecitals in Ex.A1, the Hon’ble lordships has held that the stipulation as to time therein neither expressly nor impliedly suggests the existence of anytime therein neither expressly nor impliedly suggests the existence of any special circumstances warranting the conclusion that time was intended tospecial circumstances warranting the conclusion that time was intended to be of the essence. Significantly, even in the written statement, thebe of the essence. Significantly, even in the written statement, the defendants have not pleaded any such special circumstances necessitatingdefendants have not pleaded any such special circumstances necessitating adherence to time as an essential condition. Accordingly, it is clear that timeadherence to time as an essential condition. Accordingly, it is clear that time was not stipulated, either expressly or by necessary implication, to be thewas not stipulated, either expressly or by necessary implication, to be the essence of the contract, and it is thus held that time was not of the essenceessence of the contract, and it is thus held that time was not of the essence of the agreement under Ex.A1.of the agreement under Ex.A1.
30) The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, although in Ex.A1 the time is mentioned as on or before 07.01.2020 for performance of the agreement of sale, i.e., for payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- by the plaintiffs there is no indication of any special circumstances, either express or implied, demonstrating that the parties intended to treat time as the essence of the contract. Moreover, the defendants, in their written statement, have not pleaded any such special circumstances necessitating the stipulation of time as an essential term. In the absence of such pleadings and supporting material, the mere fixation of a time under Ex.A1 cannot be construed as making time the essence of the contract. Accordingly, this Court holds that, the stipulation of time in Ex.A1 cannot be regarded as the essence of the agreement of sale.
17 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
Accordingly, Issue-3 is determined infavourof the plaintiff and Accordingly, Issue-3 is determined infavourof the plaintiff and against the defendants. against the defendants.
ISSUE-4 ISSUE-4
31) The burden of this issue squarely lies on the plaintiff to prove that he31) The burden of this issue squarely lies on the plaintiff to prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as perhas always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 (Ex.A1).the agreement of sale dated 08.11.2019 (Ex.A1).
32) In 32) In C.S. Venkatesh Vs. ASC Murthy - (2020)3 SCC 280 = AIR 2020 SC C.S. Venkatesh Vs. ASC Murthy - (2020)3 SCC 280 = AIR 2020 SC 930, the Hon'ble apex Court at para 15 has held that, The words ‘ready and930, the Hon'ble apex Court at para 15 has held that, The words ‘ready and willing’ imply that the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those parts of thewilling’ imply that the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those parts of the contract to their logical end so far as they depend upon his performance.contract to their logical end so far as they depend upon his performance.
The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is aThe continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff fails tocondition precedent to grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiffeither aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take intois ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the filing ofconsideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount which he hasthe suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount which he has to pay the defendant must be of necessity to be proved to be available.to pay the defendant must be of necessity to be proved to be available.
Right from the date of the execution of the contract till the date of decree, heRight from the date of the execution of the contract till the date of decree, he must prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.must prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiffThe court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready to perform his contract. was ready and was always ready to perform his contract.
33)Plaintiffhas asserted in the plaint at para-6 his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. He has specifically stated that he repeatedly requested the defendants to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed. In support of these 18 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
pleadings, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and, in his chief-examination affidavit at paragraph- 5, has reaffirmed the aforesaid assertions. At this
Juncture, this Court intends to mention the decision in Ritu Saxena v. J.S.
Grover- AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1072,- Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Self-serving statements on income without any proof of financial resources is not sufficient to prove that plaintiff in a suit for specific performance was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Such self-serving statements without any proof of financial resources cannot be relied upon to record a finding that the appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The appellant has not produced any income tax record or the bank statement in support of her plea of financial capacity so as to be ready and willing to perform the contract.
34) Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is necessaryKeeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is necessary to examine the facts of the present case. In the instant case, there is noto examine the facts of the present case.
material on record to establish that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, except for the self-serving statement of PW1 asserting continuous readiness to perform their part of the contract. No documentary evidence has been produced to demonstrate the financial capacity of the plaintiff. In particular, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any income tax returns or bank statements to substantiate their plea of readiness.
35) Further, the facts and evidence on record indicates that the plaintiff has obtained nearly 5 agreements including Ex.A1 without paying balance of sale consideration which circumstance also reflects that the plaintiff do not possess the requisite funds to pay the balance amount as per Ex.A1. In view thereof, the contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff was never 19 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and that he failed to issue a legal notice within the stipulated period under Ex.’s B1 to B4 merits acceptance.
36) Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Accordingly, Issue-4 is determined infavourof the defendants Accordingly, Issue-4 is determined infavourof the defendants and against the plaintiff. and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE-5 ISSUE-5
37) The burden squarely rests upon the defendants to establish that the37) The burden squarely rests upon the defendants to establish that the plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands byplaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands by suppressing the prior agreements of sale dated 11.01.2019, 27.02.2019,suppressing the prior agreements of sale dated 11.01.2019, 27.02.2019, and 03.08.2019. The defendants have specifically pleaded in the concludingand 03.08.2019. The defendants have specifically pleaded in the concluding portion of paragraph-11 of their written statement that the plaintiff hasportion of paragraph-11 of their written statement that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the previousapproached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the previous agreements of sale. agreements of sale.
38) It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the defendants, during38) It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the defendants, during the cross-examination of PW1 on 08.01.2025, got marked Ex.’s- B1 to B4,the cross-examination of PW1 on 08.01.2025, got marked Ex.’s- B1 to B4, namely the Agreements of Sale dated 03.12.2018, 11.01.2019, namely the Agreements of Sale dated 03.12.2018, 11.01.2019, 27.02.2019, and 03.08.2019, all of which were duly admitted by PW1..27.02.2019, and 03.08.2019, all of which were duly admitted by PW1
39) In view of such unequivocal admissions elicited in cross-examination, it is evident that the plaintiff was fully aware of the said prior agreements of sale. The suppression of these material documents in the pleadings clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has, in fact, concealed material facts.
20 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
40) At this point, it is required to mention the decision in, Muddam Raju
yadav Vs. B.Raja Shankar (D) through Lrs. And Others- 2026 (2) ALT 76
(SC)- wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, if the plaintiff
approaches the court with unclean hands, it is a fit case for denial of relief of specific performance. Even a slight doubt in the mind of the court that the plaintiff was not acting bonafide and that the material facts having bearing on the agreement have been withheld in the agreement itself and from the court also, the equitable and discretionary relief has to be denied.
Accordingly, Issue-5 is determined infavourof the defendants and Accordingly, Issue-5 is determined infavourof the defendants and against the plaintiff. against the plaintiff.
ISSUE-6 ISSUE-6
41) In view of findings on Issue-2, this Court holds that the agreement of sale under Ex.A1 is devoid of consideration.
Accordingly, Issue-6 is determined infavourof the defendants and Accordingly, Issue-6 is determined infavourof the defendants and against the plaintiff. against the plaintiff.
ISSUE-7 ISSUE-7
42) In view of the discussion in paras- 21 to 27, this Court holds that 42) In view of the discussion in paras- 21 to 27, this Court holds that the plaintiff did not play fraud and misrepresentation on the defendants withthe plaintiff did not play fraud and misrepresentation on the defendants with the help of son of D1-Khajapeer to obtain the signatures of defendants onthe help of son of D1-Khajapeer to obtain the signatures of defendants on agreement of sale.agreement of sale.
Accordingly, Issue-7 is determined infavourof the plaintiff and Accordingly, Issue-7 is determined infavourof the plaintiff and against the defendants. against the defendants.
21 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
ISSUE-8 ISSUE-8
43) The burden of this issue is on defendants to prove that the son of43) The burden of this issue is on defendants to prove that the son of defendant-1 Khajapeer executed registered gift deed in favour ofdefendant-1 Khajapeer executed registered gift deed in favour of defendants on 10.01.2019 regarding the plaint schedule property, as thedefendants on 10.01.2019 regarding the plaint schedule property, as the defendants have asserted the same. However, the plaintiff did not deny thedefendants have asserted the same. However, the plaintiff did not deny the same and admitted the same in his cross-examination dated 08.01.2025 atsame and admitted the same in his cross-examination dated 08.01.2025 at para-6 that Shaik Khajapeer executed registered gift deed in favour ofpara-6 that Shaik Khajapeer executed registered gift deed in favour of defendants on 10.01.2019. Hence, there is no need for the defendants todefendants on 10.01.2019. Hence, there is no need for the defendants to prove the same. Further, admitted facts need not to be proved as perprove the same. Further, admitted facts need not to be proved as per
Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sec.53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sec.53 of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023). At this juncture, this Court intends to mention theAdhiniyam, 2023). At this juncture, this Court intends to mention the decision in,Thata Venkata Balaji Vs. Smt.Gudela Ranga Mani - 2024 (1)decision in,Thata Venkata Balaji Vs. Smt.Gudela Ranga Mani - 2024 (1)
ALT 783 (AP)- WhereinALT 783 (AP)- Whereinthe Hon’ble lordship at para 23 has held that, it isthe Hon’ble lordship at para 23 has held that, it is a settled law that the best evidence in the case is an admission of oppositea settled law that the best evidence in the case is an admission of opposite party. Admissions are valuable evidence, because the party herself admits itparty. Admissions are valuable evidence, because the party herself admits it being true. It may reasonably presume to be so until the presumption isbeing true. It may reasonably presume to be so until the presumption is rebutted. The facts admitted must be taken to be established. The effect ofrebutted. The facts admitted must be taken to be established. The effect of admissions is merely to shift the onus to disproving on the party makingadmissions is merely to shift the onus to disproving on the party making them unless a plea of estoppel can be successfully invoked.them unless a plea of estoppel can be successfully invoked.
44) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the son ofthe son of defendant-1 Khajapeer executed registered gift deed in favour ofdefendant-1 Khajapeer executed registered gift deed in favour of defendants on 10.01.2019 regarding the plaint schedule property.defendants on 10.01.2019 regarding the plaint schedule property.
Accordingly, Issue-8 is determined. Accordingly, Issue-8 is determined.
ISSUE-9 ISSUE-9 22 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
45) In view of findings in Issue-4, this Court holds that the plaintiff has no45) In view of findings in Issue-4, this Court holds that the plaintiff has no amount with him and there was no relationship as purchaser and selleramount with him and there was no relationship as purchaser and seller between the plaintiff and defendants.between the plaintiff and defendants.
Accordingly, Issue-9 is determined infavourof the defendants and Accordingly, Issue-9 is determined infavourof the defendants and against the plaintiff. against the plaintiff.
ISSUE-10 ISSUE-10
46) The burden of this issue is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to46) The burden of this issue is on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to the suit claim i.e., the relief of specific performance. In order to determinethe suit claim i.e., the relief of specific performance. In order to determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance ofwhether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, this Court has to determine certain material questionsagreement of sale, this Court has to determine certain material questions which are mentioned in Kamal Kumar vs Premlata Joshi which are mentioned in Kamal Kumar vs Premlata Joshi (2019) 3 SCC (2019) 3 SCC 704, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.10. They are, First,704, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.10. They are, First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties forwhether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has beensale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still readyready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whetherand willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, howthe plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether suchand to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth,performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to thewhether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause anyplaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner andkind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly,the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief,whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds. namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
23 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
47) Keeping in view the above said decision, it is pertinent to examine the47) Keeping in view the above said decision, it is pertinent to examine the present case.present case.
Valid and concluded contract Valid and concluded contract
48) In view of the findings in Issues-1, 2 and 5, this Court holds that there is48) In view of the findings in Issues-1, 2 and 5, this Court holds that there is no valid and concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.no valid and concluded contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Readiness and willingness Readiness and willingness
49) The findings in Issue-4 reflect that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he49) The findings in Issue-4 reflect that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he always been ready and willing to perform his part of the Contract.always been ready and willing to perform his part of the Contract.
50) Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff has not proved his readiness50) Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff has not proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract.and willingness to perform his part of contract.
whether the plaintiff has in fact performed his part of the contract and
if so how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed
and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of
the contract
51) In view of findings in Issues-1, 4 to 6 the question of determination of51) In view of findings in Issues-1, 4 to 6 the question of determination of this point does not arise. this point does not arise.
Equitable to grant the relief of specific performance Equitable to grant the relief of specific performance
52) In view of findings in Issues-1, 2, 4 to 6 this court holds that, it is not52) In view of findings in Issues-1, 2, 4 to 6 this court holds that, it is not equitable to grant the relief of Specific performance.equitable to grant the relief of Specific performance.
whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative
relief
53) As the plaintiff did not seek for any alternative relief, the question 53) As the plaintiff did not seek for any alternative relief, the question of granting any other alternative relief does not arise, in view of of granting any other alternative relief does not arise, in view of bar bar under Sec. 22(2) of Specific relief Act, 1963. It says that, no relief ofunder Sec. 22(2) of Specific relief Act, 1963. It says that, no relief of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property in additionpossession, or partition and separate possession, of the property in addition to such performance; or any other relief to which he may be entitled,to such performance; or any other relief to which he may be entitled, 24 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him,including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused, unless it has beenin case his claim for specific performance is refused, unless it has been specifically claimed. specifically claimed.
54) At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to mention the decisions54) At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to mention the decisions in,in, - In K.R. Suresh Vs. R. Poornima & Ors.- 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 522, whereinthe Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that a relief of refund for an Supreme Court has clarified that a relief of refund for an 'advance payment' as part of the sale consideration cannot be allowed'advance payment' as part of the sale consideration cannot be allowed unless a prayer seeking such a relief was included in the plaint.unless a prayer seeking such a relief was included in the plaint.
- In - In Desh raj and others Vs. Rohtash Singh – 2023(1) ALT 36 (SC), Desh raj and others Vs. Rohtash Singh – 2023(1) ALT 36 (SC),
Wherein the Hon’ble Lordships held at para No. 30 and 31 by referring theWherein the Hon’ble Lordships held at para No. 30 and 31 by referring the contents of sale agreement and sec.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963held that,contents of sale agreement and sec.22 of Specific Relief Act, 1963held that, respondent has neither prayed for the relief of refund of earnest money inrespondent has neither prayed for the relief of refund of earnest money in the original plaint nor he sought any amendment at a subsequent stage. Inthe original plaint nor he sought any amendment at a subsequent stage. In the absence of such a prayer it is difficult to accept that the courts would suothe absence of such a prayer it is difficult to accept that the courts would suo motto grant the refund of earnest money irrespective of the fact as tomotto grant the refund of earnest money irrespective of the fact as to whether sec.22 (2) of SR Act is to be construed directory or mandatory inwhether sec.22 (2) of SR Act is to be construed directory or mandatory in nature.nature.
55) In view of the reasons stated above and the purport of the decisions55) In view of the reasons stated above and the purport of the decisions mentioned supra, this Court cannot grant any other alternative relief. Thementioned supra, this Court cannot grant any other alternative relief. The decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the plaintiff is not considereddecisions relied on by the learned advocate for the plaintiff is not considered as they are not applicable to the facts on hand.as they are not applicable to the facts on hand.
56) In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the 56) In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of Ex.A1 plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of Ex.A1 agreement of sale dt. 08.11.2019. agreement of sale dt. 08.11.2019.
Accordingly, Issue-10 is determined in favour of the defendants
25 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
and against the plaintiff . .
ISSUE-11 ISSUE-11
57) In view of the findings in issues-1, 2, 4 to 6 this Court holds that 57) In view of the findings in issues-1, 2, 4 to 6 this Court holds that the suit the suit is liable to be dismissed without costs. Costs are not awarded, as theis liable to be dismissed without costs. Costs are not awarded, as the plaintiff ought not to be unduly burdened, particularly in light of the dismissalplaintiff ought not to be unduly burdened, particularly in light of the dismissal of the suit.of the suit.
Accordingly, Issue-11 is determined in favour of the defendants Accordingly, Issue-11 is determined in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. and against the plaintiff.
RESULT RESULT
58) IIn the result, 58) n the result, the suit is dismissed without costs, in the interests of the suit is dismissed without costs, in the interests of justice. justice.
Typed by me in my LAPTOP and also with the aid of Adalat AI, Typed by me in my LAPTOP and also with the aid of Adalat AI, corrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Judgment incorrected and pronounced by me, the operative portion of the Judgment in the Open Court, on this the 27the Open Court, on this the 27 th th day of April, 2026. day of April, 2026.
Sd/- S.JAYALAKSHMI,Sd/- S.JAYALAKSHMI,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Kadiri. Kadiri.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff: For Plaintiff: For Defendants: For Defendants: PW1: Mittapalli Neelakanta ReddyPW1: Mittapalli Neelakanta ReddyDW1: Shaik Raziya BanuDW1: Shaik Raziya Banu
PW2: P.Riyaz KhanPW2: P.Riyaz Khan
PW3: C.Hariprasad ReddyPW3: C.Hariprasad Reddy 26 OS 7/2020 Dt:27.04.2026
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Kadiri.
PW4:Shaik KhajapeerPW4:Shaik Khajapeer
DOCUMENTS MARKED: DOCUMENTS MARKED:
For Plaintiff: For Plaintiff: Ex.A1Ex.A1::Agreement of sale executed by the defendants’ infavourof theAgreement of sale executed by the defendants’ infavourof the plaintiff dated 08.11.2019.plaintiff dated 08.11.2019.
Ex.A2Ex.A2::Office copy of legal notice dated 13.01.2020.Office copy of legal notice dated 13.01.2020.
Ex.A3Ex.A3::Postal receipts (2) dated 13.01.2020.Postal receipts (2) dated 13.01.2020.
Ex.A4Ex.A4::Postal returned covers (2).Postal returned covers (2).
Ex.A5Ex.A5::Non Judicial stamps of Rs.400/- dated 29.01.2020.Non Judicial stamps of Rs.400/- dated 29.01.2020.
For Defendants: For Defendants: Ex.B1Ex.B1::Agreement of sale dated 03.12.2018 (marked during theAgreement of sale dated 03.12.2018 (marked during the cross-examination of PW1). cross-examination of PW1).
Ex.B2Ex.B2::Agreement of sale dated 11.01.2019 (marked during theAgreement of sale dated 11.01.2019 (marked during the cross-examination of PW1). cross-examination of PW1).
Ex.B3Ex.B3::Agreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 (marked during theAgreement of sale dated 27.02.2019 (marked during the cross-examination of PW1). cross-examination of PW1).
Ex.B4Ex.B4::Agreement of sale dated 03.08.2019 (marked during theAgreement of sale dated 03.08.2019 (marked during the cross-examination of PW1). cross-examination of PW1).
Sd/- S.JAYALAKSHMI,S.JAYALAKSHMI,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Kadiri. Kadiri.