Sri. S. Nageswar Rao
XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada
II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh
Sri. S. Nageswar Rao, XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada, is posted at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,895 court orders on record since 2021. 11 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles A, OS, AS cases.
Featured Judgments
1 APKR030006622008
IN THE COURT OF
THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: S. Nageswara Rao, VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge.
Thursday, this the 27th day of March, 2025.
A.S.Nos.89/2004, 28/2008, 29/2008, 30/2008, 31/2008 and 33/2008
AS No.89/2004
Between:
1.Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma (died)
2. Adidam Venkateswara Sarma (died)
3. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Peda Basivireddy (died)
5. Kallam China Basivireddy (died)
6. Kallam Kutumba Reddy
7. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
8. Kallam Subba Reddy
9. Pamulapati Venktappa Reddy
10. Kallam Rami Reddy 11.Kallam Krishna Reddy
12. Kallam Narapareddy (died)
13. Kallam Ramireddy
14. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
15. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
16. Adidam Vishnu Priya
17. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
18. Adidam Srinivas
19. Kallam Annapurnamma (died)
20. Jonnala Siva Kumari
21. Adidam Sri Krishna Prasad
22. Adidam Chandramouleswara Sarma
23. Kallam Sambi Reddy
24. Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy 2 APKR030006622008 25.Jonnala Prameela (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1045/2017 in As No.89/2004)
26. Kallam Bharati
27. Kallam Gopi Reddy (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1048/2017 in As No.89/2004) … Appellants A N D 1.Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
2. Baddigam Sudharani
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Nagireddy
5. Kallam Ramireddy (died)
6. Devarapalli bikshalu
7. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Baddigam Koti Reddy
10. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
11. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
12. Veeranki Siva Naga Prasad
13. Kallam Kasturi
14. Jonnala Prameela
15. Kallam Srinivasa Reddt
16. Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.101 5/2017 in As No.89/2004)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.88/1988 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in: Between: 1.Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
2. Baddigam Sudharani
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy 3 APKR030006622008
4. Kallam Nagireddy
5. Kallam Ramireddy
6. Devarapalli Bikshalu
7. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Baddigam Koti Reddy
10. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
11. Veeranki Rama Rao
12. Veeranki Siva Naga Prasad … Plaintiffs A N D 1.Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma
2. Adidam Venkateswara Sarma
3. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
4. Kallam Peda Basivireddy
5. Kallam China Basivireddy
6. Kallam Kutumba Reddy
7. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
8. Kallam Subba Reddy
9. Pamulapati Venktappa Reddy
10. Kallam Rami Reddy 11.Kallam Krishna Reddy
12. Kallam Narapareddy
13. Kallam Ramireddy
14. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
15. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
16. Adidam Vishnu Priya
17. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
18. Adidam Srinivas
19. Kallam Annapurnamma
20. Jonnala Siva Kumari
... Defendants
AS No.28/2008
4 APKR030006622008
Between:
1. Kallam Annapurnamma (died)
2. Kallam Subba Reddy
3. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
4. Jonnala Siva Kumari … Appellants A N D 1.Meka Rajeswari (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
14. Kallam Kasturi 15.Jonnala Prameela
16. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 17.Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1042/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.627/1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in: Between:
1. Kallam China Basivi Reddy (died) 2.Kallam Annapurnamma
3. Kallam Subba Reddy
4. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
5. Jonnala Siva Kumari (plaintiffs 2 to 5 are added as per orders in IA 1484/2004 dated 27.8.2004) 5 APKR030006622008 … Plaintiffs A N D 1.Meka Rajeswari
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
... Defendants
AS No.29/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Basivi Reddy (died)
2. Kallam Sambi Reddy (died)
3. Kallam Subba Reddy
4. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
5. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy
6. Baddigam Raghunatha Reddy
7. Kallam Sambi Reddy
8. Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy
9. Jonnala Prameela (amended as per orders dt.27.11.2017 in IA No.1015/2017 Lrs of deceased first appellant)
10. Kallam Kutumba Reddy (amended as per orders dt 27.11.2017 in IA No.1018/2017 Lrs of deceased 2nd appellant) … Appellants A N D 6 APKR030006622008 1.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmamma (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Sambireddy (died)
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
14. Kallam Kasturi 15.Jonnala Prameela
16. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 17.Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1021/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.625/1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Kallam Basivi Reddy 2.Kallam Sambi Reddy
3. Kallam Subba Reddy
4. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
5. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy 6.Baddigam Raghunadha Reddy … Plaintiffs 7 APKR030006622008
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmamma
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
... Defendants
AS No.30/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy (died)
2. Kallam Venkata Reddy (died)
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Narapa Reddy (died)
6. Kallam Rami Reddy
7. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
8. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
9. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
10. Kallam Rajya Lakshmi
11. Kallam Ramanajamma
12. Kallam Veera Reddy
13. Kallam Radha Krishna Reddy
14. Kallam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (amended as per orders in IA No.1054/2017)
15. Kallam Bharati
16. Kallam Gopi Reddy (amended as per orders in IA No.1057/2017) 8 APKR030006622008 … Appellants A N D 1.Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy (died)
5. Kallam Sambireddy
6. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
7. Baddigam Sudha Rani
8. Kallam Nagireddy
9. Kallam Rami Reddy
10. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy 12.Meka Vijaya Lakshmi
13. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
14. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
15. Kallam Kasturi 16.Jonnala Prameela
17. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 18.Vuyyuru Seethamma (amended as per the orders in IA No.1060/2017)
19. Kallam Sivamma
20. Tiyyagura Padma 21.Kallam Uma Parvathi
22. KallamPhani Bhushan Reddy (amended as per the orders dt.16.2.2018 in IA No.1063/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.103/1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in: Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
2. Kallam Venkata Reddy
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy 9 APKR030006622008
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Narapa Reddy
6. Kallam Rami Reddy
7. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
8. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
9. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
10. Kallam Rajya Lakshmi … Plaintiffs
A N D 1.Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Sambireddy
6. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
7. Baddigam Sudha Rani
8. Kallam Nagireddy
9. Kallam Rami Reddy
10. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy 12.Meka Vijaya Lakshmi
13. Veeranki Rama Rao
14. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
... Defendants
AS No.31/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy (died)
2. Kallam Basivi Reddy (died)
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
6. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy
7. Kallam Peda Basivi Reddy (died) 10 APKR030006622008
8. Kallam Venkata Reddy (died)
9. Kallam Sambi Reddy
10. Kallam Subba Reddy
11. Kallam Narapa Reddy (died)
12. Kallam Rami Reddy
13. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
14. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
15. Kallam Krishna Reddy
16. Baddigam Raghunadha Reddy
17. Kallam Annapurnamma (died)
18. Jonnala Siva Kumari
19. Kallam Sambi Reddy
20. Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy
21. Jonnala Prameela ( Amended as per the orders in IA 1024/2017)
22. Kallam Ramanjamma
23. Kallam Veera Reddy
24. Kallam Radha Krishna Reddy
25. Kallam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA No.1027/2017) 26, Kallam Bharati
27. Kallam Gopi Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA 1030/2017)
28. Kallam Kutumba Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA 1039/2017) … Appellants A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy (died)
5. Kallam Sambireddy (died)
6. Kallam Koti Reddy
7. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
8. Baddigam Sudha Rani
9. Kallam Nagireddy
10. Kallam Rami Reddy
11. Devarapalli Bhikshalu 11 APKR030006622008
12. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
13. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
14. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
15. Kallam Kasturi 16.Jonnala Prameela
17. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 18.Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders in IA No.1033/2017)
19. Kallam Sivamma
20. Tiyyagura Padma 21.Kallam Uma Parvathi
22. KallamPhani Bhushan Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA No.1039/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.100/1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
2. Kallam Basivi Reddy
3. Kallam China Basivi Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Sambi Reddy
5. Kallam Subba Reddy
6. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
7. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy
8. Kallam Peda Basivi Reddy
9. Kallam Venkata Reddy
10. Kallam Sambi Reddy
11. Kallam Subba Reddy
12. Kallam Narapa Reddy
13. Kallam Rami Reddy
14. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
15. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
16. Kallam Krishna Reddy
17. Baddigam Raghunadha Reddy 12 APKR030006622008
18. Kallam Annapurnamma
19. Jonnala Siva Kumari (plaintiffs 18 & 19 are added as per orders in IA No.1483/2004 dated 27.8.2004) … Plaintiffs
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshamamma (died)
2. Baddigam Kotireddy 3.Kallam Ramireddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy (died)
5. Kallam Sambireddy 6.Kallam Koti Reddy
7. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
8. Baddigam Sudha Rani
9. Kallam nagireddy
10. Kallam Ramireddy
11. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
12. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
13. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
14. Veeranki Ramarao (died)
15. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad (defendants No.14 and 15 added as per the orders dated 24.8.2000
IA No.999/2000) ... Defendants
AS No.33/2008
Between: 1.Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma (died)
2. Adidam Vishnu Priya
3. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
4. Adidam Srinivas
5. Adidam Sri Krishna Prasad
6. Adidam Chandramouleswara Sarma (the appellants 5 and 6 are impleaded as legal heirs of 1st appellant as per orders in IA No. 479/2010 dated 8.2.2011) … Appellants 13 APKR030006622008
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Sambireddy (died)
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Ramireddy
9. Devarapalli Bikshalu
10. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
11. Veeranki Rama Rao
12. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
13. Kallam Vijaya Kumari @ Jhansi
14. Alla Kanya Kumari
15. Kallam Siva Venkata Basivi Reddy (amended as per the orders dated 28.8.2018
IA No. 455/2018)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.626/91 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma (died)
2. A.Seetharama Sarma (died)
3. A.Venkateswara Sarma (died)
4. Addidam Vishnu Priya
5. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
6. Adidam Srinivas (Plaintiffs 4 to 6 are added as per orders in IA 1922/02 dated 13.6.2002) … Plaintiffs
A N D 14 APKR030006622008 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshamamma
2. Baddigam Kotireddy 3.Kallam Ramireddy 4.Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudharani 7.Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Ramireddy
9. Devarapalli Bikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad (Defendants 12 & 13 are added as
per orders in IA 995/2000, dated 24.8.2000) ... Defendants
These Appeals, coming on for hearing before me on 27.1.2025 in the presence of Sri T.V.Nava Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants in all the appeals; respondents 3,5,7,11 died in A.S.No.89/2004 and of Sri K.V.Bhanu Murthy, Advocate for the respondents 1,2,4,6, 8 to 10, 12 to 16 in A.S.No.89/204 and remaining all the appeals; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
COMMON JUDGMENT
1)All the appeals emanate from the common judgment and decree,
dated 30.9.2004 passed in batch suits OS Nos.626/1991, 625/1991, 627/1991,
100/1992, 103/1992 and 88/1988 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Vijayawada and they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2)Appeal Suit No.89/2004
This appeal is filed by the defendants in OS 88/1988 against the plaintiffs therein. Due to death of some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
15 APKR030006622008
3)OS No.88/1988 was filed for permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for possession of the property, in case, the plaintiffs are found to be not in possession of the property as on the date of the suit and for costs.
4)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) Plaintiffs purchased items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 for valuable consideration from Smt.Meka
Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. Plaintiffs purchased item No.4 of the plaint schedule property from Smt.M.Raja Rajeswari Devi,
Pithapuram, East Godavari District. As per the terms and conditions of the sale deeds, the vendors of the plaintiffs delivered possession of the plaint schedule property on 5.5.1986. The plaintiffs’ vendors have not been cultivating the plaint schedule property since last more than 50 years as they are living far away from the plaint schedule property and they sold the said property to the plaintiffs as they were not getting any income from the said property. The plaintiffs, who mainly live on agriculture, wanted to bring the plaint schedule property under cultivation by clearing the shrubs and babul trees grown in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, they along with their men began to clear the shrubs etc., in the plaint schedule property on 14.5.1986. Defendants 1 to 15 have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the plaint schedule property. They are owning lands adjacent to the plaint schedule property. With a view to grab the plaint schedule property they prevented the plaintiffs and their men from clearing the shrubs etc. Further they removed the shrubs of babul trees cut by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiffs gave police report to the Station House Officer, Kankipadu. Thereupon the Sub-
Inspector of police seized the babul stems etc., from the defendants and kept the same with mediator namely Kallam Sambireddy, Vice President of Kallamvaripalem.
16 APKR030006622008
(b)Plaintiffs have title to the property they purchased but the defendants have no title and are not entitled to be in possession of the suit property. It is found that they were in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. The contracts of the year 1980 in favour of the defendants are barred. The vendors did not give possession to the defendants. So, they are not entitled to set up the contracts to avail the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and they have no sale deed and no title to the property.
(c) As the defendants would be in unlawful possession of the plaint schedule lands, plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits. The defendants are raising crops and are appropriating the same. They are bound to give accounts for the mesne profits during pendency of the suit and for the additional period during which they are in possession and pay the mesne profits to the plaintiffs. On determination of such profits, a commissioner be appointed to determine the mesne profits and plaintiffs are prepared to pay the court fee on such ascertained amount.
5)Written statement of D1:-
(a) Material allegations are required to be proved. Plaintiffs have absolutely no title to the suit property and they never came into possession thereof. The alleged sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 even if true do not clothe the plaintiffs with any right, title or interest in the plaint schedule property. The sale deeds are fraudulent and collusive documents entered into between Smt. M.V.Samrya Lakshmi and Smt.
M.Rajeswari Devi and the plaintiffs and they were never in possession and enjoyment of the property. Plaintiffs 3, 8, 9 and defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 including D4 purchased from Smt.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi and Smt.
Meka Ratna Kumari and another Tandra Venkatappaiah (the items marked in blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as “the plan”) by three registered sale deeds
dated 4.7.1961 and the defendants have been continuing in possession and
17 APKR030006622008 enjoyment thereof from that time. As the plaint schedule land marked in red in the plan were lying vacant and the first and second vendors practically abandoned the same, defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 and others occupied the same in the year 1961 itself as they are adjoining lands purchased under the sale deeds dated 4.7.1961. From then they have been continuing in possession of the land marked red also about Ac.10.85 cents along with the items purchased by them. The defendants have been cultivating the same raising ‘rellu’ some times and enjoying the produce.
While so, Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi and Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi put the items shown in red for sale and the defendants negotiated the same as they are adjoining land owners and they have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof to the knowledge of one and all including the vendors and the plaintiffs. The bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the said land
dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the 4th defendant and plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 and defendants
1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 having received bulk of the sale consideration. Hence, the defendants possession of the said items from that time has been that of the purchasers under the contracts of the sale. As per the recitals of the contract of sale, a paltry sum of Rs.100/- remained to be paid towards balance of the sale consideration under each one of the contracts. The items marked red and covered by the contract as well as the items purchased earlier by them are being enjoyed by the defendants all these years right from 1961 as single plot as marked in the plan. The defendants have been paying land revenue etc, thereon. While so, Harijan Field
Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of the Hon’ble Court against defendants 3, 5 and 8 and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of
Chagantipadu and other reliefs and also sought temporary injunction against the 18 APKR030006622008 defendants. The defendants 3, 5 and 8 contested the suit and the injunction petition.
They asserted that they had purchased earlier by registered sale deeds referred to above dated 4.7.1961 from the said vendors, plots marked blue and further that they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the adjoining items marked red in the plan which forms part of suit land as stated above and that the said vendors executed contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour for items marked red and that the defendants are continuing in possession lawfully and as the purchasers and none of the defendants encroached upon or interfered with the land assigned to the
Harijan Field Labour Co-operative Society, plaintiffs therein. The Taluk Surveyor was appointed as commissioner in that suit. He inspected the land assigned to the plaintiffs therein as well as the above items in their possession and enjoyment and submitted report along with sketch. The said suit was tried and ultimately ended in a compromise. The report and sketch filed by the Government Surveyor in the said suit clearly show that the present suit property were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the defendants as well as the plaintiffs 3,8 and 9, who obtained contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 from the said vendors for the said plots along with their contracts even by then. Thus, the entire case of the plaintiffs is falsified not only by documentary evidence but also circumstantial evidence. They have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the items marked red in the plan which form part of the plaint schedule land and the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 are continuing in possession of their items marked red. Whileso, the vendors Meka Venkata Samrajya
Lakshmi and Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi and the defendants wanted to complete the real transaction and at their instance ultimately the defendants assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi,
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11. The defendants were ready with the general stamps previously purchased by them for the purpose in the names of five of them 19 APKR030006622008 for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly including plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9.
All of them had even earlier paid the entire balance of sale consideration as per the condition in the contract of sale. Besides the two vendors and scribe
S.Venkateswara Rao, the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 and defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 and some others who had earlier agreement of sales in their favour and Rama
Mohana Rao, son of M.Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi were also present. The vendors and the defendants explained to the scribe, namely, Swarna Venkateswara Rao and he prepared the draft sale deeds on the dictation of the first defendant and he wrote all the five sale deeds in favour of all the purchasers that is, plaintiffs 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 and others incorporating the recitals given out by the vendors themselves and Rama Mohana Rao, son of Meka Venkata Samrjya Lakshmi. The recitals in the said sale deeds show that all the purchasers including all the said defendants are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the respective items mentioned in the sale deeds as purchasers for good and valuable consideration.
Thereafter the draft sale deeds were read out by the said Rama Mohana Rao and vendors expressed their satisfaction. The scribe S.Venkateswara Rao was asked to get the five sale deeds typed on the general stamps fetched by all the purchasers as per the drafts and accordingly he went and got them typed and found them to be correct. The vendors and the scribe wanted the vendors to sign all the said five sale deeds engrossed on stamp papers and they expressed their willingness to sign. With the bonafide belief that they will sign all the sale deeds, the scribe put his signatures thereon before hand as one having prepared the same. Meanwhile, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the defendants to come two days later and they took the three sale deeds engrossed on stamp papers and corresponding agreement executed by M.V.Samrajya Lakshmi on 26.7.1980 and then all of them and the scribe 20 APKR030006622008 left. When they went there on 9.4.1986 the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not actually consult their people and counsel and that there was no hurry for registration of the sale deeds and they need not doubt their bonafides as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the lands and as they were having the other two sale deeds with them got prepared and typed and that they would intimate the date of registration of the documents on which date they would sign all the sale deeds. These defendants believed their representations and requested them to get ready for registration at the earliest but they did not hear anything from them subsequently. Therefore, they contacted them on 28.4.1986, when they stated that Smt. M.Raja Rajeswari was not in town and promised to send word to them to get ready for getting the documents registered on her return and they reposed confidence in them as they have no reason to doubt their bonafides. They were actually waiting for a message from them to have the documents signed and registered at their expense.
(b) While so, to their shock and surprise, defendants 1 to 15 received copy of the plaint and petition together with a suit notice on 4.6.1986 and after getting the contents read out and explained, they came to know for the first time that the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao along with plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 actually played fraud on them and cheated them when they made part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and subsequently making promises that they would intimate them about the date for registration of the documents and they were kept all through subsequently under the belief that they would register the five documents typed on that day on stamp paper. They further came to know of the collusion between the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 and the vendors. Though plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 entered into registered agreements of sale along with these defendants as early as on 26.7.1980 and were 21 APKR030006622008 continuing in possession and enjoyment of their plots just as they entered into agreement of sale for their respective plots which are continuing in their possession and enjoyment, the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 have suppressed all the said earlier registered contracts of sale and also their possession of the respective plots marked as red in the plan and they have set up a false case now that plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 purchased the schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 only and that on that very day they were inducted into possession by the vendors. This very fact coupled with the collusion between the vendors and the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 falsifies the entire case set forth in the plaint and in the affidavit in support of the injunction petition. Except that, plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 are continuing in lawful possession of their plots marked in the plan which are the plots purchased by them as per the earlier sale deeds, the plots marked in the red are continuing in defendants lawful peaceful and exclusive possession and the exclusion of the plaintiffs and their vendors from the year 1961. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the same prior to the suit or subsequently till this date. The defendants’ possession thereof is that of purchasers for good and valuable consideration and by virtue of
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act they are entitled to defend and safeguard their possession both outside the Court as well as through the Court. Neither the vendors nor the plaintiffs have any right to defeat their right and interest in the said items and are not entitled to disturb their possession of the respective plots marked red in the plan filed by them. The vendors are bound to sign and register five sale deeds referred to above, at their expense and the vendors and plaintiffs claiming through them are bound by the said document beside their oral representation and earlier registered contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and they are estopped from disputing the same or denying their right, title and interest and possession in the items marked red in the plan. They have no right to repudiate the said sale 22 APKR030006622008 transaction and they are bound to complete by signing the sale deeds and registering the same for which they have always been ready and willing to have the sale deeds signed by the vendors and registered. They hereby invite the vendors along with the plaintiffs to perform their part as they have been inviting them earlier. Under the circumstances their possession of the said plots is lawful and the plaintiffs have no right to interfere with or disturb their possession for any reason.
(c) Plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 being purchasers who are parties to the unsigned sale deeds are aware of the preparation of the sale deeds in favour of these defendants and their possession and enjoyment of the red marked items which are part of plaint schedule property. The other plaintiffs were always fully aware that the said vendors have not been in possession and enjoyment in any way of even an inch of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 are not inducted in possession of the plaint schedule property on 5.5.1986 as falsely pleaded now and it is to make believe one. With eyes wide open and with full knowledge of the actual possession and enjoyment of these defendants over about 25 years as purchasers the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 have now entered into a fraudulent and collusion transactions with the vendors and said transactions are intended to defraud these defendants and defeat their sale transactions. None of the plaintiffs are therefore bonafide purchasers without notice of the defects in the title and rights of the vendors in the schedule property and in fact they entered into the sale transaction dated 5.5.1986 in conspiracy to somehow dispossess the defendants forcibly and wrongfully. In so far as their plots marked in the plan are concerned which are continuing in their exclusive and lawful possession and enjoyment, in view of their possession and enjoyment all these 25 years the balance of convenience lies in their favour but not in favour of the plaintiffs and their possession has to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, even if the vendors do not come 23 APKR030006622008 forward to complete the transactions. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the plots of the defendants marked in the plan.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
Sl.No.NameS.NOExtent
Ac. Cts
1.A.Kamesanjanyea Sarma (D1)215/1B 1714.00
2.Kallam Rama Reddy (D3)215/1B0.43 ¾
3.Kallam Basivi Reddy (D4)1711.50 215/1B
4.Kallam China Basivi Reddy (D5) 215/1B3.57
5.Kallam Subba Reddy215/1B1.50
6.Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy215/1B1.50 (D8)
7.Pamulapati Venkatappareddy 215/1B0.37 (D9)171
8.Kallam Narapa Reddy (D12)215/1B0.43 ¾
9.Kallam Rami Reddy (D13)215/1B0.65 ¾
10.Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy215/1B0.43 ¾ (D14)
11.Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy215/1B0.43 ¾ (D15) 24 APKR030006622008
12.Kallam Sambireddy (3rd plaintiff) 215/1B0.87 ½
13.Kallam Ramireddy (8th plaintiff)171 0.43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BaddigamKotireddy(9th1710.87 ½ plaintiff)215/1B
15.Joint1715.43 215/1B
(e) The various averments and allegations in the plaint, contrary to what is stated above, are all not true and correct and are hereby denied.
(f) The alleged sale deeds and transactions in favour of the plaintiffs are all collusive, fraudulent and are not valid and binding on the defendants and cannot defeat the right and interest of the defendants in the suit land. They are also entitled to have sale deeds executed and registered by their vendors and in case of failure they will be instituting a separate suit or suits for specific performance of their contracts. The defendants have paid entire sale consideration as stated above and have always been ready and willing to perform their part and to take registered sale deeds and have not committed any default. It is only their vendors who evaded to perform their part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions with the plaintiffs and committed breach of contract. The plaintiffs are also bound to join in execution and registration of the sale deeds in favour of the defendants and the defendants are entitled to continue in peaceful possession of the schedule land and the plaintiffs are not entitled to interfere with their possession. Plaintiffs are not entitled to permanent injunction which is an equitable relief. They came to the Court with unclean hands and are not entitled for equity against the defendants who hold better title.
25 APKR030006622008
(g) The defendants contested OS No.513/1986 filed by the plaintiffs in District
Munsif Court, Vijayawada as well as the injunction petition which has been dismissed. The CMA preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiffs have brought the present suit seeking recovery of possession alternatively.
The cause of action is not true and correct. Valuation of the suit is too low as the market value as well as the value as per the basic register of the Government is far higher than the value put in the plaint. Therefore, the Court fee paid is not correct and is very low.
(h) The plaintiffs admitted in clear terms that their predecessors were not in possession and enjoyment of suit land for over 50 years last prior to their sale deeds and as such the suit is barred by limitation even if filed prior to the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1963 and for this reason the present suit is barred by limitation as the alleged sale deeds could not and have not conveyed any right, title or interest much less possession in their favour in relation to the suit land, as their right to the property was extinguished long prior to 1.1.1964 by virtue of Section 28 of the
Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
6)Defendants 3, 4, 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1.
7)Additional written statement by defendant No.13:
The relief for mesne profits is barred by time and so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any mesne profits prior to date of amendment of the plaint in that regard.
8) Defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 12, 14 and 15 adopted the above said
additional written statement of defendant No.13.
9)Defendants 10 and 11 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendants 19 and 20 adopted the written statement filed by 26 APKR030006622008 defendant No.1. Defendants 16 to 18 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1.
10)Defendant No.6 filed written statement as follows:-
Defendants 6, 10 and 11 are not necessary parties to the suit as they have nothing to do with the suit land. They believed that they are unnecessarily impleaded out of fear that they may be figured as witnesses on behalf of other contesting defendants as they are acquainted with the affairs relating to the suit land. Hence, seek to dismiss the suit with costs.
11)Following issues were settled on 4.10.1988.
1. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 5.6.1986?
2. Whether the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest have even been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1969 onwards?
4. Whether the defendants have purchased the property under contract of sale
dated 26.7.80?
5. Whether the possession of the defendants is perfected by virtue of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act?
6. Whether the right of the plaintiffs to claim the property was extinguished by
Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
7. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the plaint schedule property?
9. To what relief?
27 APKR030006622008
12)Following additional issue was framed on 7.3.1996:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?
13)Appeal Suit No.28/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 627/1991 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
14)OS No.627/1991 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendants 2, 4 and 8 on one hand and the first defendant and others on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.340/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
15)Plaint pleadings:-
(a)The plaintiff along with some others purchased from the first defendant/Smt.Meka Raja Rajeswari and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra
Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed, hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying shallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they 28 APKR030006622008 have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough.
While so, the first defendant/Meka Raja Rajeswari and the other vendor/Meka
Samrajya Lakshmamma put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiff and others having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder.
The plaintiff and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiff and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The Harijan Field Labour Co- operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS
No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein who are also plaintiff herein and others contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that 29 APKR030006622008 suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiff and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant’s sister in
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiff and other vendees were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant’s sister were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her sister’s son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her sister’s son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed.
They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana
Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiff and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant’s sister, engrossed on 30 APKR030006622008 stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by her. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiff and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant’s sister on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant's sister/M.Samrajya Lakshmamma and her son Rama Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the first defendant was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiff and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiff and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2, 4 and 8 played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them subsequently also by assuring them they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and others conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiff and 31 APKR030006622008 other purchasers in the red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiff therein himself was not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiff in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date.
On contest by the plaintiff and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiff and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The possession of the plaintiff of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of the plaintiff. The sale deeds obtained by defendants 2 to11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the other plots covered by 32 APKR030006622008 unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 4 and 8 which are continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
S.No. NameR.S.No.Extent
1.A. KAMESANJANEYA SARMA 215/1B 4-00
A. SEETHA RAMA SARMA,171
A. VENKATE SWARA SARMA.
2. KALLAM RAMA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY..171 1-50 215/1B
4. KALLAM CHINA BASIVIREDDY..215/1B1-50
5. KALLAM SUBBA REDDY.215/1B3-57
6.KALLAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY 215/1B1-50
7.PAMULAPATI VENKATAPPA REDDY 215/1B, 0-37 171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAM VEERARAGHAVAREDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAMSAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½ 33 APKR030006622008
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY171 0-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY171 0-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT171 215-43
(e)It can be seen from the above that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration long back and has always been ready and willing to perform his part by taking registered sale deed at his own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform their part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiff and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2 to
11 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 12 and 13 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.10 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff along with defendants No.1 to 9 and 11 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
16)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend 34 APKR030006622008 that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiff made this allegation to appear as if he is in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiff and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiff and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for 35 APKR030006622008 herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiff and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
36 APKR030006622008
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
17)Written statement of defendants 2 to 11:-
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The suit is filed basing on a copy of agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 without any explanation for non-production of the original.
Suit is clearly barred by time as it is not filed within three years from 31.12.1980 fixed for the performance of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980.
The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not true and correct. The plaintiff cannot filed this suit within three years from 5.5.1986 when the defendants got sale deeds executed and registered in their favour by first defendant. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs.3850/- from the first defendant and took possession of the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiff threatened to interfere with the possession of the defendants, the defendants filed OS 513/1986 for permanent injunction on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Vijayawada. The proceedings in the said suit are not final and so, the orders passed in IA No. 1049/1986 and Appeal in CMA No.40/1986 are not binding on the defendants, as the relief sought for in that suit is different from the relief sought for by the plaintiff in this suit. It is not true that these defendants are aware of the suit agreement when they got executed and registered the sale deed on 5.5.1986. The defendants subsequently got amended the plaint in OS 513/1986 converting the suit into recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property therein. As the jurisdictional value exceeded the Munsif Court the plaint was returned for presentation before proper Court and accordingly it was presented to the Sub-Court, 37 APKR030006622008
Vijayawada and numbered as OS No. 88/1988 and the suit is still pending. All the contentions now raised in this plaint were raised in that suit as a defence. Section 53-
A of Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the plaintiffs case as no possession was delivered to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale even assuming that the plaintiff is in possession of portions of plaint schedule property covered in OS 88/1988, his possession is illegal, unlawful and that of a trespasser and as such the equitable doctrine of part performance is not applicable to the plaintiff. Further as the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 they cannot rely upon the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit is filed on 5.4.1989 after a long delay of more than eight years and is liable to be dismissed. Defendants are not liable for the value of the stamps of Rs.380/- (Rs.340/- ?) alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff for getting the sale deed executed by the first defendant in their favour. The first defendant and the plaintiff colluded and got this suit filed to cause wrongful loss to the defendants who purchased the property for valuable consideration and put in possession of the property on 5.5.1986. Suit is filed to multiply the proceedings and cause wrongful loss to the defendants while OS 88/1988 was still pending as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
18)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the damages as claimed?
3. To what relief?
19)Appeal suit No. 29/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 625/1991 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of 38 APKR030006622008 convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
20)OS No.625/1991 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendants 2, 4 and 8 on one hand and the first defendant and others on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.640/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
21)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with the father of other plaintiffs and defendants 2,4 and 8 purchased from the first defendant/Smt.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds
dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from
that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi put for sale the items marked red and thereupon 39 APKR030006622008 the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 6 and father of the 5th plaintiff and others along with the defendants 2, 4 and 8 having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder.
The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The Harijan Field Labour Co- operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff No.4 and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in
RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk
Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the 40 APKR030006622008 residence of first defendant in Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and other purchasers and defendants 2, 4 and 8 were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose
S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees and some others gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts 41 APKR030006622008 as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the the other vendor/M.Raja Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2, 4 and 8 and others played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and defendants 2,4 and 8 and others conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the
Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful 42 APKR030006622008 misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge,
Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The fifth plaintiff is the nominee of his father under the contract and thus, the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers defendants 2 to11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 4 and 8 which are continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
43 APKR030006622008
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
S.NO.NAMER.S.NO.EXTENT
1.A.KAMESANJANEYA SARMA215/1B4-00 171
2.KALLAM RAMA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY1711-50 215/1B
4.KALLAM CHINA BASIVIREDDY215/1B3-57
5.KALLAM SUBBA REDDY215/1B1-50
6.KALLAMSATYANARAYANA215/1B1-50
REDDY
7.PAMULAPATI215/1B0-37
VENKATAPPAREDDY171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAMVEERARAGHAVA215/1B0-43 ¾
REDDY
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½ 44 APKR030006622008
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY1710-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT1715-43 215/1B
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform her part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2 to
11 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 12 and 13 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.10 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 9 and 11 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
22)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it 45 APKR030006622008 is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and 46 APKR030006622008 retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P. Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of 47 APKR030006622008 the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
23)Written statement of defendants 2 to 11:-
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant on 5.5.1986 for a sum of Rs.9000/- and it was registered as document No.1310 on the file of the SRO, Vuyyuru. The property was sold by the first defendant as she was not living at Chagantipadu village and as she was not getting any income from the schedule property and for other reasons mentioned in the sale deed. The first defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants on the date of sale deed and consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and since then defendants 2 to 11 are in continuous possession and enjoyment with absolute rights raising crops therein.
The suit is frivolous and vexatious. Defendants 2 to 11 adopt the written statement of the first defendant as far as it is not inconsistent with their written statement. The matter in OS 513/1986 is pending and has not become final. The contents of OS 88/1988 are true and correct. Defendants 2 to 11 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiffs and first defendant are colluding together only to defeat the rights of the defendants 2 to 11. Section 53-A is not applicable to the facts of the case. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property at any point of time particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. They are not entitled for specific performance which is an equitable remedy 48 APKR030006622008 and they are guilty of suppression of facts and invented new facts. The suit is barred by limitation. Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
24)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the suit is barred by time?
2. Whether the payment endorsement dated 13.12.1980 is correct?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for specific performance?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.640/- towards damages as prayed for?
5. To what relief?
25)Appeal suit No. 30/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 103/1992 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
26)OS No.103/1992 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 13 on one hand and the first defendant on the other on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.640/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
27)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and predecessors of 3 to 10 along with some others purchased from the first defendant and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra
Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as 49 APKR030006622008 the plan by three registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiffs and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Samarjya
Lakshmamma put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiffs and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 9 and Kallam
Pedda Basivi Reddy and others along with the defendant No.4 having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder. The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The Harijan Field Labour Co-operative 50 APKR030006622008
Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff No.1 and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. Plaintiff No.10 is nominee of Kallam Pedda Basivi Reddy under the said contract entitled to have a sale deed executed in his favour also.
While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant’s sister in
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and other purchasers and defendants 2, 4,5, 9 and 13 and others were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose
S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant’s sister were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees and some others gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in
Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her sister, and her son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her sister’s son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them 51 APKR030006622008 dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama
Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant’s sister, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant’s sister on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant’s sister and Rama
Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the other vendor/M.Raja
Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition 52 APKR030006622008 in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2, 5 and 9 played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and the said defendants conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof.
From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
53 APKR030006622008
(c) The 10th plaintiff is the nominee of Kallam Pedda Basivi Reddy under the contract and thus, the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers defendants 2,3,5 to11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds
dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 5 and 9 which are
continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and marked red in the plan are as follows:-
S.NO.NAMER.S.NO.EXTENT
1.A.KAMESANJANEYA SARMA215/1B4-00
2.KALLAM RAMA REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY1711-50 215/1B
4.KALLAM CHINA BASIVI REDDY215/1B3-57 54 APKR030006622008
5.KALLAM SUBBA REDDY215/1B1-50
6.KALLAMSATYANARAYANA215/1B1-50
REDDY
7.PAMULAPATIVENKATAPPA215/1B0-37
REDDY
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAMVEERA215/1B0-43 ¾
RAGHAVAREDDY
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215 1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY1710-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT1715-43 215/1B
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform their part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and 55 APKR030006622008 committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2, 3,
5 to 12 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 4 and 13 are also purchasers along with the plaintiffs and earlier registered contracts dated 26.7.1980 and signed sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and they are also entitled to seek specific performance along with the plaintiffs but as they have not come forth to join the plaintiffs and have not co-operated they are also impleaded as defendants and the plaintiffs are seeking specific performance in their favour also either by a single sale deed in their favour or separate sale deed.
Defendants 14 and 15 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.11 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 10, 12 and 13 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
28)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land 56 APKR030006622008 and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and 57 APKR030006622008 others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
58 APKR030006622008
29)Written statement of defendants
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The suit is filed basing on a copy of agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 without any explanation for non-production of the original.
Suit is clearly barred by time as it is not filed within three years from 31.12.1980 fixed for the performance of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980.
The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not true and correct. The plaintiff cannot filed this suit within three years from 5.5.1986 when the defendants got sale deeds executed and registered in their favour by first defendant. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property for valuable consideration from the first defendant and took possession of the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiffs threatened to interfere with the possession of the defendants, the defendants filed
OS 513/1986 for permanent injunction on the file of the Prl. District Munsif Court,
Vijayawada. The proceedings in the said suit are not final and so, the orders passed in IA No. /1986 and Appeal in CMA No. /1986 are not binding on the defendants, as the relief sought for in that suit is different from the relief sought for by the plaintiffs in this suit. It is not true that these defendants are aware of the suit agreement when they got executed and registered the sale deed on 5.5.1986. The defendants subsequently got amended the plaint in OS 513/1986 converting the suit into recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property therein. As the jurisdictional value exceeded the Munsiff Court the plaint was returned for presentation before proper Court and accordingly it was presented to the Sub-Court, Vijayawada and numbered as OS No. 88/1988 and the suit is still pending. All the contentions now raised in this plaint were raised in that suit as a defence. Section 53-A of Transfer of
Property Act does not apply to the plaintiffs case as no possession was delivered to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale even assuming that the plaintiffs are in 59 APKR030006622008 possession of portions of plaint schedule property covered in OS 88/1988, their possession is illegal, unlawful and that of a trespasser and as such the equitable doctrine of part performance is not applicable to the plaintiffs. Further as the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 they cannot rely upon the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit is filed on 5.4.1989 after a long delay of more than eight years and is liable to be dismissed. Defendants are not liable for the value of the stamps of Rs.380/- (Rs.640/- ?) alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiffs for getting the sale deed executed by the first defendant in their favour. The first defendant and the plaintiffs colluded and got this suit filed to cause wrongful loss to the defendants who purchased the property for valuable consideration and put in possession of the property on 5.5.1986. Suit is filed to multiply the proceedings and cause wrongful loss to the defendants while OS 88/1988 was still pending as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
30)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?
2. Whether the suit is barred by time?
3. To what relief?
31)Appeal suit No. 31/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 100/1992 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
32)OS No.100/1992 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs 60 APKR030006622008 and defendants 4 and 6 on one hand and the first defendant and on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.500/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
33)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiffs 1 to 4, 8 and 9 and fathers of other plaintiffs along with some others purchased from the first defendant and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one
Tandra Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Raja
Rajeswari Devi put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered 61 APKR030006622008 contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 6, 8 to 16 and fathers of plaintiffs 7 and 17 and others along with the defendants 2, 4,5, 10 and father of the 6th defendant having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder. The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The
Harijan Field Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against some of the said purchasers that is, plaintiffs 1, 3, 6 and 8 seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society.
In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant in
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5, 8, 10 and father of 6th defendant and others were ready with the general stamps for executing 62 APKR030006622008 five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose
S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees and some others gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no 63 APKR030006622008 reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the the other vendor/M.Raja Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2,5 and 10 played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and defendants conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and 64 APKR030006622008 occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The plaintiffs 7 and 17 are the nominee and successors of their fathers respectively and thus, the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers, defendants 2, 3, 5, 7 to 13 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds
dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2,5 and 10 which are
continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:- 65 APKR030006622008
S.NO.NAMER.S.NO.EXTENT
1.A.KAMESANJANEYA SARMA215/1B4-00
2.KALLAM RAMA REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY1711-50 215/1B
4.KALLAM CHINA BASIVI REDDY215/1B3-57
5.KALLAM SUBBA REDDY215/1B1-50
6.KALLAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY215/1B1-50
7.PAMULAPATI VENKATAPPA REDDY215/1B0-37 171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY 215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAM VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-871/2
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY1710-87 ½ 215/1B 66 APKR030006622008
15.JOINT1715-43 215/1B
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform her part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2, 3,
5, 7 to 13 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 4 and 6 are also purchasers along with the plaintiffs under earlier registered contracts dated 26.7.1980 and unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 and they are also entitled to seek specific performance along with the plaintiffs but since they did not come forward to join as plaintiffs and have not co-operated they are impleaded as defendants and the plaintiffs are seeking specific performance in their also either by single sale deed or by separate sale deeds. Defendants 14 and 15 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.12 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 11 and 13 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
34)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The 67 APKR030006622008 allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy 68 APKR030006622008 first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed 69 APKR030006622008 beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
35)Written statement of defendants
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant on 6.5.1986 for a sum of Rs.7000/- and it was registered as document No.1311 on the file of the SRO, Vuyyuru. The property was sold by the first defendant as she was not living at Chagantipadu village and as she was not getting any income from the schedule property and for other reasons mentioned in the sale deed. The first defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants on the date of sale deed and consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and since then the above defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment with absolute rights raising crops therein. The suit is frivolous and vexatious. Above defendants adopt the written statement of the first defendant as far as it is not inconsistent with their written statement. The matter in OS 513/1986 is pending and has not become final. The contents of OS 88/1988 are true and correct. Above defendants are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiffs and first defendant are colluding together only to defeat the rights of the above defendants. Section 53-A is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property at any point of time particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. They are not entitled for specific performance which is an 70 APKR030006622008 equitable remedy and they are guilty of suppression of facts and invented new facts.
The suit is barred by limitation. Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
36)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
37)Appeal suit No. 33/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 626/1991 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
38)OS No.626/1991 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 4 and 8 on one hand and the first defendant on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.380/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
39)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiff’s adjoining owners purchased from the first defendant and
Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds
dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from
that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying 71 APKR030006622008 fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs and others having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of
Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder. The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The
Harijan Field Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against some of the said purchasers seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other 72 APKR030006622008 reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant in Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and other purchasers were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose S.Venkateswara
Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant were also present along with the vendors and vendees and some others. Both the vendors and vendees gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her son
Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to 73 APKR030006622008
Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana
Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant and Rama
Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the the other vendor/M.Raja
Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with others played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by 74 APKR030006622008 registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and defendants and others conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers, defendants 2 to 11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered 75 APKR030006622008 contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds
dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 4 and 8 which are
continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
S.No. NameR.S.No.Extent
1.A. KAME SANJANEYA SARMA 215/1B 4-00
A. SEETHA RAMA SARMA,171
A. VENKATESWARA SARMA.
2. KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾ 171
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY..215/1B1-50
4. KALLAM CHINA BASIVIREDDY..215/1B3-57
5. KALLAM SUBBA REDDY.215/1B1-50
6.KALLAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY 215/1B1-50
7.PAMULAPATI VENKATAPPA REDDY 215/1B, 0-37 171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAM VEERARAGHAVAREDDY215/1B0-43 ¾ 76 APKR030006622008
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY171 0-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY171 0-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT171 215-43
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform her part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2 to
11 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 12 and 13 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.10 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 9 and 11 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(g) Plaintiff No.3 died on 1.2.2002 and plaintiffs 4 to 6 are added as his legal representatives.
77 APKR030006622008
40)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the 78 APKR030006622008 agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are 79 APKR030006622008 not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
41)Written statement of defendants 2 to 11:-
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant on 5.5.1986 for a sum of Rs.5000/- and it was registered as document No.1312 on the file of the SRO, Vuyyuru. The property was sold by the first defendant as she was not living at Chagantipadu village and as she was not getting any income from the schedule property and for other reasons mentioned in the sale deed. The first defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants on the date of sale deed and consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and since then the above defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment with absolute rights raising crops therein. The suit is frivolous and vexatious. Above defendants adopt the written statement of the first defendant as far as it is not inconsistent with their written statement. The matter in OS 513/1986 is pending and has not become final. The contents of OS 88/1988 are true and correct. Above defendants are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiffs and first defendant are colluding together only to defeat the rights 80 APKR030006622008 of the above defendants. Section 53-A is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property at any point of time particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. They are not entitled for specific performance which is an equitable remedy and they are guilty of suppression of facts and invented new facts.
The suit is barred by limitation. Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
42)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract of sale as prayed for in the plaint?
2. Whether the suit is barred by time?
3. To what relief?
43)Joint trial of all the suits:
Since the suit schedule property in OS 88/1988 and other suits OS Nos.626, 625, 627/1991, 100 and 103/1992 is one and the same and since all the parties in all the suits are one and the same, as per the memo filed by both the parties on 17.11.2001, all the suits were clubbed and common evidence was recorded in OS 626/1991. The evidence of the plaintiffs’ side recorded in OS 626/1991 was treated as plaintiffs’ evidence in OS Nos.625, 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 and as the evidence of defendants in OS 88/1988. Similarly the evidence of the defendants recorded in OS 626/1991 is treated as evidence of plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 and as evidence of defendants in OS Nos.625, 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992.
44)The plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.A1 to A26.
Defendants examined DWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.B1 to B17. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, by common judgment and decree dated 30-9-2004, dismissed
OS Nos. 625, 626 and 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 asking the parties to bear their own costs and decreed OS 88/1988 granting possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs therein evicting the defendants in that suit and granting 81 APKR030006622008 permanent injunction in their favour and against defendants 1, 3 to 20 therein asking the parties to bear their own costs. Challenging the same, defendants in OS 88/1988 filed AS 89/2004 and the plaintiffs in OS Nos. 626, 627, 625 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992 have filed AS Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33 of 2008.
45)In this judgment, the appellants mean the plaintiffs in Original Suits
Nos.625,626,627 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992 and defendants in Original Suit
No.88/1988 and Legal representatives of the parties added due to the death of the original parties and Respondents mean the defendants in Original Suits Nos.625, 626, 627 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992 and plaintiffs in Original Suit No.88/1988 and legal representatives of the parties added due to the death of the original parties.
46)Grounds of Appeal in all the appeals:
(1) The judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(2) The trial Court ought to have found that the respondents’ pleading that the agreements of sale are barred is very vague and without reasons.
(3) The trial Court should have seen that respondents specifically pleaded that they purchased the entire plaint schedule property under four different sale deeds for good consideration and they are bonafide purchasers without notice of the agreement of sale executed by their vendors in favour of the appellants.
(4) The trial Court did not see that the respondents failed to plead that the prior agreements of sale were abandoned or cancelled or the consideration was refunded to the appellants.
(5) The trial Court did not see that no issues were framed in the suits regarding bonafide nature of the sale deeds in favour of the respondents or regarding abandonment or cancellation or refund of the sale consideration to the appellants by their vendors and should have held that the respondents are not entitled to adduce 82 APKR030006622008 any evidence in that respect and that any amount of evidence without pleading cannot be looked into as held in AIR 1966 SC 1861, AIR 1975 Bombay 52, AIR 1974
AP 193 and AIR 1984 Calcutta 215 and should have ignored the evidence of the respondents in that respect and even if considered should have held that it is lacking in material particulars.
(6) The trial Court should have considered a report of the commissioner in OS 513/1986 which was referred in CMA 60/1986 and the findings in the CMA about the appellants continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 1961 and it erred in ignoring the same.
(7) The trial Court erred in holding that the plaint, written statement and report of the
Surveyor with sketch in OS 664/1981 and the judgment in the said suit are not binding on the respondents as they are not parties to the said suit and ought to have held them as relevant and considered the same.
(8) The trial Court ignored and over looked several decisions cited by the counsel for the appellants inspite of filing of the same with memo as directed by the Court.
(9) The trial Court ought to have seen that the respondents pleaded in the plaint in
OS 88/1988 that vendors have not been cultivating the plaint schedule property since
last more than 50 years as they were living far away from the plaint schedule property and that the appellants were raising crops in the plaint schedule property.
(10) The trial Court ought to have found from the depositions of Dws 1 and 2 that they admitted that the vendors never exercised any acts of possession in the red marked plaint schedule land after sale of the adjoining blue marked lands to the appellants and others 40 years ago.
(11) The trial Court did not consider the evidence of DW4 that his father or the vendors or himself paid any land revenue for the schedule land; that they did not lease out for cultivation or grazing; that they did not grant any permission/license for 83 APKR030006622008 cutting wood or trees in the suit land; that they did not keep any watchman for the suit land; that they were not enjoying the suit land and they never visited the suit land after the agreements in favour of the appellants and does not know who were enjoying the property thereafter and therefore DW4 did not know on which side of the land the suit lands are situated.
(12) The trial Court did not see the admission of DW3 that the suit lands were full of bushes and shrubs without cultivation which is falsified by the report of the commissioner.
(13) The trial Court should have considered the evidence of DW3 that they have not taken possession of the suit land purchased under Exs.B1 to B4 though possession was referred in the sale deeds and that some of the appellants were raising sugarcane in part of the suit lands and that chillies and vegetables are grown in the suit land.
(14) The trial Court erred in ignoring the cist receipts paid for the suit land by PW1 and ought to have found that the evidence proves the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the appellants from 1961 and that the vendors or anyone else claimed to have been in possession and enjoyment at any time.
(15) The trial Court ought to have presumed on a report of the Commissioner that the appellants have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land during the period anterior thereto as well as subsequent thereto and prior to or subsequent to OS 664/1981 by drawing presumption of continuity of possession and enjoyment backwards as well as forwards in view of the decision in 1966 SC 605 and 1985 (3)
APLJ 83.
(16) The trial Court held in finding issue No.2 in OS 88/1988 that the vendors had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land which is contrary to the pleadings and evidence.
84 APKR030006622008 (17) The trial Court erred in it’s findings that the appellants admitted the possession of the vendors as per the agreements of sale.
(18) The trial Court should have found that the usual recitals regarding delivery of possession made in the registered agreements of sale cannot stand and falsify the valuable and voluminous documentary evidence and admissions of the respondents and proved by the report of the commissioner and receipts.
(19) The trial Court should have found that the appellants have been in possession through out prior to the agreements of sale and from the date of agreements in furtherance of agreements.
(20) The trial Court should have considered that the entire sale consideration except paltry amount of Rs.100/- which was also paid on 31.12.1980 as asserted by them and so, the continuing in possession was in furtherance of the agreements of sale.
(21) The trial Court should have found that the vendors never protested against the appellants that they are not entitled to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property though they were continuing in possession.
(22) The trial Court should have found that the appellants who parted bulk of the sale consideration under the agreements have been continuing in possession to the knowledge of and with the express or implied consent of the vendors and that the vendors did not raise any protest for the said reason and therefore the appellants satisfied the requirements under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
(23) The trial Court erred in not referring to the memo filed by the appellants on 28.9.2004 that they are ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of
Rs.100/- under each agreement in all the five suits filed for specific performance and in view of the decision in 1982 (2) ALT 86 should have found that the appellants have bonafides and were always ready and willing to perform their part.
85 APKR030006622008 (24) The trial Court should have found that the appellants having paid the entire sale consideration in thousands of rupees except paltry amount of Rs.100/- under each agreement would not have withheld the balance of small amount of Rs.100/- and would not have kept quiet without continuing in possession and enjoyment of the lands by bringing the lands under cultivation clearing the bushes raising commercial crops and would not have abandoned or cancelled the agreements for any reason and therefore they are entitled for invoking Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property
Act and ought to have considered the inaction on the part of the vendors in not raising any protest and not making any demand regarding performance of the agreements.
(25) The trial Court, and the admission in the pleading, evidence of DW4 ought to have found that the vendors were not in possession since last 50 years and that the assertion of the appellants that they came into possession in 1961 and have been in continuous possession and ought to have considered it as unauthorized and it amounts to dispossession of the vendors by virtue of Section 27 and Articles 64 of the New Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 28 and 142 of the old Limitation Act and their right and title and of the respondents be deemed to have been extinguished in view of the judgment in AIR 2000 SAR 710 in alternate their contention regarding
Section 53- A of the Transfer of Property Act, if the relief for specific performance is to be held by barred by time by virtue of the ratio in 2004 SAR 451. Further as the appellants are ready and willing to deposit the paltry amount of Rs.100/- with interest as stated in the memos and as they are entitled for specific performance as in the decision 1982 (2) ALT 686 (referred above).
(26) The trial Court ought not to have considered the evidence of DW4 power of attorney of his mother and her sister as he did not file the pleadings and has no knowledge about the agreements and he can gave evidence only as a witness and 86 APKR030006622008 cannot substitute his principals and that the principals should have been examined to face the cross-examination regarding the contentions of the appellants and in the absence of the same without genuine and valid reasons should have drawn adverse inference against them as laid down in the decisions in AIR 1961 SC 1413 and AIR 1958 AP 22.
(27) The trial Court should have kept the burden of proof on the respondents to prove that they are bonafide purchasers without notice and could have seen that their pleading is falsified by the fact that respondents 2 to 4 who are parties to prior agreement also joined other respondents in obtaining the sale deeds/Exs.B1 to B4.
(28) The trial Court should have considered that the appellants came to know about the vendors refusal to perform their part only after notices in OS 513/1986 on 4.6.1986 and should have found all the suits for specific performance are within limitation and erred in finding the suits are barred by time.
(29) The trial Court did not consider that the balance sale consideration could be paid with interest at 18% after the stipulated date and sale deeds could be executed and registered and so, no time is fixed for the performance of the contract and so, the suits are within limitation from the date of knowledge of refusal or even from 28.4.1986 when they assured that they would complete the sale transaction.
(30) The trial Court erred in finding that the balance consideration of Rs.100/- was not paid as the payments are not evidenced by any endorsements and there is no documentary evidence to prove the same and that the appellants who were continuing in possession did not find it necessary to have the payments endorsed on the agreements and it is natural and probable.
(31) The trial Court should have disbelieved the case of the respondents and evidence of DW4 that the entire sale consideration was refunded to the appellants 87 APKR030006622008 without any endorsement of cancellation on the agreements and without any vouchers though it did not accept the version of the appellants by the same test.
(32) The trial Court should have disbelieved the evidence of defence witnesses that the appellants postponed the returning of two original agreements/Exs.A1 and A2 for one reason or the other and should have found that the three original agreements/Exs.B1 to B3 together with corresponding sale deeds were handed over by the appellants to the vendors in the circumstances stated by them.
(33) The trial Court should have found the undue haste in which the sale deeds/Exs.B1 to B4 were directly executed and registered on 5.5.1986 and 6.5.1986 without any prior agreements against reasonable practice adopted the sale transaction in the background of the case of the appellants and should have concluded that the vendors and respondents played fraud on the appellants to defeat the agreements in favour of the appellants and ignored the ratio laid down in AIR 2000 SC 1658 and 2000(4) ALT 81 showing that subsequent purchasers are not bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the original contracts.
(34) The trial Court should have found that the mere delay does not amount to waiver of agreement of sale.
(35) The trial Court should have scrutinized the conduct of both parties with probabilities.
(36) The trial Court should have found that the respondents have given a gobye to the pleadings and adduced evidence contrary to the pleadings and attempted to prove that the vendors were continuing in possession and delivered possession under Exs.B1 to B4 and failed to produce the vendors in to the witness box intentionally.
88 APKR030006622008 (37) The trial Court should have seen that entire version of the respondents is concocted and false and held they are not bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the earlier agreement of sale.
(38) The trial Court should have considered the circumstances to know whose version is true and acceptable and should have found all the issues in favour of the appellants as per the decision in 2000 SC 1653 and could have decreed the suits for specific performance and dismissed OS 88/1988.
(39) The trial Court should have considered that the contention of the respondents regarding non-joinder of some parties is fatal to the suit is not tenable in view of the memos dated 7.11.2002 filed restricting their claims to their shares only and giving up the remaining of the persons who are not before the Court.
(40) The trial Court should have kept in mind Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act that the Court retains jurisdiction to amend the decrees suitably and decreed the suit in terms of the agreements of sale to work out other reliefs as per the memos filed by them.
(41) The trial court erred in finding that Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act barred the appellants from adducing evidence that they are continuing in possession from 1961 in view of the recitals of agreements of sale and could have found that the same is barred in case of documents which are required to be in writing under law and as the agreements of sale are not required to be law in writing and should have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants in support of their case about possession.
(42) The trial Court should have seen that all the suits for specific performance were originally filed before the District Munsif Court as OS Nos.926, 920, 927, 921 and 925 of 1989 and re-numbered as 625, 626, 627 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992.
89 APKR030006622008
47)Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. The written arguments and reply written arguments filed by the appellants earlier are on record. The learned counsel for the respondents, in the place of written arguments filed earlier, filed synopsis of the arguments filed earlier.
48)The pleadings of the plaintiffs in all the suits for specific performance are same and they filed written statement in the suit for recovery of possession on the same pleadings. Similarly, the pleadings of the defendants in the suits for specific performance are same and they filed the suit for recovery of possession also on the same pleadings. The issues involved in all the suits are common. Common evidence was recorded in one suit OS 626/1991 for all the suits.
49)The plaint schedule property in OS 88/1988 is of four items. Item No.1 is
Ac.4.00 of land which is the plaint schedule property in OS 626/1991. Item No.2 is
Ac.5.43 cents of land which is the plaint schedule property in OS100/1992. Item
No.3 is Ac.7.00 of land which is the plaint schedule property in OS 625/1991. Item
No.4 is Ac.10.57 cents of land out of which Ac.3.57 cents is the plaint schedule property in OS 627/1991 and Ac.7.00 cents is plaint schedule property in OS 103/1992 all in R.S.D No. 215 and 215/1 and RS No.171 of Chagantipadu village,
Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District.
50)Hereinafter, appellants mean plaintiffs in OS Nos.625, 626, 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 and defendants in OS No.88/1988 whereas respondents mean defendants in OS Nos. 625, 626 and 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 and the plaintiffs in OS 88/1988. The vendor under the sale agreements in OS Nos.625, 626/1991 and 100/1992 Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma is shown as
Defendant No.1 in the said suits and vendor under agreements in O.S.Nos. 627/191 and 103/1992 Meka Rajarajeswari is shown as Defendant No.1 in the said suits and they are not parties to O.S.88/1988 and they are referred as vendors. The plaint 90 APKR030006622008 schedule property hereinafter means the plaint schedule property in OS 88/1988 which includes the plaint schedule properties in other suits.
51)Now the points for determination in these appeals are:-
1. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the agreements for sale dated 26.7.1980?
2. Whether the respondents/defendants are entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction?
3. Whether there are the grounds to interfere with the decree and judgment of the trial Court?
4. To what relief?
52)POINT NO.1:-
Admitted facts:-
The plaint schedule property in OS Nos.625, 626/1991 and 100/1992 belongs to Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmamma (D1) and the plaint schedule property in
OS Nos. 627/191 and 103/1992 belongs to Meka Raja Rajeswari (D1). The plaintiffs in the specific performance cases purchased the properties situated adjoining the plaint schedule property from them and others under registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties which are marked in blue colour in the plan filed in those suits. The plaint schedule properties are shown in red colour in the said plan. The plaintiffs entered into registered agreements for sale of the plaint schedule properties vide five registered documents dated 26.7.1980 with the above said Venkata Samrajya
Lakshmamma and Raja Rajeswari making payment of major part of consideration keeping balance of Rs.100/- under each document and the sale agreements are marked as Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10(certified copies)/B11 to B13(Originals). The recitals of the said documents show that the properties will be delivered at the time of 91 APKR030006622008 execution of the registered sale deeds. The Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 against the plaintiffs and other purchasers for permanent injunction. Taluk Surveyor is appointed as commissioner for inspection of the said properties and he filed a report with sketch. The defendants 2 to 11 purchased the plaint schedule property from Meka Venkata Samrajya
Lakshmamma and Raja Rajeswari under registered sale deed dated 5.5.1986.
53)The 1st plaintiff in OS 626/1991 is examined as PW1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 therein are the brothers of PW1. It is his evidence that the land covered by OS
Nos.625/91, 626/91, 627/91, 100/92 and 103/92 belonged to the 1st defendant in the said suits and her sister and that the plaintiffs and others purchased the blue marked property in the plan in the year 1961 from them. PW1 produced Ex.A3 registered sale deed dated 4.7.1961 executed by D1 in favour of Ramineni Rajamma and others,
Ex.A4/ registered sale deed dated 4.7.1961 executed by D1 in favour of Rajamma and others and Ex.A5/registered sale deed dated 4.7.1961 executed by Tandra
Venkatappaiah in favour of Rajamma and others. He stated that Exs.A3 to A5 were scribed by him. Exs.A3 to A5 are relating to the property adjoining the plaint schedule properties.
54)PW1 stated further that subsequently in the year 1961, the plaint schedule properties, which are adjoining properties to the above purchased properties, shown in red colour in the plan, which were fallow, covered with shrubs and not useful for cultivation were abandoned by the vendors and that the plaintiffs in the suits have occupied the same and brought them to cultivation clearing the bushes. According to him, when the owners of the said lands, that is, D1 and her sister put the said properties for sale, himself and other plaintiffs in other suits entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of the property at Rs.900/- per acre and that himself and his brothers purchased Ac.4.00 of land from D1 under 92 APKR030006622008 agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 registered on 26.8.1980 and paid the consideration keeping only Rs.100/- as balance. Further he stated that likewise, the plaintiffs in other suits also entered into agreements with D1 and her sister paying the entire consideration except Rs.100/- agreeing to repay the said amount by 31.12.1980. He stated that the vendors agreed to execute sale deeds in respect of agreement of sale subsequently whenever asked for.
55)It is further evidence of PW1 that the registration of the sale deeds was postponed though the entire sale consideration is paid because the purchase value is lesser than the basic value register and that they came to know in the year 1986 that the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar, Vuyyuru to register the sale deeds as per the value mentioned in the documents.
56)Further PW1 stated that they paid the balance consideration of Rs.100/- to the vendors within the stipulated time of 31.12.1980 and the lands delivered to them and since then they have been in possession of the respective lands while the plaintiffs in other suits are in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands even prior to the agreements for sale.
57)It is further evidence of PW1 that during the time of the suit transaction, the 1st defendant was residing in Satyanarayanapuram along with her son and that on 6.4.1986, himself, defendants 2 to 4 and two other defendants went to the house of D1 and requested to execute registered documents in pursuance of agreements for sale and that D1, her son and sister/Raja Rajeswari agreed to execute five sale deeds in pursuance of the sale agreements. Further he stated that Swarna
Venkateswara Rao/PW2, document writer drafted the sale deeds and asked them to get them typed on stamp papers and at that stage D1 informed them that she wants to get the title deeds examined by their advocate at Eluru. Further he stated that
PW2 signed on the documents and gave three documents to D1 to be executed by 93 APKR030006622008
D1 along with agreements and D1 promised to return them after two days. Further he says that they went to D1 on 9.4.1986 and she asked them to come after 15 to 20 days as she could not get the draft sale deeds checked by her advocate and so, again they went to her on 29.4.1986 but D1 informed them that she could not take the sale deeds from her advocate at Eluru and that she would inform them as to when they have come but they could not get any information from D1 and in the meantime they received notices in the injunction suit filed by D2 to D4 in OS 513/1986 of the Munsif Court, Vijayawada.
58)It is further evidence of PW1 that the injunction in OS 513/1986 was vacated on merits and when appeal was preferred before the Sub-Court, Vijayawada, it was also dismissed and then D2 to D4 have withdrawn OS 513/1986 and filed OS 88/1988 on the file of this Court and then they filed the suits for specific performance of the sale agreements. He produced Ex.A6/certified copy of the order in IA 1046/1986 in OS 513/1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vijayawada and
Ex.A7/certified copy of the order in CMA No.60/1986 on the file of Sub-Court,
Vijayawada. PW1 produced Ex.A14 as the typed copy of the draft sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and his brothers dated 6.4.1986 scribed by PW2. Further he stated that he got the five (5) draft sale deeds typed on Non-Judicial stamps and the scribe signed on the typed sale deeds on Non-judicial stamps. He produced Ex.A15 as the draft sale deed dated 6.4.1986 in favour of Kallam Venkata Reddy and others signed by PW2; Ex.A16/draft sale deed in favour of Kallam China Basivi Reddy dated 6.4.1986 signed by PW2. Exs.A14 to A16 were marked subject to objection to be decided by the Hon’ble High Court filed against the orders of the trial Court dated 22.6.2001.
59)Further it is deposed by PW1 that he was the scribe of registered sale agreements executed by D1 and Raja Rajeswari Devi and also the earlier sale 94 APKR030006622008 deeds. PW1 produced Ex.A1 and A2 agreements for sale both dated 26.7.1980 executed by Raja Rajeswari Devi. Ex.A1 relates to plaintiffs in OS 103/1992 and
Ex.A2 relates to plaintiffs in OS 627/1991. He produced Ex.A8 registration extract of the sale agreement dated 26.7.1980 executed by D1 in favour of himself and his two brothers, plaintiffs in OS No.626/1991; Ex.A9/registration extract of the sale agreement dated 26.7.1980 executed by D1 in favour of Sri K.China Punna Reddy and others (plaintiffs in OS 100/1992) and Ex.A10 registration extract of the sale agreement dated 26.7.1980 executed by D1 in favour of Kallam Subba Reddy and others (plaintiffs in OS 625/1991).
60)PW1 further stated that the plaint schedule properties in all the suits are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and while so, Harijan Field
Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS 664/1981 on the file of
Munsif Court, Vijayawada against Kallam China Basivi Reddy and others for injunction claiming title to the Society land which is adjacent to the plaint schedule property intervened by a fund and in that suit a Suveyor was appointed as a
Commissioner and ultimately the said suit was dismissed.
61)PW1 deposed that D2 to D4 are plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 and though they obtained agreements for sale along with them, they obtained registered sale deeds from D1 and her sister/Raja Rajeswari Devi and along with others, who obtained sale deeds for the plaint schedule property they filed OS 88/1988 against the plaintiffs.
He says that the other plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 are also aware of the sale agreements in favour of plaintiffs and about their possession of the plaint schedule property.
Further he stated that defendants 2 to 4 did not inform them about the sale deeds in their favour by D1 and her sister. Further he says that D2 to D4 were also present with them on 6.4.1986 in the house of D1 and they very well are aware of the preparation of the draft sale deeds and typing of sale deeds on stamp papers and 95 APKR030006622008 that their documents were also typed on stamp papers and therefore, they are not bona-fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs and that their sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs and they have no right to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property.
62)PW1 produced Exs.A11 to A13 as the cist receipts showing payment of cist by them for the plaint schedule property in their possession and enjoyment.
Stating that they have performed their part of the contract and were ready to obtain sale deeds and as sale deeds were executed in favour of D2 to D4 and others, he seeks to decree the suits for specific performance against them including the original vendors and to dismiss the OS 88/1988.
63)The scribe of the draft sale deeds/Exs.A14 to A16 is examined as PW2.
PW2 in his evidence in chief-examination deposed that he is a lineman in APSPDCL,
Sub-Station, Bantumilli residing at Bantumilli. According to him on 6.4.1986 himself,
PW1 and his brothers went to the upstairs of Weights and Measures office,
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada to scribe the sale deed for the lands sold by
Meka Venkata Samrjaya Lakshmamma and Raja Rajeswari (D1s in the specific performance suit). Further he stated that when PW1 asked Samrajya Lakshmamma whether the sale deeds are to be scribed, she accepted and so, he scribed the draft sale deeds, on white paper on the dictation of PW1 and read over the contents to all of them. Further he says that he was asked by them to get the sale deeds typed on stamp paper which were already brought by PW1 and then he prepared five (5) sale deeds, three (3) in the name of Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma and two (2) in the name of Raja Rajeswari Devi, read over the contents of the sale deeds again and on their asking he signed as scribe on all the sale deeds. Further he stated that
PW1 took carbon copies of the sale deeds and Sambrajya Lakshmamma and Raja
Rajeswari took the original sale deeds stating that they would come after two days 96 APKR030006622008 showing the sale deeds to their counsel for registration and later they all disbursed.
He identified Ex.A14 as the carbon copy of the document typed on Non-Judicial papers and Exs.A15 and A16 which are on stamp papers.
64)The plaintiff in OS 627/1991 Kallam China Basivi Reddy is examined as
PW3. PW3 also deposed that he purchased the plaint schedule property on 26.7.1980 @ Rs.900/- per acre under registered agreement for sale and paid the entire sale consideration except Rs.100/- at the time of agreement. Further he stated the adjoining land to the plaint schedule property was purchased about 40 years prior to the registered agreement for sale and both the properties are under his possession and enjoyment. Further he says that he clear the shrubs in portion of the plaint schedule land and is cultivating the same and that the other plaintiffs in other suits got similar registered agreements for sale.
65)PW3 further deposed that six years prior to his evidence dated 17.7.2001, when they asked their vendors, that is, defendant No.1 and her sister to execute registered sale deed, they asked them to come with Non-judicial stamps and at that time, D1, her son and her sister were present. PW3 stated that PW2/scribe of
Chagantipadu village accompanied them and first he scribed documents on white papers and then they handed over three sets of Non-Judicial stamps and three agreements to D1 and that D1 promised them to come after two days for registration.
PW3 further deposed that after two days when they went to D1, she informed them that they applied for reduction of the value of the stamp duty to the District Registrar and it will take time. PW3 further stated that even after one month nothing was informed to them but later they received court notices from Baddigam Koti Reddy,
Baddigam Sambi Reddy and Kallam Rami Reddy claiming that they have purchased the plaint schedule lands. Further he says that they also have got sale agreements 97 APKR030006622008 along with the plaintiffs. PW3 says that D2 to D4 did not accompany them to the house of the 1st defendant.
66)PW3 produced Ex.A17 as the typed carbon copy of the sale deed dated 6.4.1986 executed by Meka Sambrajya Lakshmi and Exs.A18 and A19 tax receipts for payment of cist for the plaint schedule land. He stated further that Co-operative society filed a suit against him and the said suit was dismissed but the advocate- commissioner appointed in that suit along with Surveyor demarcated the land of the
Co-operative Society and filed a plan into the Court.
67)The 6th plaintiff in OS 103/1992 is examined as PW4. It is the evidence of
PW4 that the plaint schedule property is Ac.7.00 and as D5 and sister of D5 did not co-operate, himself and other plaintiffs filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 26.7.1980 and that prior to the said agreement they were in possession of the plaint schedule property which is abutting their land.
Further he stated that they paid cist Rs.6,200/- to D1 on the date of agreement and balance of Rs.100/- after four or five months as a registration was delayed. Further he stated that prior to the suit they paid cist to the plaint schedule property. He says that the plaint schedule property was purchased at Rs.900/- per acre but as the Sub-
Registrar asked them that the basic register value is Rs.13,000/-, they filed petition
before the District Registrar for reduction of the stamp duty for the sale deed and
after enquiry the Sub-Registrar informed them that they accepted the sale consideration amount as basis for stamp. Further PW4 says that then they met D1 and requested her to execute registered sale deeds basing on the sale agreements and D1 informed them to come after two days ready with Non-Judicial stamps for ready with registration, himself and other plaintiffs along with scribe/PW3 went to D1 with the Non-Judicial stamps. Further he says that D1, her sister and son were present in the house of D1, that PW1 gave the contents of the sale deed and PW2 98 APKR030006622008 scribed the same on white paper and the same were read over by PW2 and approved by all including the vendors. Further he stated that the vendors asked them to have the sale deeds typed on Non-Judicial stamps and then they went to Vuyyuru and got typed the five (5) sale deeds on Non-Judicial stamps and on the same day at about 3.30 pm, they came back with typed sale deeds to D1 and the vendors told them that they would go and check the sale deeds by their counsel at Eluru requesting to come after two days. Further he deposed that Sambrajya Lakshmi took three (3) sale deeds from them which were typed on Non-Judicial stamp along with corresponding three agreements for sale. PW4 further deposed that PW2 expressed that he would be not convenient for him to come back again after two days and thereupon the vendors asked him to put his signature as scribe on the five (5) typed sale deeds. PW4 says that Ex.A15 is the sale deed in their favour and that D2 to D5, who are also vendees under Ex.A15 accompanied them on the date of above transaction and that the corresponding sale deed typed on stamp papers was handed over to the vendors on that day. He stated that D2 to D5 were also present when their sale deeds were got typed on Non-Judicial stamps and that the vendors asked them to come after three days for completion of the sale transaction and registration and that when they went there on third day the vendors told them that they could not go to Eluru and informed them that they will send a word within 20 days and also assured that they need not be afraid as the land is continuing in their possession. Further PW4 deposed that though they waited, there was no intimation from the vendors and that later they received notices from the Court and found that plaintiff in OS 88/1988 filed the suit along with D2, D3 and D5 and some others.
PW4 says that the injunction petition filed by them was dismissed and thereupon they filed these suits.
99 APKR030006622008
68)PW4 further deposed that the Field Labour Co-operative Society owns land on the West of the plaint schedule land and the Society filed a suit against them and they filed written statement in the said suit. PW4 produced Ex.A20 as the certified copy of the plaint in OS No.664/1981 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Vijayawada filed by the Society and Ex.A21 as the written statement filed by D2 to
D5 in the said suit. He stated that the Court appointed a Commissioner in that suit to inspect and measure the plaint schedule property and whether the suit land was purchased by the Society and decided that the suit lands are owned by them but not by the Society. PW4 further stated that D2, D3 and D5 who were sailing with them through the agreement for sale are now sailing with the plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 to defeat them and cause loss to them.
69)PW5 is the 4th plaintiff in OS 625/1991 and 6th plaintiff in OS 100/1992. It is the evidence that they have registered agreements for sale of the plaint schedule property and agreed sale consideration of plaint schedule property in OS 625/1991 is
Rs.6,300/- for Ac.7.00 of land and they paid Rs.6,300/- at the time of agreement.
Further he stated that the agreed sale consideration for the plaint schedule property of Ac.5.23 cents in OS 100/1992 was paid at the time of agreement except Rs.100/- and that the entire extent of both suits is in their possession and enjoyment even prior to the sale agreements, since the time of registered sale deed obtained for adjoining lands and that they are continuing in possession paying cist to the said lands. He produced Ex.A22/cist receipt dated 22.4.1984 and stated that later they could not pay cist as the same was not collected.
70)Further it is the evidence of PW5 that D1 is the vendor under both agreements/Exs.A1 and A2 and the balance consideration of Rs.100/- each under the both agreements was paid to D1 asking to execute registered sale deeds and that D1 informed them to come after two days with stamps. Further he stated that 100 APKR030006622008 they already purchased Non-Judicial stamps for execution of sale deeds and they filed a petition to the District Registrar for reduction of stamp value for their sale deeds and the District Registrar gave direction for valuing the sale according to the sale consideration @ Rs.900/- per acre and so, they purchased stamps accordingly.
Further he deposed they in all ten (10) persons used to go to the vendors in that connection. He stated that PW1 and the 1st plaintiff in OS 100/1992 were looking after the valuation and purchase of stamps and that the 1st plaintiff in OS 100/1992 died after filing of the suit and that he filed a memo giving up his claim in the suit. But he does not know why he gave up the claim and later he came to know he colluded with the defendants and others and filed a memo.
71)Further he deposed that D2, D3, PW1, the 2nd plaintiff in OS 625/1991,
PW3, himself and plaintiffs in other suits approached D1 after purchasing the Non-
Judicial stamps and again after two days they went along with PW2 to prepare the draft sale deeds. Further he deposed that PW2 prepared the draft sale deeds at the house of D1 on the dictation of PW1 in the presence of D1, her sister/Rajeswari and son/Rama Mohana Rao and that the same were read over to D1 and her sister.
Further he deposed that the vendors wanted them to type the sale deeds on Non-
Judicial stamps and they got typed five (5)sale deeds on Non-Judicial stamps at
Vuyyuru and came back to D1’s house on the same day evening. Further he deposed that D1 and her sister told them that they will show the sale deeds to their advocate at Eluru and asked them to come after two days and they asked the scribe to put his signature on the five (5) sale deeds and when the scribe raise objection to put his signatures first without the signatures of the vendors. Further he deposed that as required by the vendors the typed sale deeds relating to PW1, PW3 and himself together with corresponding register agreements of sale were delivered to the vendors for being examined by their advocate at Eluru.
101 APKR030006622008
72)PW5 says further that PW3 is his father; that they retained xerox copies of the original sale deeds with them; that the typed documents were prepared in favour of D2, himself and other plaintiffs and that D2 to D4 were figured as vendees as per the typed sale deeds to be executed and registered by D1. Further he says that D2 to D4 were also present through out the transaction along with them when they visited the residence of vendors and the documents were typed and delivered to the vendors. PW5 further deposed that vendors asked them to come after two days as they have to show the documents to their advocate at Eluru and so, they went them after two days and at that time D1 was not present but her sister and Rama
Mohana Rao asked them after twenty days but in the meanwhile they received suit summons in the suit filed by D2 to D5 and others. PW5 further deposed that they moved temporary injunction petition for the plaint schedule lands against the purchasers and agreements for sale and the said petition was dismissed after contest and later they filed these suits for specific performance of sale agreements.
He stated that the plaintiffs in Os 88/1988 are aware that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land since about 40 years. He produced Ex.A23 typed carbon copy of the sale deed on Non-Judicial stamps in their favour. PW5 produced Ex.A26/certified copy of judgment in OS 664/1981 which show that the said suit was dismissed due to compromise in terms of the compromise petition.
73)The 5th defendant in OS 626/1991, OS 625/1991 and 627/1991 and 6th defendant in OS 103/1992 and 7th defendant in OS 100/1992, Kallam Jagan Mohana
Reddy, is examined as DW1 and he is the 1st plaintiff in OS 88/1988 and native of
Kallamvaripalem. He stated the total extent of the plaint schedule lands is Ac.27; that on 5.5.1986 ten (10) persons including himself purchased the said land from Meka
Sambrajya Lakshmi and Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi @ Rs.1250/- per acre and obtained four registered sale deeds in their favour and the bargaining was negotiated 102 APKR030006622008 by one Putchakayala Gangireddy of Bhadrirajupalem. DW1 produced Exs.B1 to B3/ sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 and Ex.B4 as sale deed dated 6.5.1986 and all registered on 6.5.1986 stating that they were delivered possession of the lands on the same day. He stated that the matter was referred under Section 47-A of Stamp Act calling for additional stamp duty and subsequently the District Registrar fixed the market value granting some remission and as per the said orders they paid the deficit stamp duty. He produced Ex.B1-A and B1-B as the receipt and endorsement both dated 12.1.2001 on the back of Ex.B1; B2-A and B2-B as the receipt and endorsement both dated 12.1.2001 on the back of Ex.B2 and Ex.B4-A and B4-B as the receipt and endorsement both dated 12.1.2001 on the back of Ex.B4.
74)It is the evidence of DW1 that by the date of purchase under Exs.B1 to
B4 they have no knowledge of sale agreements in respect of the lands and that they were informed by D2 to D4, deceased Ramachandra Reddy, the 1st plaintiff and PW3 that the previous sale agreements of the said lands were abandoned by them.
Further it is his evidence that one week after the purchase they went to the suit lands to clear the bushes and shrubs and at that time 1st plaintiff, PWs 3, 4 and some other persons totally 25 in number went there and demanded them that the land belong to them and threatened them to go out of the land and they went out and filed a report at Kankipadu PS and marked Ex.B5/office copy of report given by them. Further he deposed that the police went to the lands and handed over the cut trees weighing about 2 or 3 tonnes to Kallam Sambi Reddy, Vice President of the village and then they filed OS 513/1986 seeking injunction against them and when injunction was not granted they preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed. Further he says that they converted OS 513/1986 into a suit for recovery of possession numbered as
OS 88/1988. It is his evidence that by the date of Exs.B1 to B4 their vendors were in
possession of the lands and the entire cattle of the village were grazing in the lands.
103 APKR030006622008
He stated that on the West of the schedule lands the lands belonging to
Kallamvanipalem Field Labour Co-operate Society are situated but he does not know about OS 664/1981.
75)Further it is the evidence of DW1 that the plaintiffs in all the suits are in illegal possession of the schedule lands and they trespassed into the lands after they purchased the lands and they have no right to continue their possession. He stated that Putchakayala Gangi Reddy negotiated the sale transaction and attested Exs.B1 to B4.
76)The 3rd defendant in OS 626/1991 gave evidence as DW2. He stated about purchase of the plaint schedule property under four registered sale deeds/Ex.B1 to B4, B1-A, B2-A and B4-A by making payment of entire sale consideration followed by delivery of possession. DW2 states that the suit lands were sold to PWs 1,3 and others prior to their purchase but defendants 2, 8, PWs 1,3,
Kallam Subba Reddy and others informed them that they abandoned their agreements of sale for the suit lands and after that they purchased the lands after six weeks and that by that date the vendors were in their possession of the land. He stated that by the date of their purchase there were shrubs and bushes and land was uneven and the cattle of entire village was grazing in the land. Further he deposed that one week after the purchase they went to the plaint schedule property to clear the shrubs and bushes and the plaintiffs along with 25 others went there and dispossessed them forcibly and cut the trees in the schedule property and when they reported the matter to the police, police took possession of the cut trees and kept them in the custody of Vice President of the village.
77)DW2 further stated about filing of OS 513/1986 for injunction, dismissal of the injunction petition and appeal and later filing OS 88/1988 for possession.
Further he stated that they filed a petition for mesne profits in the High Court and 104 APKR030006622008 interim order was passed directing the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.4000/- per year towards mesne profits and that now the lands are in possession of the plaintiffs which is illegal. He stated further that Kallam Subba Reddy, Kallam China Sambi Reddy, who also obtained earlier agreement of sale did not join as parties to the specific performance suits and seven plaintiffs in the above suits filed memos withdrawing their claims. DW2 further stated that the lands of Kallamvaripalem Field Labour Co- operate Society are situated adjacent to the plaint schedule lands.
78)DW3/Kallam Ramireddy, s/o Krishna Reddy/8th defendant in OS 626/1991 gave evidence that himself and 22 others entered into registered sale agreement without delivery of possession on 26.7.1980 in respect of the plaint schedule properties of 27 acres with Meka Sambrajya Lakshmi and Meka Raja
Rajeswari @ Rs.900/- per acre paying the sale consideration except Rs.100/- to be payable on or before 31.12.1988 and to get registered sale deeds. He says that they did not pay the balance consideration as agreed and that the possession is to be delivered at the time of registration. Further he stated that as the lands were not fit and worthy for cultivation because of full sand and bushes, they abandoned their agreements during September, 1980 and that Putchakayala Gangireddy, who arranged the bargain also arranged refund of the advance amounts paid by them to the vendors on return of the sale agreements and accordingly they returned three sale agreements informing that the other two agreements were not traced and would be given afterwards. He says that by the time of the agreements the vendors were in possession of the schedule properties and that the cattle of the entire village used to graze in the said lands and that they did not take possession of the lands pursuant to the agreements.
79)Further DW3 stated that during 1986 due to the negotiation of
Putchakayala Gangireddy they in all ten persons purchased the schedule lands @ 105 APKR030006622008 1250/- per acre and obtained sale deeds from the vendors on 5.5.1986 and 6.5.1986 and got them registered on 6.5.1986 under Exs.B1 to B4. Further he deposed that after registration, Putchakayala Gangireddy and the son of Sambrajya Lakshmi, namely, Venkata Mohana Appa Rao took them to the lands and delivered possession to them. Further he stated that one week thereafter they went to the lands to clear the bushes and shrubs but PWs 3 to 5 and others about 25 persons went to the land and objected them from entering into the land and so, they came out of the land.
Further he stated that PW3 and others cut babul trees in the schedule lands and they reported the matter to the police and on that the police came and entrusted the cut trees to the Vice President of the village and thereafter they filed the suit for injunction. Further he stated that since injunction was not granted to them they converted the suit for recovery of possession. DW3 stated that Exs.A17 and A23 contain his name but he never into the owner and got typed the sale deeds on 6.4.1986 as they have already abandoned their agreements in September, 1980 and that they did not pay the balance consideration on 13.12.1980.
80)DW4 is the GPA holder of the 1st defendant in OS 625/1991, 626/1991 and 100/1992, who is his mother and GPA holder of the 1st defendant in OS Nos.
627/1991 and 103/1992, who is his mother’s sister by virtue of Ex.B9 and B10 registered GPAs. It is his evidence that out of the plaint schedule property of 27 acres, his mother has 16.47 acres whereas his mother’s sister has 10.53 acres. He stated that the lands were sold to 22 persons under five (5) registered sale agreements on 26.7.1980 @ Rs.900/- per acre and except Rs.100/- under each agreement the remaining balance consideration was received by them at the time of the agreements and the balance amount is to be paid before 31.12.1980 and vendees have to obtain registered sale deeds at their expenses before the said date and possession of the lands is to be delivered at the time of registration.
106 APKR030006622008
81)Further he stated that as per the terms of the agreement the balance consideration was not paid within the stipulated time and the vendees have abandoned their agreements in September, 1980 and they refunded the amounts paid by the vendees and the vendees returned three agreements out of five promising to return the other two agreements and produced Exs.B11 to B13 as the returned original registered agreements of sale. Further he stated they did not obtain cancellation endorsements as the agreements were returned to them and demanded for return of other two agreements twice or other but they stated that they would return the same afterwards.
82)DW4 further deposed that on 5.5.1986 the entire land was sold to
K.Jagan Mohan Reddy and others in all ten persons under registered sale deeds/Exs.B1 to B4 and that the same were attested by himself and Putchakayala
Gangireddy. Further he stated that they informed the vendees under Exs.B1 to B4 regarding the cancellation of earlier agreements in the year 1980. Further he says that the lands were in their possession and enjoyment till they were sold under
Exs.B1 to B4 and as cist was not levied they are unable to file the cist receipts. He says that the land was full of bushes, shrubs and trees and was not fit for cultivation and that they delivered possession to vendees after registration of Exs.B1 to B4. He denied the case of the plaintiffs regarding payment of balance consideration, delivery of possession and preparing draft sale deeds.
83)DW4 stated that they are residing at Vijayawada from 1967 and they have their own advocates to look after their affairs at Vijayawada itself and to explain returned Exs.B11 to B13 they are stating that they were returned to them to show their advocate at Eluru.
84)Kallam China Sambi Reddy one of the agreement holders, is examined as DW5. He speaks of the registered agreements for sale of the suit lands but states 107 APKR030006622008 that after two months of the sale agreements they have given up the agreements as the lands were not fit for cultivation and received the consideration paid by them. It is his evidence that prior to the agreements his father purchased Ac.1.18 cents from
Zamindars which is situated adjacent to the suit lands and about 15 years back he sold 74 cents and his elder brother is in possession of the remaining 44 cents.
85)DW6 is a practising advocate at Vijayawada since 1969. It is his evidence that he filed vakalat/Ex.B14 for Kallam Subba Reddy, M.Nageswara Reddy,
K.Rajya Lakshmi and Kallam Sambireddy on 26.10.1992 in OS 103/1992 and on the same day he filed a memo/Ex.B15 on behalf of plaintiffs 3, 4 and 7 giving of their claims as per their instructions. Further he stated that similarly he filed another vakalat on 29.10.1992 on behalf of Kallam Ramachandra Reddy, Kallam Narapa
Reddy in OS 103/1992 under Ex.B16 and on the same day he filed a memo/Ex.B17 on behalf of plaintiffs 1 and 5 giving up their claims as per their instructions. He stated that he issued notice to the other side at the time of filing of Exs.B15 and B17.
He says that he filed the said memos only on the instructions of the persons.
86)Ex.B14 is vakalat filed by DW6 in OS 103/1992 for plaintiffs 3, 4, 7 and 10 and Ex.B16 is the memo filed by him in the said suit stating that plaintiffs 3, 4 and 7 have given up their claim in the suit and seeking to dismiss the suit without costs.
So, plaintiff No.10 did not withdraw the suit.
87)Ex.B16 is the vakalat filed by DW6 in OS 103/1992 for plaintiffs No.1 and 5 and Ex.B17 is the memo filed by them not-pressing their claim, seeking to dismiss the suit without costs. So, plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have not-pressed the suit OS 103/1992 and have withdrawn their claims against the defendants.
88)Discussion:
The case of the plaintiffs about the registered agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 is admitted. As per the recitals of the said agreements/Exs.A1, A2, A8 to 108 APKR030006622008
A10/ Exs.B11 to B13, the entire sale consideration @ Rs.900/- per acre was paid except an amount of Rs.100/- under each agreement. As per the agreement the balance amount has to be paid by the vendees on or before 31.12.1980. It is clear from the document that the vendors agreed to deliver the possession of the property at the time of the registration of the property. So, possession was not delivered to the vendees as on 26.7.1980.
89)The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that they paid the balance consideration of Rs.100/- under each agreement to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus they paid the entire sale consideration to the vendors. On this aspect, it is the evidence of PW1 that they paid the balance consideration in the stipulated time of 31.12.1980. So, he is not specific about the date of payment as 31.12.1980. On this aspect, it is the evidence of PW3 that they gave the balance consideration of
Rs.100/- by the date of subscribing of the documents on stamp papers which according to the plaintiffs was on 6.4.1986 which is not the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of other plaintiffs. In his cross-examination he says that he paid balance sale consideration of about Rs.200/- and odd and that by mistake there is mention in the plaint that the said amount is Rs.100/-. It is the evidence of PW4/another purchaser that the balance consideration of Rs.100/- was paid to D1 after four or five months of the agreements without specifying the date of payment. In the cross- examination, PW4 says that the same was paid after four months but he cannot give the date of payment. Coming to another plaintiff as PW5 the balance consideration of
Rs.100/- was paid after two years which is different from the evidence of other witnesses. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the date of payment of balance consideration they asked the vendors to register the sale deeds which is not at all the case of the plaintiffs. So, the four plaintiffs examined as PWs 1, 3 to 5 are giving different versions regarding the payment of balance amount of Rs.100/- under 109 APKR030006622008 each agreement. Admittedly, there is no documentary proof for the alleged payments and no endorsement was obtained on the agreements regarding the said payment. If really such payments were made, the same would have been reflected on the agreements or at least by a separate receipt. In view of the above evidence of the plaintiffs and due to lack of any documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiffs regarding payment of the balance consideration is held as not proved.
90)There is no dispute that the plaintiffs purchased the adjoining lands of the plaint schedule property under Exs.A3 to A5 on 4.7.1961 and about their possession of the adjoining lands of the plaint schedule property. It is specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule properties were occupied by the plaintiffs in the year 1961 itself and have been enjoyed and that in the year 1980 they entered into the agreements under Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10/Exs.B11 to B13. It is admitted under the agreements that the vendors have agreed to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties at the time of the registration of the sale deeds. So, as per the documents Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10/Exs.B11 to B13 the plaintiffs were not in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the agreements. So, their claim that they were in possession of the property even prior to that date cannot be accepted. Added to that, in his evidence, PW1 admitted that on the date of agreements, possession was not delivered to them and that after payment of the balance consideration on 31.12.1980 the lands were delivered to them, which means that they were not in possession of the schedule lands prior to 31.12.1980. It is against the pleading of the plaintiffs that they have been in possession of the schedule lands right from 1961. If really the plaintiffs were in possession by the date of sale agreements, there is no question of delivering the possession of the property at the time of registration or at the time of alleged payment of balance consideration 110 APKR030006622008 on 31.12.1980. So, the case of the plaintiffs regarding coming into possession of the plaint schedule property is not consistent.
91)Having pleaded that they paid the balance consideration by 31.12.1980, nothing is pleaded by the plaintiffs as to why they could not obtain registered sale deeds at the same time and why they waited upto 6.4.1986 when they approached the vendors. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in John
Thomas vs. Joseph Thomas [AIR 2000 Kerala 408] for the proposition that the delay or latches seeking performance of agreement when all payments were made and purchaser was put in possession of the property and when notice was given for specific performance four years after execution of the agreement, no delay or latches can be inferred on the part of the petitioner. There is no dispute about the same. But in this case payment of entire consideration and delivery of possession is not proved to take advantage of the above decision.
92)Coming to evidence in this case, PW1, on this aspect, says that the registration of the sale deeds was postponed as the purchase value is lesser than the basic value register and only in the year 1986 they came to know the direction of the
District Registrar to register the sale deeds as per the purchase value. This fact was not at all pleaded by the plaintiffs and it is only introduced in the evidence of PW1 and therefore, is not supported by pleadings. Further nothing is placed before the court to establish the statement made in the evidence of PW1.
93)Coming to PW3 on this aspect, there is nothing in his evidence as to why the registration was postponed. It is the evidence of PW3 that when they asked the vendors to execute registered sale deed six years prior to his evidence, which was given in 2001, that is, nearly in 1995, the vendors asked them to come with Non-
Judicial stamp and subsequently the vendors informed that they applied for reduction 111 APKR030006622008 of the value of the stamp to the District Registrar and that it would take some time.
So, this version of PW3 is totally different from the evidence of PW1.
94)On this aspect, PW4 stated that the purchase value of the land was less than the basic register value and therefore, they filed petition before the District
Registrar for reduction of the stamp duty and subsequently the same was accepted.
It is not stated as to when they made such a request to the District Registrar and when it was accepted. As already stated there is no pleading to that effect showing reason for not getting the registered sale deeds immediately after alleged payment of balance consideration. No document is also placed to substantiate the said fact.
95)Coming to PW5, as already stated he deposed that the balance consideration was paid after two years of the agreement that is, in the year 1982 and he gave no reason for not getting the registered sale deeds immediately. It is his evidence that after six years they approached the vendor and when the vendor asked to bring Non-Judicial stamps for execution of the sale deeds, they filed a petition for reduction of the stamp value and the District Registrar then gave direction to value the sale as per the sale consideration and they purchased the stamps accordingly.
So, the version given by PWs 1, 3 to 5 on this aspect is inconsistent apart from being not supported by pleadings. It shows that inspite of the averment that they paid the consideration by 31.12.1980 itself there is no explanation from the plaintiffs for not getting the registered sale deeds till they claim to have demanded the vendors to register the sale deeds on 6.4.1986. As already found, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their contention regarding payment of the balance consideration by 31.12.1980. All these facts show that the plaintiffs are unable to explain their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract till they made demand for registration of the sale deeds on 6.4.1986 nearly for a period of more than five years.
112 APKR030006622008
96)This is a suit prior to amendment to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, which mandates under sub-Section (c) that the plaintiff has to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. In this case, there is no pleading by the plaintiffs that they have performed or has always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Hence, in view of the bar contained in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act (prior to amendment) the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek specific performance of the contracts.
97)Nextly, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and vendors assembled on 6.4.1986 at 8.30 am, at the house of the 1st defendant at
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada for completion of the sale transaction and that the plaintiffs were ready with the general stamps for executing the sale deeds, that draft sale deeds were scribed by PW2, that the same were en-grafted on stamp papers on the instructions of the vendors and that the vendors postponed the registration on the ground that they want to verify the sale deeds through their people and Advocate at
Eluru and subsequently they registered the property in the name of the defendants.
98)PW2 is examined as the scribe of the draft sale deeds. PWs 1, 3 to 5 are also examined to prove the said transaction on 6.4.1986 and subsequent dates.
It is the evidence of PW1 that on 6.4.1986 himself, D2 to D4 and two other defendants went to the house of the 1st defendant and requested to execute registered documents pursuant to the registered agreements. In the pleadings it is stated that the plaintiff and other vendees went to the house of vendors and that plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5, 8, 10 and father of 6th defendant and others were ready with stamps. So the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the pleadings.
Further, in the cross-examination on this aspect, he stated that himself, PW2, his two brothers, D3 to D5 and D7 and some others went to the house of the vendors. So, 113 APKR030006622008 he is not giving the presence of his brothers, D2 and D5 in his chief-examination but he is giving their presence in the cross-examination.
99)On this aspect, PW2/scribe says in his chief-examination that on 6.4.1986 himself, PW1, Seetharama Sarma and Venkateswara Sarma, who are two brothers of PW1, went to the house of the vendors. He is not at all speaking the presence of D2 to D5, D7 or any other defendant. In his cross-examination he states that himself and PW1 and his two brothers only went to the house of the defendants.
So, the evidence of PW2 on this aspect, is not consistent with his own evidence in the chief examination and the evidence of PW1.
100) PW1 stated that PW2 prepared the draft sale deeds and then asked them to get typed on stamp papers. On this aspect, PW2 states that he was asked by the vendors to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers while PW1 stated that it is
PW2 who asked him to get the sale deeds typed.
101) In his cross-examination, PW1 says that on his dictation PW2 prepared the draft sale deeds and as the same were acceptable to all, himself and PW2 went to Vuyyuru, got the sale deeds typed on stamp papers and returned from Vuyyuru to
Vijayawada, picked up the brothers of PW1, who were at the house of their relatives and then went to the house of the 1st defendant. So, according to PW1 only himself and PW2 went to Vuyyuru to get the sale deeds drafted on stamp papers.
102) PW1 worked as Karanam of Chagantipadu village for about 40 years and scribed several documents and he knows the procedure of drafting sale deeds and getting them registered. He knows that sale deed is a compulsorily registrable document. He admitted that himself and PW2 have good intimacy as PW2 is residing in the neighbouring house. So, PW2 is closely acquainted to PW1, who is well versed in preparation of sale deeds and he himself is a document writer. PW1 pleaded ignorance about PW2 working in Co-operate Bank and being removed from service 114 APKR030006622008 on some allegations. But PW2 admitted that he worked in Chagantipadu Co- operative Bank for some time and he was removed from service of the Bank. PW2 admitted that he took lease of the lands of the plaintiffs which is denied by PW1. So,
PW1 is suppressing the fact that PW2 is their lessee and that PW2 was removed from the Co-operative Bank. PW2 is not a licensed document writer and he did not scribe any other documents. In fact, it is the evidence of both PWs 1 and 2 that on the dictation of PW1, PW2 scribed the documents. Further PW1 admitted that there are several persons in the village, who can draft the sale deeds and he has taken
PW2 because he is his neighbour though there are several well versed document writers in their village. It shows the closeness of PW2 with PW1 and it shows that
PW2 is an interested witness in the case of PW1.
103) PW1 says that he did not state to the vendors that the sale deeds will be prepared manuscript. It is not known why manuscripted sale deeds were not prepared on stamp papers immediately at the house of the defendants, when it is the case of PW1 that the stamps were purchased one month prior to 6.4.1986 and then went to the house of the vendors and why all the way they went to Vuyyuru which is at a distance of 20 miles to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers. Further even if they wanted to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers why they did not get them typed at Vijayawada and they went to Vuyyuru all the way spending time and money is not known. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that he went to Vuyyuru to a specified institute at the Sub-Registrar’s office as it was known to him.
104) PW1 stated that defendants 2 to 5 and 7 also accompanied him to the house of the vendors but he did not state their presence when again he went to the house of the vendors after getting the typed sale deeds. He only stated about his brothers accompanying him to the house of the vendors along with PW2.
115 APKR030006622008
105) PW1 stated that after typed sale deeds are brought and read over, the vendors informed that the sale deeds are to be shown their advocate at Eluru and when he questioned about the same they insisted verification by their advocate and asked to give them one typed sale deed with concerned agreement relating to one person. Then it is not known why three typed sale deeds with three agreements were handed over by the plaintiffs to the vendors as stated in the chief-examination. He tried to explain in his further cross-examination that as they were asked the sale deed and agreement relating to one person he gave three sale deeds and three agreements relating to one person, but the same cannot be accepted.
106) PW1 admitted that he did not ask the vendors as to why the typed stamp papers are required instead of draft copies and did not suggest them to take copies for verification by their advocate. He did not even ask them to take the carbon copies instead of original documents for the purpose of verification. So, the evidence of PW1 that the vendors insisted for typed sale deeds along with original agreements appears to be unnatural and not probable.
107) PW1 admits that he knows that the stamps have to be purchased as per the market value but not according to the sale value and that he verified the market value also. But he has not filed any market value certificates. He states that the market value as on 6.7.1980 was Rs.14,000/- per acre and that he did not enquire the market value as on 6.4.1986. When the stamps are to be purchased as per the market value PW1 says that he did not purchase the stamps as per the market value and there is no reason for doing so because if they want to proceed with registration they have to purchase the stamps as per the market value as agreed by them. In fact
PW1 says that one month prior to 6.4.1986 the stamps were purchased and they went to the house of the vendors along with stamps.
116 APKR030006622008
108) PW1 admits that normally the vendor has to sign first on the sale deed, then the attestors would sign and then only the scribe would sign. But in this case, the typed sale deeds were stated to have been signed by PW2 without the signatures of the vendors and attestors and it is stated by PW1 that PW2 signed on the documents and gave three documents on D1 along with respective agreements which is against the normal procedure adopted. In view of the closeness of PW2 with
PW1, this act of PW2 signing on the documents as scribe without the signatures of vendors and attestors also is doubtful.
109) The plaintiffs did not issue any notice to the vendors demanding them to execute sale deeds. They did not issue any notice to the vendors informing that they purchased stamps for the sale deeds. They did not issue any notice to the defendants from 6.4.1986 till the date of filing of the suit demanding to sign the sale deeds and register them.
110) It was suggested to PW1 that as on 6.4.1986 D1 was not residing at
Satyanarayanapuram where the plaintiffs have stated to have gone to the house of the D1 but she was residing at the house of one T.Rangadasu, Chaparlavari street,
Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada and the same is denied. No evidence is placed to show the residence of the defendant No.1 at Satyanarayanapuram as on the date of 6.4.1986.
111)PW1 admitted that one Putchakayala Gangi Reddy was attestor of the sale agreements but he denies the suggestion that Putchakayala Gangi Reddy negotiated the sale transactions between them stating that he himself transacted the same with the vendors.
112) As could be seen from the evidence of PW2, he speaks of the presence of Meka Sambrajya Lakshmamma only but not the other vendor/Meka Raja
Rajeswari Devi and Rama Mohana Rao saying that he does not know the others 117 APKR030006622008 present at that time. He states that after preparing draft sale deeds on white papers and reading over the contents he was asked to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers and accordingly he prepared five sale deeds on the stamps brought by PW1, three in the name of Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma and two in the name of
Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi. So, at the first instance PW2 is not stating about preparing the typed sale deeds by going to Vuyyuru after preparation of the draft sale deeds. Only in the cross-examination he says about the same. PW2 does not know what is meant by schedules, which is part of a sale deed showing that he has no knowledge about the drafting of sale deeds. PW2 stated that only himself and PW1 came to the house of the 1st defendant after preparation of the typed sale deeds from
Vuyyuru but PW1 stated that himself and his brothers, who were fetched from the house of relatives also went to the house of the 1st defendant. PW2 is not giving the presence of the brothers of PW1 when they went second time on 6.4.1986. As already stated he has not stated about the presence of defendants 2 to 5 and 7 when they went to the house of D1 in the morning hours.
113) PW1 says that three sale deeds and three agreements of Sambrajya
Lakshmamma were handed over as they wanted to be verified by their advocate. If that is so, why the documents relating to Raja Rajeswari Devi were not taken is not known. PW2 says that he cannot say why only three sale deeds were given and why the other two sale deeds were not given.
114) As per the evidence of PW3 about six years prior to his evidence, in summer time when they asked their vendors to execute register sale deed, they asked them to come with Non-Judicial stamps and then they approached them along with one Satyanarayana/scribe of Chagantipadu. The evidence of PW3 was given on 17.7.2001 and if the above incident is taken as spoken to by PW3 it must have happened in 1995. But it is the case of the plaintiffs that the draft sale deeds were 118 APKR030006622008 prepared on 6.4.1986 nine years prior to 1995. So, the evidence of PW3 about the said aspect is completely inconsistent with the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Further PW3 gives the name of one Satyanarayana as scribe, but in this case PW2’s name is Swarna Venkateswara Rao.
115) As per PW1 and the case of the plaintiffs the balance consideration of
Rs.100/- was paid on 31.12.1980 but PW3 says that it was paid by the date of scribing of the documents on stamp papers, which is on 6.4.1986 as per the plaintiffs case and which is in 1995 as per the evidence of PW3. Further according to PW3 the balance consideration was about to Rs.200/- and odd which is incorrect and not in accordance with the case of the plaintiffs.
116) PW3 is plaintiff in OS 627/1991. The presence of PW3 is not at all spoken to by PWs 1 and 2 as one of the persons, who went to the vendors on 6.4.1986. But PW3 speaks about drafting of the sale deeds on white papers and giving three sets of stamps and agreements and D1 promising them to come after two days for registration.
117) PW1 says that after giving of the typed sale deeds and agreements, the vendors stated to them that they would return the same after two days and so, they went to the vendors on 9.4.1986 and again they were asked them to come after 15 to 20 days, so, that they can get drafts verified by their advocate. On this aspect, it is the evidence of PW3 that vendor asked them to come after two days for registration and when they went after two days for registration they were informed by the vendor that they applied for reduction of value of the stamp duty to the District Registrar and it will take some time. This is a strange version from PW3 which is not the case of the plaintiffs and evidence of PW1.
118) PW1 stated that D2 to D4 and two other defendants accompanied them to the house of the vendors on 6.4.1986. In fact, he stated that they were well aware 119 APKR030006622008 of preparation of draft sale deeds and typing of the sale deeds on stamps including their documents. Now, PW3 in his evidence says that D2 to D4 did not accompany them to the house of the vendors. PW1 stated that he negotiated the transaction of the sale with the vendors and PW3 says that he himself negotiated the same with the vendors personally.
119) The sale agreements are dated 26.7.1980. PW3 is unable to give the date of the agreements. The sale agreements were registered one month after their execution. But PW3 says that on the same date of agreements they were registered.
PW3 does not know the contents of the agreements and what is the recital in the agreements about delivery of possession of land.
120) PW1 stated that they purchased the stamps one month prior to 6.4.1986.
PW3 says that the scribe came along with them on the date of purchase of the stamps at the Registrar’s office, Vuyyuru at about 8.30 am. Further PW3 says that on the same date of purchase of Non-judicial stamps at Vuyyuru they took them to
D1 that is, on 6.4.1986 they purchased the stamps and on the same day they went to the house of D1 which is not the version of PWs 1 and 2.
121) PW3 says that the balance consideration was paid on the date of handing over the Non-Judicial stamps to D1 which according to the plaintiffs is 6.4.1986. As per the pleadngs of the plaintiffs they made the payment of balance consideration on 31.12.1980 but not on 6.4.1986. PW3 is unable to state the amount of balance consideration paid by him and when he made payment to D1. Further he says that he handed over the stamps and balance consideration to the son of D1, namely, Rama Mohana Rao in the presence of D1 and her sister.
122) It is the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PW1 that while they were waiting for the information from the vendors, they received the notices in OS 513/1986. It is not their case that they approached D1 after the notices. But PW3 120 APKR030006622008 strangely deposes that after receipt of the notice from the Court in OS 513/1986 himself, PW1 and Rami Reddy went to D1 and asked about the execution of the sale deed and that they informed that they would execute the sale deed in due course of time and send word to them and therefore, they kept quiet. This version of PW3 is altogether a new version from the case of the plaintiffs.
123) It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property from 1961 onwards but PW3 says that they have been in possession of the property from the last 20 years prior to his evidence given in 2001 which means he claims possession from 1980 only.
124) It is the case of the plaintiffs and evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that typed sale deeds on stamp papers were handed over to the vendors on 6.4.1986 but PW3 says that only blank Non-judicial stamps were handed over to the vendors. In fact,
PW3 produced Ex.A17 as typed carbon copy of the sale deed dated 6.4.1986. So, the evidence of PW3 is inconsistent with his own version. PW1 says that himself and
PW2 went to Vuyyuru and got the sale deeds typed but PW3 says that he also went along with PW1 and scribe to Vuyyuru for getting the sale deeds typed. Further he stated that all the purchasers were present at the time of getting the sale deeds typed at Vuyyuru.
125) PW3 produced Ex.A17 as carbon copy of typed sale deed stating that the original was handed over to the vendors and it is the prosecution case only scribe signed on the typed sale deed. But in the cross-examination PW3 says that the 1st defendant signed on the original of Ex.A17 and the same is available with him and he can produce the same before the court if necessary. This evidence of PW3 completely destroys the case of the plaintiffs regarding handing over typed sale deeds without the signatures of the vendors and only with the signatures of the scribe to the vendors. So, the discussion made above shows that the evidence of PW3 is 121 APKR030006622008 inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ case and is such that it destroys the case of the plaintiffs regarding the episode on 6.4.1986.
126) On this aspect, the 6th plaintiff in OS 103/1992, examined as PW4 states that as the Sub-Registrar told them that the basic register value is Rs.13,000/-, they filed petition before District Registrar for reduction of stamp duty and later being informed by the Sub-Registrar that they accept the value of the consideration for the stamps they approached the 1st defendant requesting to execute sale deeds basing on the agreements and that D1 asked them to come after two days with Non-judicial stamps for execution of sale deeds and accordingly himself, PW1 and other plaintiffs along with PW2 went to D1 taking Non-judicial stamps. It is not the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PW1 that D1 asked them to bring stamp papers for execution of the sale deeds and after two days they went to D1 along with stamp papers. PW4 is not at all stating the presence of D2 to D4 when they went to D1 as spoken by to PW1. So, the evidence of PW4 is different from the evidence of PW1 on this aspect. Further PW4 is not at all giving any date of approaching D1.
127) As already stated it is not at all the pleading of the plaintiffs that they made an application to the District Registrar for reduction of the stamp duty and they have not filed any such proof. Further PW4 says that they purchased Non-judicial stamps on the date when they went to Vijayawada to obtain sale deeds. It is the evidence of PW1 that they purchased stamps one month prior to 6.4.1986 when they went to D1 to get the sale deeds executed. PW4 does not know the value of the stamp and in whose name the stamps were purchased.
128) It is the evidence of PW4 that when the vendors asked them to get the sale deeds typed on Non-judicial stamps, he also accompanied PW1 to Vuyyuru and came back to D1 along with typed sale deeds. The presence of PW4 is not spoken to by Pws.1 and 2 at that time.
122 APKR030006622008
129) PW4 stated that PW2 expressed his difficulty to come again after two days and thereupon the vendors asked him to put his signatures on the sale deeds as scribe and accordingly PW2 signed on Ex.A15/sale deed relating to their agreement. It is not the evidence of PW2 that he expressed his inconvenience to come again after two days and then the vendors asked him to sign on the said documents as scribe and then he signed. It is his evidence that both parties asked him to sign and so, he signed.
130) PW4 stated that D2 to D5 and vendees under Ex.A15 accompanied them after the date of transaction preparing draft sale deeds. But as already stated
PW3 completely rules out the presence of D2 to D4 at that time. PW4 gives the date of purchase of stamps as 31.12.1986 on which date he stated that they went to
Vijayawada to get the sale deeds drafted. In this case, it is on on 6.4.1986 the plaintiffs stated to have prepared the typed sale deeds on stamp papers and PW1 says that the stamps were purchased one month prior to it. Now, PW4 says that they went to Vijayawada for the said purpose on 31.12.1986 nearly after more than six months after 6.4.1986 which is not possible. Even the draft sale deeds filed are dated 6.4.1986.
131) The evidence of PW4 that all the plaintiffs purchased the stamps on the same date at about 6.30 or 7.00 am, at Vuyyuru and then they proceeded to
Vijayawada by bus and reached the house of D1 by 8.30 or 9.00 am, is not in accordance with the evidence of PW1 and other witnesses. PW4 says that about four or five persons went back to Vuyyuru along with PW4 for typing the sale deeds and reached there before 1.00 pm, and it took two or three hours for getting the sale deeds typed. This version is also not in accordance with the evidence of PW1, who stated that himself and PW2 only went to Vuyyuru by 11.00 am, and returned by 3.30 pm, to Vijayawada. The evidence of PW4 that two or three days prior to the 123 APKR030006622008 preparation of sale deeds they came to Vijayawada and informed their vendors about the purchase of stamps and the said fact is also mentioned in the plaint, is also different from the evidence of PW1.
132) In this case, Exs.A14, A17 and A23/ carbon copies of typed sale deeds said to have been prepared on 6.4.1986. But PW4 says that he does not know whether any carbon copies were prepared at the time of typing the sale deeds at
Vuyyuru creating doubt about getting the sale deeds typed at Vuyyuru.
133) The 4th plaintiff in OS 625/1991 and 6th plaintiff in OS 100/1992 is examined as PW5 and he speaks of Exs.A1 and A2. He is the son of PW3. As already stated his evidence is that the balance consideration of Rs.100/- was paid after two years when it is the case of the plaintiffs that it was on 30.12.1980 within six months from the date of agreements. So, the evidence of PW5 is discrepant on this aspect. PW5 also says that they approached D1 after six years for execution of sale deeds and D1 asked to come after two days with stamps which is not the case of plaintiffs and PW1. PW5 says that they already purchased Non-judicial stamps but it is the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that they purchased the stamps on the same day when they approached D1 for sale deeds.
134) PW5 says that they filed a petition to the District Registrar for reduction of stamp values fort their sale deeds and he gave direction to value the same as per the agreement value and they purchased the stamps accordingly and accordingly they went to the vendors purchasing stamps. PW5 also has not stated any date of such representation to the District Registrar and direction of the District Registrar and no proof is filed in that regard. As already stated it is not at all the pleading of the plaintiffs.
135) According to PW5, himself, D2, D3, PW1, PW3 and plaintiffs in other suits approached D1 after purchasing Non-judicial stamps and again after two days 124 APKR030006622008 they went to D1 along with PW2 to prepare draft sale deeds which is not the evidence of PW1. It is the evidence of PW5 that he also went to Vuyyuru at the time of typing five (5) sale deeds at Vuyyuru and again going to the house of D1, but his presence is not spoken to by other witnesses.
136) PW5 says that the vendors asked the scribe to put his signatures on the five (5) sale deeds and the scribe raised objection to sign first without the signatures of the vendors. It is not the case of the PW2 or other witnesses. PW2 says that at the request of both parties he subscribed his signature. PW5 says that D2 to D4 were also present at the time of the preparation of the draft sale deeds and delivery of the typed documents to the vendors but PW3 ruled out their presence stating that they were not present at that time.
137) PW5 being a party to the agreements states that nothing is mentioned in the agreements regarding possession of the lands and he is unable to state the terms of the agreements and he is unable to state when the balance consideration was paid. PW5 says that Non-judicial stamps were purchased six months prior to the date of draft sale deeds but PW1 stated that the stamps were purchased one month prior to 6.4.1986. The stamps on Exs.A15 and A16 show that they were purchased on 14.8.1985 more than eight months prior to 6.4.1986.
138) PW5 strangely stated that they got the sale deeds typed two days prior to their going to the house of D1 at Vijayawada which is different from the case of the plaintiffs. Again he resciled from his statement and states that he does not know what conspired at D1’s house as he left the same on some other work at about 10.00 am.
139) On the other side, one of the purchasers under the sale agreements, who is the 8th defendant in OS 626/1991 is examined as DW3. He says that they did not make payment of the balance consideration of Rs.100/- stating that they abandoned their agreements during September, 1980. The name of DW3 is found in 125 APKR030006622008
Exs.A17 and A23/typed sale deeds, but he denies the said transaction. Nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of DW3 in favour of plaintiffs. In fact, as already observed, the evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses is inconsistent with each other and is not in accordance with their pleadings.
140) Nothing is elicited from DW4/Rama Mohana Appa Rao/ GPA holder of both sisters/vendors whose presence was pleaded at the time of transaction on 6.4.1986 regarding preparation of draft sale deeds and he denied the case of the plaintiffs suggested to him. DW5/another purchaser under the agreements also is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs stating that they did not make payment of the balance consideration and says that they abandoned the sale agreements two months after the execution. He denied the case of the plaintiffs suggested to him regarding the draft sale deeds on 6.4.1986.
141) The evidence of DW6 proves that plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in OS 103/1992 have given up their claim basing on the agreements dated 26.7.1980 and filed memos under Exs.B15 and B17 abandoning the suit claim made therein. So, the said plaintiffs are also not supporting the case of the plaintiffs.
142) In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that on 6.4.1986 they approached the vendors for execution of the registered sale deeds; that they agreed to execute registered sale deeds asking to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers; that they took three original sale agreements/Exs.B11 to B13 and three typed sale deeds on stamp papers on the guise of showing to their advocate and subsequently failed to keep up their promise.
So, except the execution of the agreements under Exs.A1, A2, B11 to B13 admitted by the defendants, the plaintiffs are unable to establish the subsequent pleadings of the plaintiffs and their readiness or willingness to perform their part of the contract till the defendants filed OS 513/1986 subsequently numbered as OS 88/1988.
126 APKR030006622008
143) It is the case of the 1st defendant that though she entered into the sale agreements on 26.7.1980, the plaintiffs abandoned the land and did not seek registered sale deeds from her and having felt that they entered into an useless transaction as they could not get any income and regretting for the investment made, the plaintiffs approached Putchakayala Gangireddy, who originally arranged the sale and requested her to pay back the money paid by them under the sale agreements and to retain the land to herself. Further she pleaded that on pursuation of the said
Gangireddy, D1 agreed for the same and accordingly the vendors paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiffs through Gangi Reddy and accordingly three original registered agreements executed by the 1st defendant were handed over to her by the purchasers.
144) It is the argument of the counsel for the plaintiffs that in OS 513/1986 defendants failed to plead about the cancellation of the sale agreements, refund of the consideration and return of three original sale agreements and subsequently they have taken the said pleas after amendment. He relied upon a decision in
D.V.Seshaiah Vs. D.Venkaiah [AIR 1974 AP 193], Union of India vs.Ram Peary
Debi [AIR 1984 Calcutta 215] and Dr.T.M.Jayarama Reddy vs. B.Sreeramaiah
Chetty [2000(4) ALT 81] for the proposition that no amount of evidence without pleadings cannot be accepted. There is no dispute about these decisions. It is evident from the record that originally the defendants filed OS 513/1986 for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs and after dismissal of their IA under Ex.A6 and confirmed in appeal under Ex.A7, they changed their relief in the suit making amendment of the plaint for recovery of possession in the year 1988 and they converted OS 513/1986 into OS 88/1988 and at that time only they pleaded against the plaintiffs regarding their agreements of sale. The vendors were not parties to OS 513/1986 (OS 88/1988) and they are parties only the suits for specific performance of 127 APKR030006622008 the sale agreements and at the same time, the 1st defendant and other defendants have taken the plea of the cancellation of the sale agreements, refund of the consideration and return of the three agreements in the suits for specific performance and there was no chance for D1 to take the said plea and for other defendants to plead the same in OS 513/1986 which was filed for permanent injunction only.
Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs cannot stand.
145) To prove their case, the vendos/D1s in specific performance suits examined their GPA holder as DW4. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 1st defendants having special knowledge have to come into witness box to speak their own case and in this case as they were not examined without genuine and valid reasons, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them in view of the decisions in (Pathuri) Subrahmanya Sastry v. (Pathuri)
Lakshminarasamma and others [AIR 1958 AP 22]. There is no dispute about this decision.
146) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Kodelly Chinna Chinnanna vs. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna and others [2004 (1) ALD 241] wherein it was held in para 11 that a power of attorney surrogates a party in all aspects, including giving of evidence and that as contemplated under
Section 18 of the Evidence Act, statements made by an agent constitute a valid admission and there is no completely any bar against the power of attorney being examined on behalf of the party. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is of 1958 rendered by single Judge of Hon’ble High Court where as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is of the year 2004 rendered by Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, there is no force in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
128 APKR030006622008
147) In this case, undisputedly, DW4 is the son of Meka Venkata Sambrajya
Lakshmi and was present throughout the transaction as admitted by the plaintiffs.
Raja Rajeswari Devi is the sister of Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmi. Through Exs.B9 and B10/registered General Power of Attornies executed by Venkata Sambrajya
Lakshmi and Raja Rajeswari Devi, DW4 gave evidence having knowledge about the transactions. Though there is no recital in Exs.B9 and B10 authorizing DW4 to give evidence on behalf of the vendors, since DW4 has personal knowledge about the facts and since his presence is admitted at the time of the transactions, in view of
Exs.B9 and B10, he is a competent witness to speak. So, both the vendors have examined DW4 on their behalf and it cannot be said that they have not entered into the witness box to speak their case and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against them.
148) DW4 admitted about their sale agreements under Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10 and produced Exs.B11 to B13 as the original sale agreements handed over to them by the vendees repudiating the sale agreements. So, admittedly, the vendors are in possession of three out of five (5) original sale agreements supporting the case of the defendants that they were handed over to the vendors due to repudiation of the agreements. As already held, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the said three original registered agreements for sale were handed over to the vendors on 6.4.1986 along with three draft sale deeds typed on stamp papers.
149) Apart from the above circumstance, DW4 deposed that the vendees abandoned their sale agreements in September, 1980 and that they refunded the amounts to the vendees and accordingly the vendees also returned Exs.B11 to B13 promising to return the other two agreements and that they did not obtain any cancellation endorsements on the agreements as the sale agreements were returned to them. Further he stated that when they demanded the vendees to return the other 129 APKR030006622008 two sale agreements, twice or thrice thereafter they stated that they would return them afterwards.
150) DW4 stated that his mother and her sister have not negotiated or settled the suit transaction with the vendees and that he himself negotiated on their behalf and received the consideration also on their behalf and that the vendors have not received any consideration directing him from the vendees. In fact, he stated that he is the person who got the written statement prepared and then obtained the signatures of the vendors/D1s thereon. It shows that DW4 being the son of Venkata
Sambrajya Lakshmi and sister’s son of Raja Rajeswari has dealt with the matter on their behalf.
151) DW4 stated in the cross-examination that he refunded the consideration amounts to the parties concerned under the sale agreements. Though it was suggested to DW4 that Sambrajya Lakshmi and Raja Rajeswari had no knowledge of the cancellation of the agreements and refund, it is clear from the Registered General
Power of Attornies that they authorized DW4 to deal with their cases having knowledge about the same. The evidence of DW4 is in accordance with the written statement of the vendors and he was admittedly present at the time of the transactions. DW4 stated that he does not remember the date of abandonment of the sale agreements in September, 1980. He stated that PWs 1 and 3 went to their house and informed about their cancellation of the sale agreements in the presence of himself and his mother and her sister and Gangireddy and the entire amount of the agreements was refunded to PWs 1 and 3 on behalf of others also but no receipts were obtained. He says that it is PWs 1 and 3, who handed over Exs.B11 to
B13. According to DW4, Putchakayala Gangi Reddy, who was watchman of their lands negotiated and settled the sale agreements also. DW4 also states that
Gangireddy brought PWs 1 and 3 to their house as he negotiated the matter. Though 130 APKR030006622008 it was suggested to DW4 that Gangireddy indulged in fraudulent transactions, the same is not relevant for consideration in this case and the same is also not established.
152) D2 to D4, admittedly, were parties to the sale agreements and they are supporting the case of the defendants regarding the cancellation of the sale agreements by making refund of the consideration paid thereunder. This is also a circumstance in support of the case of the defendants that in view of the cancellation of the sale agreements and taking back the consideration thereunder, D2 to D4 entered into the transaction of sale in the year 1986 regarding the same property.
153) Admittedly, there is no mention about the sale agreements/Exs.A1, A2,
B11 to B13 in the sale deeds marked as Exs.B1 to B4 executed in favour of the defendants. Since it is the case of the vendors that the sale agreements were cancelled in September, 1980 itself and some of the purchasers/D2 to D4 are parties to the sale deeds, the non-mention of the sale agreements in the sale deeds is not improbable.
154) DW4 is unable to state the specific amount refunded to each vendee under the sale agreements but stated that the entire amount was refunded. He states that he did not maintain any record to show the refunded amount. But on the above grounds it cannot be said that the evidence of DW4 regarding the cancellation of the sale agreements cannot be accepted. The evidence of DW4 remained unimpeached in the cross-examination and is supported by possession of original sale agreements/Exs.B11 to B13 as the plaintiffs failed to establish their contention regarding loosing the original sale agreement from their possession.
155) DWs1 and 2 have no personal knowledge about the cancellation of the sale agreements. DW3 is one of the purchasers under the sale agreements and he states that there was no delivery of possession of the property under the registered 131 APKR030006622008 agreements of sale and that they did not make payment of the balance consideration as agreed on or before 31.12.1980. He affirms the case of the defendants that the sale agreements were abandoned in September, 1980 itself and that Putchakayala
Gangireddy, who arranged the bargain and attested the sale agreements also arranged refund of the advance amount paid under the sale agreements by return of the sale agreements and accordingly they returned three sale agreements and informed that the other two sale agreements were not traced and they would be returned subsequently. He states that they abandoned the agreements as the lands were not worthy and unfit for cultivation. The evidence of DW3 remained unimpeached in the cross-examination and it establishes the contention of the defendants regarding the cancellation of the sale agreements taking refund of the advance sale consideration paid thereunder.
156) DW5 is another purchaser under two sale agreements out of five (5) sale agreements. He states that the transaction was negotiated by Putchakayala
Gangireddy and that subsequently they abandoned their agreements receiving the consideration paid by them two months after the sale agreements. Nothing material is elicited from the cross-examination of DW5 to impeach his evidence.
157) The defendants have raised the issue of limitation for the suits for specific performance. It is their contention that time is the essence of the sale agreements as it is recited therein that the remaining consideration of Rs.100/- under each sale agreements has to be paid on or before 31.12.1980 and the sale deed is to be obtained from the vendors and since the suits have been filed only in the year 1989 they are clearly barred by time.
158) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
T.L.Muddu Krishna and another vs. Lalitha Ramachandra Rao (Smt.) [1997 AIR
SC 772] and submitted that limitation cuts the very root of the case of the plaintiffs
132 APKR030006622008 and when time is fixed for performance whether or not time is the essence of the contract is not of much relevance since the case falls in the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act. There is no dispute about this decision.
159) A perusal of Ex.A1, A2, B11 to B13 shows that the vendees have to make payment of balance consideration of Rs.100/- on or before 31.12.1980 and get registered sale deeds executed at their expenses. Further it shows that if the balance consideration is not paid by that date, it has to be paid with interest @ 18% per annum and then registered sale deeds have to be obtained either in the name of the vendees or their nominees. Though time is specified for payment of the remaining consideration as 31.12.1980 but in the subsequent terms it is stated that if the said amount is not paid as stipulated, the vendees have to make payment of the same with 18% interest per annum up till the date of payment and then get registered sale deeds. So, a clause is created for making payment even subsequent to 31.12.1980.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the vendees have to make payment and get registered sale deeds on or before 31.12.1980 only. Accordingly, it cannot be said that time is the essence of the sale agreements.
160) Under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the limitation for specific performance of a contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Since the time is not essence of the sale agreements in this case, the first clause of the Article cannot be applied and it cannot be said that the suit is to be instituted within three years after 31.12.1980 and therefore, the suit cannot be held as barred under this clause.
161) The plaintiffs case come under the second clause. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they made payment of the remaining consideration by 31.12.1980 and took delivery of possession of the lands and that subsequently on 6.4.1986 they 133 APKR030006622008 approached the vendors and got draft sale deeds prepared but since the vendors failed to execute sale deeds and executed sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 to 11 on 5.6.1986 fraudulently and got filed OS 513/1986 subsequently OS 88/1988 on or about 15.2.1988, the suits are filed on 5.4.1989. So, there is no specific refusal by the vendors to create cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit for specific performance. As already held plaintiffs failed to establish their contention regarding payment of consideration by 31.12.1980 coupled with delivery of possession and subsequent transaction on 6.4.1986. Therefore, they cannot rely upon the same. The plaintiffs have not issued any notice to the vendors demanding performance of their contract and there was no such refusal. Since it is stated that after receipt of the notices in injunction petition in OS 513/1986 they came to know about the registered sale deeds dated 5.6.1986 executed by the vendors in favour of D2 to D11, the knowledge of the plaintiffs about the same is to be taken as the date of refusal to perform their part of the sale agreements and is to be taken as starting point for limitation for filing the suits. As could be seen from the plaint in OS 513/1986 it was presented on 2.6.1986 and filed on the same day ordering summons to the defendants, who were plaintiffs in this suits. These suits for specific performance were presented on 5.4.1989. The date of service of notices in the injunction petition is not available and none of the witnesses stated about the same. Even in the absence of such date, even if the date of filing of OS 513/1986 that is, 2.6.1986 is taken as date of refusal and as the starting point for limitation, all the suits for specific performance being filed on 5.4.1989 are within the period of limitation of three years.
Therefore, the suits for specific performance cannot be held as barred by limitation.
162) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in Kalikiri
Ramanujulamma v. Katakam Ramaiah Chetty[1982 (2) ALT 86] for the proposition that a false plea cannot disentitle the plaintiffs for specific performance and that 134 APKR030006622008 plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.100/- with interest at 18% per annum as recited in the sale agreements and they filed memo also to that effect on 28.9.2004. There is no dispute about this decision but that is not the only ground on which the plaintiffs can seek for specific performance.
163) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
K.Sambasiva Rao v. P.Bangaru Raju [1985 (1) ALT 441] for the proposition that abnormal delay will not disentitle the plaintiff the relief of specific performance when the defendant has not altered his position to his detriment. Further he submitted that when there is stipulation for payment of interest in the sale agreements it provides extention of time for execution of the sale deeds and shows that no time is fixed for performance.
164) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs.Chinna Papamma and others [2022 SCC
OnLine AP 406] wherein it was held when fraud is pleaded it should be pleaded with certainity and proved and standard of proof in matters for fraud is very high. But in this case the plaintiffs failed to establish the transaction dated 6.4.1986 and that the sale deeds were executed in favour of the defendants 2 to 11 fraudulently and collusively. There is no dispute about this decision and the plaintiffs who pleaded the same could not prove any collusion or fraudulent action in execution of Exs.B1 to B4 as they failed to prove the transaction dated 6.4.1986.
165) It is the argument of the counsel for defendants that there are 23 purchasers under the agreement/Ex.A9 but only 17 are made parties to the suit and similarly there are 15 purchasers under Ex.A1/agreement but only six are shown as plaintiffs and as the all joint promisees are not parties to the suit either as plaintiffs or as defendants the suit cannot be maintained and he relied upon a decision in
G.Jayashree and others vs. Bhagawan Das S.Patel [2009 SCC (3) 141] in support 135 APKR030006622008 of his argument. There is no dispute about this decision. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs on this aspect submitted that non-joinder of some of the agreement holders is not fatal as the suit can be decreed for the share of the plaintiffs on record. It is submitted that under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act even after passing of the decree, the plaintiffs are entitled to have the sale deed executed in favour of the person or persons nominated during execution proceedings and the Court can permit to amend the decree suitably and therefore, non-joinder of the some of the agreement holders is not fatal.
166) A perusal of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act shows that it relates to seeking reliefs in a suit for specific performance but not adding of any parties at execution stage. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the defendants makes it clear that it is essential in a suit for specific performance that all the parties to the contract should be before the Court and when they are joined on one side or the other, the suit can be proceeded. But in this case, as submitted by the counsel for defendants, some of the parties to the agreements are not parties to the suit, either as plaintiffs or defendants and one such party is examined as DW3. Therefore, in view of the decision relied upon by the counsel for the defendants, the present suits for specific performance are bad for non-joinder of all the necessary parties.
167) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
Shankar Chowhan vs. Suneel Kumar Goyal [2011 SCC OnLine Del.52] for the proposition that without original sale agreements, suit for specific performance is not maintainable and submitted that except Exs.A1 and A2, the plaintiffs failed to produce the originals of other sale agreements which are produced by the defendants as Exs.B11 to B13 and therefore, their suits for specific performance cannot be maintained and there is no dispute about this decision and on that ground also the plaintiffs are to be non-suited.
136 APKR030006622008
168) In view of the above discussion regarding evidence produced by both the parties, it is held that the plaintiffs are unable to establish their claim for specific performance of the sale agreements and on the other hand the defendants are able to establish that there was repudiation of the sale agreements receiving the advance consideration paid under the sale agreements in September, 1980 itself. This point is accordingly answered.
169) POINT NO.2:-
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in R.K.
Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors vs Hajee C.Abdul Wahab (D) & Ors [AIR 2000 SC 1658] for the proposition that in case of contradictory evidence, the circumstances have to be kept in view in deciding as to whose version is more acceptable. Further in the same decision, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon to show that execution of the sale deeds in a haste and without any oral agreement is unusual and therefore, the purchasers cannot be held as bona fide purchasers without notice of the original agreement. There is no dispute about this decision.
170) Further the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
Butchiraju v. Sri Ranga Satyanarayana [AIR 1967 AP 69] for the proposition that knowledge of prior sale agreement and subsequent conduct sufficiently falsify the bona fides of the purchaser. There is no dispute about this decision.
171) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Muralidhar Bapuji Valve vs. Yallappa Lalu Chagule [AIR 1994 Bombay 358] for the proposition that actual possession of the suit land remaining with the plaintiffs for many years is constructive notice of the agreement. There is no dispute about this decision.
172) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Joginder Singh vs. Nidhan Singh [AIR 1996 Punjab & Haryana 120] for the 137 APKR030006622008 proposition that transferee having notice of prior agreement must prove that he had no notice of prior agreement and mere denial is not sufficient. There is no dispute about this decision.
173) In this case, DWs 1 to 3, who are plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 have stated their case about purchase of the plaint schedule properties under Exs.B1 to B4 which are proved. The plaintiffs are contending that the said sale deeds are not binding on them in view of the sale agreements in their favour. So, they are not disputing Exs.B1 to B4. In view of the finding on point No.1, it is held that the sale agreements were repudiated by the purchasers. The defendants 2 to 11, who are purchasers under
Exs.B1 to B4 are having knowledge about the sale agreements in favour of the plaintiffs and in fact D2 to D4 admittedly are some of the purchasers under the sale agreements. But since it is proved that the sale agreements were repudiated, though the defendants 2 to 11 are having knowledge about the sale agreements as they know about the repudiation also, they have to be held as bona fide purchasers of the plaint schedule property under Exs.B1 to B4.
174) Coming to possession of the plaint schedule property, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule properties in part as some of the defendants are in possession of part of the plaint schedule properties.
175) The plaintiffs have raised two legal aspects opposing the claim for recovery of possession made by defendants 2 to 11. The first one is that their possession is protected by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, as they claimed to be in possession of the property consequent upon the delivery of possession basing on the sale agreements after making payment of the balance consideration on 31.12.1980.The second one is that by continuous possession of the 138 APKR030006622008 plaint schedule property right from 1961, they have perfected their title to the plaint schedule property by adverse possession.
176) It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that if the possession of the plaintiffs is authorized and in furtherance of the sale agreement, the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act even if the Court holds that the suits are barred by limitation and relied upon a decision in United
India Insurance Co.Ltd vs M/S.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal [2004 SAR 451 = AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4794]. He also relied upon a decision in Mahadeva vs.
Tanabai [AIR 2004 SC 3854] for the proposition that non enforcement of agreement of sale is not a ground to deny the benefit of plea of part performance of agreement of sale under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no dispute about this decision.
177) The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted their case along with the evidence and stated that they proved their case for decree of specific performance against the defendants but the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving their case. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the assertion of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property from 1961 coupled with the pleadings and evidence that the defendants are not in possession since last 50 years shows that if the possession is unauthorized it amounts to dispossession of the vendors and by virtue of Section 27 and Article 64 of the
Limitation Act, 1973 read with Section 28 and Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the right and title of the vendors as well as the defendants, who are claiming through the vendors must be deemed to have been extinguished.
178) Coming to their possession from 1961 as the plaint schedule properties are adjoining the lands purchased by the plaintiffs under Exs.A3 to A5, except making a claim nothing is placed by the plaintiffs to substantiate their possession 139 APKR030006622008 from 1961 onwards. Further it is against their own case under sale agreements wherein it is clearly recited that possession would be delivered to the plaintiffs at the time of registration of the property. Being parties to the sale agreements, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to say that they were in possession of the plaint schedule property prior to the sale agreements and as on the date of sale agreements.
179) With regard to their contention that they made payment on 31.12.1980 and got delivery of possession of the property, as already held, the plaintiffs failed to establish the payment of balance consideration on 31.12.1980 and delivery of possession on the same date. The plaintiffs produced Exs.A11 to A13, A18, A19, A22 to show that they made payment of cist for part of the plaint schedule property.
180) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
G.Satyanarayana vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2014 (4) ALD 358] for the proposition that the cist receipts cannot be relied upon without production of any record of No.3 adangal as contemplated by Rights in Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and there is no dispute about this decision.
181) Apart from the above decision, Exs.A11 to A13 are dated 7.5.1988 that is, subsequent to OS 513/1986 which is converted as OS 88/1988 for recovery of possession. So, it cannot establish the possession of the plaintiffs from 1.1.1981 onwards. As far as Exs.A18 and A19 they are dated 12.6.1985 and 22.2.1986. They too cannot establish their long prior possession to the said dates. Ex.A22 is dated 22.2.1984 only and the same also cannot establish long prior possession to the said date. So, Exs.A11 to A13, A18, A19 and A22 cannot establish the claim of the plaintiffs for continuous possession right from 31.12.1980. They may establish that they got possession of the property subsequently and in this case there is no dispute about their possession but there is no evidence as to when they came into possession of the property.
140 APKR030006622008
182) Plaintiffs pleaded about OS 664/1981 filed by Harijan Field Labour Co- operate Society, Kallamvaripalem against them for permanent injunction in respect of land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem and about the findings in that suit that they are in possession of the plaint schedule properties. In his evidence,
PW1 has not stated anything about this suit. PW4 stated about the said suit in his evidence and produced Ex.A20/certified copy of the plaint and Ex.A21/certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendants therein in OS 664/1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vijayawada. Further he stated that an advocate commissioner was appointed in that case. There is no much dispute about the same.
Similarly PW5 also stated about OS 664/1981 filed by the Society.
183) The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon a decision in Chandra
Chur Deo vs Bibhuti Bhushan Deva [AIR (32) 1945 Patna 211] for the proposition that plaint, written statement and judgment in the previous case are relevant evidence in subsequent suit. For similar proposition of law he relied upon a decision in Hari Lal vs. Amrik Singh [AIR 1978 Allahabad 292].
184) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
Rangayyan vs. Innasimuthu [AIR 1956 Madras 226] for the proposition that recitals of boundaries of property contained in deeds not inter parties have been held to be admissible to prove the ownership or possession of adjoining property. Further in the same decision it was held that a recital as to boundary in documents between third parties can be looked into if they are relevant and admissible. He also relied upon a decision in Gulab Chand vs. Kudilal (FB) [AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 151] for the proposition that surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration to ascertain the true meaning of documents to know the real intention of the parties.
185) In this case, the plaintiffs produced the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 to prove their contention regarding OS 664/1981. Parise Venkata Ratnam, who acted 141 APKR030006622008 as President, Harijan Field Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem is examined as
PW6. It is his evidence that their Society has lease lands of Ac.40.00 in RS No.215/1 of Kallamvaripalem village, Chagantipadu Panchayat and that China Basivi Reddy,
Ramachandra Reddy, Satyanarayana Reddy and Pedda Basivi Reddy (D1 to D4 in
OS 664/1981) have got lands on the Eastern boundary of the lands of the Society
and they were in possession of the said lands 20 years prior to his becoming the
President of the Society. Further he stated that there are some other persons in occupation of the lands in addition to the above named persons and that the said land belongs to Nuzvid Zamindars, that is, D1 and her sister and by that time sale deeds were not executed in their favour for the lands adjoining the lands of the
Society but they obtained registered sale deeds for the lands adjoining the above lands from D1 and her sister.It is the further evidence of PW6 that these lands are being cultivated in part and there are bushes and shrubs in the remaining extent and the above persons encroached upon their Society lands and so, Society filed injunction suit in OS 664/1981 on the file of District Munsif court, Vijayawada and identified Ex.A20 as certified copy of the plaint in that suit. Further he stated that the court appointed a Surveyor for the purpose of inspection, measurement and demarcation and he filed his report along with sketch and as such the boundary between the Society land is demarcated and the above persons undertook not to interfere with the lands of the Society and they are continuing in possession of their lands.
186) It is admitted that the defendants are not parties in OS 664/1981. PW6 worked as President of the Society during 1981-1990 but he speaks of the possession of the plaintiffs long prior to the said suit also. The total extent of the land adjoining their land admittedly belongs to the vendors and it’s total extent is Ac.80.00.
PW6 does not know the land purchased by the said persons and as how much land 142 APKR030006622008 was adjoining the purchased lands. He is unable to give the survey numbers of the land. It is clear from his evidence that ten years prior to his evidence given on 24.7.2001 the suit lands were uncultivated and full of bushes. Then his evidence with regard to possession of the above persons prior to their suit cannot be accepted.
187) A perusal of Ex.A20/plaint in OS 664/1981 shows that it was filed only against four persons claiming that the Society was in possession of the lands in RS
No.217/5, 218/6, 215/15 etc. Ex.A21/written statement in the said suit shows that the suit was relating to RS No.215/15. Defendants claimed therein that they were in possession of the plaint schedule property basing on the sale agreements dated 26.7.1980. The judgment in OS 664/1981 is marked as Ex.A26 which shows that the said suit was not disposed of on contest and that it was dismissed without costs in terms of compromise between the parties. So, it was not a suit disposed of on merits.
Further as contended by the defendants they are not parties to the said decree and it cannot bind them.
188) The plaintiffs examined PW7/V.Surya Narayana Rao,Surveyor, who was appointed as Commissioner by District Munsif Court, Vijayawada to visit the villages
Chagantipadu and Kallamvaripalem and he was entrusted with the work of measurement and fixing of boundaries of the patta lands and lease of the lands of
Harijan Field Labour Society. He stated that after giving notices, with the held of Field
Measurement Book he measured the land and fixed the boundaries and prepared sketch with measurements and filed his report. He produced Ex.A24 as the certified copy of the report filed by him in IA 2118/1981 in OS 664/1981 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Vijayawada; Ex.A25 certified copy of sketch filed along with Ex.A24.
Further he deposed that at the time of his inspection China Basivi Reddy, Peda
Basivi Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy, Satyanarayana Reddy and Karanam of
Chagantipadu village Koteswara Rao and some others were present. He deposed 143 APKR030006622008 that the line J to I in the Ex.A25/sketch is the boundary line between the patta land and the Government land leased out to Kallamvaripalem Harijana Field Labour Co- operative society and also the land leased out to Chagantipadu Harijana Field
Labour Co-operative society. He stated that the patta land shown by him in Ex.A25 is an extent of Ac.60.00 in RS No.215/1B. Further he deposed that he noted in the sketch that the defendants in OS 664/1981 were the persons in possession of the said Ac.60.00 of land and about 20 persons were stated to be in possession of the said land and were present at that time. He stated that as per his report the defendants in OS 664/1981 have not encroached upon the plaint schedule land in
OS 664/1981.
189) As already stated, there are no findings with regard to the commissioner’s report/Ex.A24 and A25 in the judgment under Ex.A26 which ended in dismissal due to compromise. The defendants are not parties to the said report and so, it cannot bind the defendants herein. It is clear from the cross-examination of
PW7 that he did not take any record except FMB, along with him for execution of the warrant. In fact PW7 was entrusted with the work of demarcation of the Government leased out lands but not the private lands of the vendors. He did not issue any notice to the adjoining field owners. He has not shown the ‘G’ line in the sketch and he has not mentioned from which point he started the measurements. He started measurements from the land in RS No.171 but he does not know to whom it belongs and whether he has given any notice to the owners of the said lands, still he measured the land in RS No.171. Knowing pretty well that he has to issue notice to all the neighbouring owners, he has not issued any such notice. He admits that the particulars of the sketch/Ex.A25 regarding RS No.215/1B, Ac.60.00 is not correct. So, the evidence of PW7 cannot establish anything in favour of the plaintiffs, apart from the fact that it is not binding on the defendants.
144 APKR030006622008
190) The plaintiffs examined PW8/Kallam Venkateswara Reddy, resident of
Kallamvaripalem. It is his evidence that the suit land is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants since 40 years but not in possession of the plaintiffs which is against the case of the plaintiffs. He stated that some extent is cultivated with sugarcane, blackgram etc, and there is some big pit in some extent and remaining extent there are shrubs used as pasture land. He says that himself and his sons own 4 ½ cents. So, the evidence of PW8 is not in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the plaintiffs and the case of the plaintiffs regarding OS 664/1981 is of no help to the plaintiffs to prove their long standing possession of the plaint schedule properties.
191) On this aspect, the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Nange Gowda and another vs. Gangamma and others [2011 AIR SC 3774] and submitted that since the agreements of sale do not record delivery of possession stating that it shall be delivered at the time of the registration of the sale deeds Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable. There is no dispute about this decision.
192) In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs are unable to establish their possession right from 1961 and subsequent to the sale agreements on 31.12.1980 and therefore, their possession is to be construed as illegal occupation of the plaint schedule property and that they are encroachers of the plaint schedule property. Having failed to show that they legally entered into the plaint schedule property by virtue of the sale agreements, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
193) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
Bhimavarapu Lakshmareddy vs. Pallothu Aswini Kumar [2015 ALT (6)185] and
Mohan Lal (deceased) through his Ls Kachru and others vs. Mirza Abdul Gafar
145 APKR030006622008 and another [1996 AIR SC 910] for the proposition that the plea of title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the plea of adverse possession does not begin to operate unless the plea of title is renounced. There is no dispute about these decisions.
194) Having claimed that the plaintiffs are agreement holders of the vendors and claimed protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act with animus althrough that they are in possession of the property belonging to the vendors they have to perfect their title by duly executed registered deeds of sale under which the vendors have to pass and convey their title. So, the plaintiffs are admitting the title of the vendors and acquiring title only through registered sale deeds to be executed in their favour. Therefore, there is no question of their possession being adverse to the vendors and therefore, any length of possession cannot confer title on the plaintiffs by the principle of adverse possession. Further, simultaneously they are not entitled to put up the defence of adverse possession.
Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs regarding adverse possession also cannot stand and they cannot be permitted to squat on the plaint schedule property both on the ground of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act or under the principle of adverse possession.
195) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
G.Narayana Reddy vs. P.Narayana Reddy [2016 ALT (3) 12] and submitted that the title vested with the purchaser once vested cannot be digested and the plaintiffs in this case admitted the title of the defendants 2 to 11 and therefore, in the suit for recovery of possession filed by the defendants under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, if the plaintiffs establish their title, they need not prove that they are in possession of the property within 12 years from the date of the suit and the title pre-supposes that possession was duly delivered and that they were illegally dispossessed must be 146 APKR030006622008 held to be true. There is no dispute about this decision and in view of the same it shall be presumed that the defendants 2 to 11 or their vendors have been dispossessed by the plaintiffs illegally within 12 years prior to the suit for recovery of possession.
196) In view of the above discussion, defendants 2 to 11, who are bona fide purchasers of the plaint schedule property are entitled for possession from the plaintiffs. This point is accordingly answered.
197) POINT NO.3:-
In view of the findings on points 1 and 2 above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, this point is decided.
198) POINT NO.4:-
In view of the findings on points 1 to 3 above, all the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.
199) In the result, Appeal suit Nos.89/2004, 28/2008, 29/2008, 30/2008, 31/2008 and 33/2008 are dismissed with costs, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 30.9.2004 by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada in OS
Nos. 88/1988, 627/1991, 625/1991, 103/1992, 100/1992 and 626/1991 respectively.
The plaintiffs/ appellants have been depositing the damages every year to the credit of the suit under appeal AS No.89/2004. The defendants 2 to 11/plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 on the file of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada are permitted to withdraw the same by making proper application before the concerned court.
Dictated to the Stenographer and prepared by her on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of March, 2025.
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA
147 APKR030006622008
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- Nil –
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA.
1 APKR030006662008
IN THE COURT OF
THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: S. Nageswara Rao, VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge.
Thursday, this the 27th day of March, 2025.
A.S.Nos.89/2004, 28/2008, 29/2008, 30/2008, 31/2008 and 33/2008
AS No.89/2004
Between:
1.Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma (died)
2. Adidam Venkateswara Sarma (died)
3. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Peda Basivireddy (died)
5. Kallam China Basivireddy (died)
6. Kallam Kutumba Reddy
7. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
8. Kallam Subba Reddy
9. Pamulapati Venktappa Reddy
10. Kallam Rami Reddy 11.Kallam Krishna Reddy
12. Kallam Narapareddy (died)
13. Kallam Ramireddy
14. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
15. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
16. Adidam Vishnu Priya
17. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
18. Adidam Srinivas
19. Kallam Annapurnamma (died)
20. Jonnala Siva Kumari
21. Adidam Sri Krishna Prasad
22. Adidam Chandramouleswara Sarma
23. Kallam Sambi Reddy
24. Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy 2 APKR030006662008 25.Jonnala Prameela (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1045/2017 in As No.89/2004)
26. Kallam Bharati
27. Kallam Gopi Reddy (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1048/2017 in As No.89/2004) … Appellants A N D 1.Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
2. Baddigam Sudharani
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Nagireddy
5. Kallam Ramireddy (died)
6. Devarapalli bikshalu
7. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Baddigam Koti Reddy
10. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
11. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
12. Veeranki Siva Naga Prasad
13. Kallam Kasturi
14. Jonnala Prameela
15. Kallam Srinivasa Reddt
16. Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.101 5/2017 in As No.89/2004)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.88/1988 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in: Between: 1.Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
2. Baddigam Sudharani
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy 3 APKR030006662008
4. Kallam Nagireddy
5. Kallam Ramireddy
6. Devarapalli Bikshalu
7. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Baddigam Koti Reddy
10. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
11. Veeranki Rama Rao
12. Veeranki Siva Naga Prasad … Plaintiffs A N D 1.Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma
2. Adidam Venkateswara Sarma
3. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
4. Kallam Peda Basivireddy
5. Kallam China Basivireddy
6. Kallam Kutumba Reddy
7. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
8. Kallam Subba Reddy
9. Pamulapati Venktappa Reddy
10. Kallam Rami Reddy 11.Kallam Krishna Reddy
12. Kallam Narapareddy
13. Kallam Ramireddy
14. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
15. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
16. Adidam Vishnu Priya
17. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
18. Adidam Srinivas
19. Kallam Annapurnamma
20. Jonnala Siva Kumari
... Defendants
4 APKR030006662008
AS No.28/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Annapurnamma (died)
2. Kallam Subba Reddy
3. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
4. Jonnala Siva Kumari … Appellants A N D 1.Meka Rajeswari (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
14. Kallam Kasturi 15.Jonnala Prameela
16. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 17.Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1042/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.627/1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Kallam China Basivi Reddy (died) 2.Kallam Annapurnamma
3. Kallam Subba Reddy 5 APKR030006662008
4. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
5. Jonnala Siva Kumari (plaintiffs 2 to 5 are added as per orders in IA 1484/2004 dated 27.8.2004) … Plaintiffs A N D 1.Meka Rajeswari
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
... Defendants
AS No.29/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Basivi Reddy (died)
2. Kallam Sambi Reddy (died)
3. Kallam Subba Reddy
4. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
5. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy
6. Baddigam Raghunatha Reddy
7. Kallam Sambi Reddy
8. Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy
9. Jonnala Prameela (amended as per orders dt.27.11.2017 in IA No.1015/2017 Lrs of deceased first appellant)
10. Kallam Kutumba Reddy (amended as per orders dt 27.11.2017 in IA No.1018/2017 Lrs of deceased 2nd appellant) … Appellants 6 APKR030006662008
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmamma (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Sambireddy (died)
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
14. Kallam Kasturi 15.Jonnala Prameela
16. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 17.Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders dated 27.11.2017 in IA No.1021/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.625/1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Kallam Basivi Reddy 2.Kallam Sambi Reddy
3. Kallam Subba Reddy
4. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
5. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy 6.Baddigam Raghunadha Reddy … Plaintiffs 7 APKR030006662008
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmamma
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Rami Reddy
9. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
... Defendants
AS No.30/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy (died)
2. Kallam Venkata Reddy (died)
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Narapa Reddy (died)
6. Kallam Rami Reddy
7. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
8. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
9. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
10. Kallam Rajya Lakshmi
11. Kallam Ramanajamma
12. Kallam Veera Reddy
13. Kallam Radha Krishna Reddy
14. Kallam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (amended as per orders in IA No.1054/2017)
15. Kallam Bharati
16. Kallam Gopi Reddy (amended as per orders in IA No.1057/2017) … Appellants 8 APKR030006662008
A N D 1.Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy (died)
5. Kallam Sambireddy
6. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
7. Baddigam Sudha Rani
8. Kallam Nagireddy
9. Kallam Rami Reddy
10. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy 12.Meka Vijaya Lakshmi
13. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
14. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
15. Kallam Kasturi 16.Jonnala Prameela
17. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 18.Vuyyuru Seethamma (amended as per the orders in IA No.1060/2017)
19. Kallam Sivamma
20. Tiyyagura Padma 21.Kallam Uma Parvathi
22. KallamPhani Bhushan Reddy (amended as per the orders dt.16.2.2018 in IA No.1063/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.103/1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
2. Kallam Venkata Reddy
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy
4. Kallam Subba Reddy 9 APKR030006662008
5. Kallam Narapa Reddy
6. Kallam Rami Reddy
7. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
8. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
9. Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy
10. Kallam Rajya Lakshmi … Plaintiffs
A N D 1.Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Sambireddy
6. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
7. Baddigam Sudha Rani
8. Kallam Nagireddy
9. Kallam Rami Reddy
10. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy 12.Meka Vijaya Lakshmi
13. Veeranki Rama Rao
14. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
... Defendants
AS No.31/2008
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy (died)
2. Kallam Basivi Reddy (died)
3. Kallam Sambi Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy
5. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
6. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy
7. Kallam Peda Basivi Reddy (died)
8. Kallam Venkata Reddy (died) 10 APKR030006662008
9. Kallam Sambi Reddy
10. Kallam Subba Reddy
11. Kallam Narapa Reddy (died)
12. Kallam Rami Reddy
13. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
14. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
15. Kallam Krishna Reddy
16. Baddigam Raghunadha Reddy
17. Kallam Annapurnamma (died)
18. Jonnala Siva Kumari
19. Kallam Sambi Reddy
20. Kallam Sanjeeva Reddy
21. Jonnala Prameela ( Amended as per the orders in IA 1024/2017)
22. Kallam Ramanjamma
23. Kallam Veera Reddy
24. Kallam Radha Krishna Reddy
25. Kallam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA No.1027/2017) 26, Kallam Bharati
27. Kallam Gopi Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA 1030/2017)
28. Kallam Kutumba Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA 1039/2017) … Appellants A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma (died)
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy (died)
5. Kallam Sambireddy (died)
6. Kallam Koti Reddy
7. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
8. Baddigam Sudha Rani
9. Kallam Nagireddy
10. Kallam Rami Reddy
11. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
12. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy 11 APKR030006662008
13. Veeranki Rama Rao (died)
14. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
15. Kallam Kasturi 16.Jonnala Prameela
17. Kallam Srinivasa Reddy 18.Vuyyuru Srilakshmi (amended as per the orders in IA No.1033/2017)
19. Kallam Sivamma
20. Tiyyagura Padma 21.Kallam Uma Parvathi
22. KallamPhani Bhushan Reddy (amended as per the orders in IA No.1039/2017)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.100/1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
2. Kallam Basivi Reddy
3. Kallam China Basivi Reddy (died)
4. Kallam Sambi Reddy
5. Kallam Subba Reddy
6. Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy
7. Pamulapati Venkatappa Reddy
8. Kallam Peda Basivi Reddy
9. Kallam Venkata Reddy
10. Kallam Sambi Reddy
11. Kallam Subba Reddy
12. Kallam Narapa Reddy
13. Kallam Rami Reddy
14. Marrireddy Nageswara Reddy
15. Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy
16. Kallam Krishna Reddy
17. Baddigam Raghunadha Reddy
18. Kallam Annapurnamma 12 APKR030006662008
19. Jonnala Siva Kumari (plaintiffs 18 & 19 are added as per orders in IA No.1483/2004 dated 27.8.2004) … Plaintiffs
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshamamma (died)
2. Baddigam Kotireddy 3.Kallam Ramireddy (died)
4. Kallam Subba Reddy (died)
5. Kallam Sambireddy 6.Kallam Koti Reddy
7. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
8. Baddigam Sudha Rani
9. Kallam nagireddy
10. Kallam Ramireddy
11. Devarapalli Bhikshalu
12. Veeranki Seethamma (died)
13. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
14. Veeranki Ramarao (died)
15. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad (defendants No.14 and 15 added as per the orders dated 24.8.2000
IA No.999/2000) ... Defendants
AS No.33/2008
Between:
1.Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma (died)
2. Adidam Vishnu Priya
3. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
4. Adidam Srinivas
5. Adidam Sri Krishna Prasad
6. Adidam Chandramouleswara Sarma (the appellants 5 and 6 are impleaded as legal heirs of 1st appellant as per orders in IA No. 479/2010 dated 8.2.2011) … Appellants 13 APKR030006662008
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma
2. Baddigam Koti Reddy
3. Kallam RamiReddy
4. Kallam Sambireddy (died)
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudha Rani
7. Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Ramireddy
9. Devarapalli Bikshalu
10. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
11. Veeranki Rama Rao
12. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad
13. Kallam Vijaya Kumari @ Jhansi
14. Alla Kanya Kumari
15. Kallam Siva Venkata Basivi Reddy (amended as per the orders dated 28.8.2018
IA No. 455/2018)
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 30.9.2004 passed in
O.S.No.626/91 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada
made in:
Between:
1. Adidam Kamesanjaneya Sarma (died)
2. A.Seetharama Sarma (died)
3. A.Venkateswara Sarma (died)
4. Addidam Vishnu Priya
5. Adidam Muralidhar Sarma
6. Adidam Srinivas (Plaintiffs 4 to 6 are added as per orders in IA 1922/02 dated 13.6.2002) … Plaintiffs 14 APKR030006662008
A N D 1.Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshamamma
2. Baddigam Kotireddy 3.Kallam Ramireddy 4.Kallam Sambireddy
5. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy
6. Baddigam Sudharani 7.Kallam Nagireddy
8. Kallam Ramireddy
9. Devarapalli Bikshalu
10. Veeranki Seethamma
11. Kallam Ramachandra Reddy
12. Veeranki Rama Rao
13. Veeranki Siva Vara Prasad (Defendants 12 & 13 are added as
per orders in IA 995/2000, dated 24.8.2000) ... Defendants
These Appeals, coming on for hearing before me on 27.1.2025 in the presence of Sri T.V.Nava Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants in all the appeals; respondents 3,5,7,11 died in A.S.No.89/2004 and of Sri K.V.Bhanu Murthy, Advocate for the respondents 1,2,4,6, 8 to 10, 12 to 16 in A.S.No.89/204 and remaining all the appeals; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
COMMON JUDGMENT
1)All the appeals emanate from the common judgment and decree,
dated 30.9.2004 passed in batch suits OS Nos.626/1991, 625/1991, 627/1991,
100/1992, 103/1992 and 88/1988 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Vijayawada and they are disposed of by a common judgment.
2)Appeal Suit No.89/2004
This appeal is filed by the defendants in OS 88/1988 against the plaintiffs therein. Due to death of some of the parties their legal representatives brought on 15 APKR030006662008 record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
3)OS No.88/1988 was filed for permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for possession of the property, in case, the plaintiffs are found to be not in possession of the property as on the date of the suit and for costs.
4)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) Plaintiffs purchased items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 for valuable consideration from Smt.Meka
Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. Plaintiffs purchased item No.4 of the plaint schedule property from Smt.M.Raja Rajeswari Devi,
Pithapuram, East Godavari District. As per the terms and conditions of the sale deeds, the vendors of the plaintiffs delivered possession of the plaint schedule property on 5.5.1986. The plaintiffs’ vendors have not been cultivating the plaint schedule property since last more than 50 years as they are living far away from the plaint schedule property and they sold the said property to the plaintiffs as they were not getting any income from the said property. The plaintiffs, who mainly live on agriculture, wanted to bring the plaint schedule property under cultivation by clearing the shrubs and babul trees grown in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, they along with their men began to clear the shrubs etc., in the plaint schedule property on 14.5.1986. Defendants 1 to 15 have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the plaint schedule property. They are owning lands adjacent to the plaint schedule property. With a view to grab the plaint schedule property they prevented the plaintiffs and their men from clearing the shrubs etc. Further they removed the shrubs of babul trees cut by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiffs gave police report to the Station House Officer, Kankipadu. Thereupon the Sub- 16 APKR030006662008
Inspector of police seized the babul stems etc., from the defendants and kept the same with mediator namely Kallam Sambireddy, Vice President of Kallamvaripalem.
(b)Plaintiffs have title to the property they purchased but the defendants have no title and are not entitled to be in possession of the suit property. It is found that they were in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. The contracts of the year 1980 in favour of the defendants are barred. The vendors did not give possession to the defendants. So, they are not entitled to set up the contracts to avail the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and they have no sale deed and no title to the property.
(c) As the defendants would be in unlawful possession of the plaint schedule lands, plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits. The defendants are raising crops and are appropriating the same. They are bound to give accounts for the mesne profits during pendency of the suit and for the additional period during which they are in possession and pay the mesne profits to the plaintiffs. On determination of such profits, a commissioner be appointed to determine the mesne profits and plaintiffs are prepared to pay the court fee on such ascertained amount.
5)Written statement of D1:-
(a) Material allegations are required to be proved. Plaintiffs have absolutely no title to the suit property and they never came into possession thereof. The alleged sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 even if true do not clothe the plaintiffs with any right, title or interest in the plaint schedule property. The sale deeds are fraudulent and collusive documents entered into between Smt. M.V.Samrya Lakshmi and Smt.
M.Rajeswari Devi and the plaintiffs and they were never in possession and enjoyment of the property. Plaintiffs 3, 8, 9 and defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 including D4 purchased from Smt.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi and Smt.
Meka Ratna Kumari and another Tandra Venkatappaiah (the items marked in blue in 17 APKR030006662008 the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as “the plan”) by three registered sale deeds
dated 4.7.1961 and the defendants have been continuing in possession and
enjoyment thereof from that time. As the plaint schedule land marked in red in the plan were lying vacant and the first and second vendors practically abandoned the same, defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 and others occupied the same in the year 1961 itself as they are adjoining lands purchased under the sale deeds dated 4.7.1961. From then they have been continuing in possession of the land marked red also about Ac.10.85 cents along with the items purchased by them. The defendants have been cultivating the same raising ‘rellu’ some times and enjoying the produce.
While so, Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi and Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi put the items shown in red for sale and the defendants negotiated the same as they are adjoining land owners and they have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof to the knowledge of one and all including the vendors and the plaintiffs. The bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the said land
dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the 4th defendant and plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 and defendants
1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 having received bulk of the sale consideration. Hence, the defendants possession of the said items from that time has been that of the purchasers under the contracts of the sale. As per the recitals of the contract of sale, a paltry sum of Rs.100/- remained to be paid towards balance of the sale consideration under each one of the contracts. The items marked red and covered by the contract as well as the items purchased earlier by them are being enjoyed by the defendants all these years right from 1961 as single plot as marked in the plan. The defendants have been paying land revenue etc, thereon. While so, Harijan Field
Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of the Hon’ble Court against defendants 3, 5 and 8 and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from interfering with their possession 18 APKR030006662008 and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of
Chagantipadu and other reliefs and also sought temporary injunction against the defendants. The defendants 3, 5 and 8 contested the suit and the injunction petition.
They asserted that they had purchased earlier by registered sale deeds referred to above dated 4.7.1961 from the said vendors, plots marked blue and further that they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the adjoining items marked red in the plan which forms part of suit land as stated above and that the said vendors executed contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour for items marked red and that the defendants are continuing in possession lawfully and as the purchasers and none of the defendants encroached upon or interfered with the land assigned to the
Harijan Field Labour Co-operative Society, plaintiffs therein. The Taluk Surveyor was appointed as commissioner in that suit. He inspected the land assigned to the plaintiffs therein as well as the above items in their possession and enjoyment and submitted report along with sketch. The said suit was tried and ultimately ended in a compromise. The report and sketch filed by the Government Surveyor in the said suit clearly show that the present suit property were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the defendants as well as the plaintiffs 3,8 and 9, who obtained contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 from the said vendors for the said plots along with their contracts even by then. Thus, the entire case of the plaintiffs is falsified not only by documentary evidence but also circumstantial evidence. They have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the items marked red in the plan which form part of the plaint schedule land and the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 are continuing in possession of their items marked red. Whileso, the vendors Meka Venkata Samrajya
Lakshmi and Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi and the defendants wanted to complete the real transaction and at their instance ultimately the defendants assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi, 19 APKR030006662008
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11. The defendants were ready with the general stamps previously purchased by them for the purpose in the names of five of them for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly including plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9.
All of them had even earlier paid the entire balance of sale consideration as per the condition in the contract of sale. Besides the two vendors and scribe
S.Venkateswara Rao, the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 and defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 and some others who had earlier agreement of sales in their favour and Rama
Mohana Rao, son of M.Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi were also present. The vendors and the defendants explained to the scribe, namely, Swarna Venkateswara Rao and he prepared the draft sale deeds on the dictation of the first defendant and he wrote all the five sale deeds in favour of all the purchasers that is, plaintiffs 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 and others incorporating the recitals given out by the vendors themselves and Rama Mohana Rao, son of Meka Venkata Samrjya Lakshmi. The recitals in the said sale deeds show that all the purchasers including all the said defendants are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the respective items mentioned in the sale deeds as purchasers for good and valuable consideration.
Thereafter the draft sale deeds were read out by the said Rama Mohana Rao and vendors expressed their satisfaction. The scribe S.Venkateswara Rao was asked to get the five sale deeds typed on the general stamps fetched by all the purchasers as per the drafts and accordingly he went and got them typed and found them to be correct. The vendors and the scribe wanted the vendors to sign all the said five sale deeds engrossed on stamp papers and they expressed their willingness to sign. With the bonafide belief that they will sign all the sale deeds, the scribe put his signatures thereon before hand as one having prepared the same. Meanwhile, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the defendants to come two days later and they took 20 APKR030006662008 the three sale deeds engrossed on stamp papers and corresponding agreement executed by M.V.Samrajya Lakshmi on 26.7.1980 and then all of them and the scribe left. When they went there on 9.4.1986 the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not actually consult their people and counsel and that there was no hurry for registration of the sale deeds and they need not doubt their bonafides as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment of the lands and as they were having the other two sale deeds with them got prepared and typed and that they would intimate the date of registration of the documents on which date they would sign all the sale deeds. These defendants believed their representations and requested them to get ready for registration at the earliest but they did not hear anything from them subsequently. Therefore, they contacted them on 28.4.1986, when they stated that Smt. M.Raja Rajeswari was not in town and promised to send word to them to get ready for getting the documents registered on her return and they reposed confidence in them as they have no reason to doubt their bonafides. They were actually waiting for a message from them to have the documents signed and registered at their expense.
(b) While so, to their shock and surprise, defendants 1 to 15 received copy of the plaint and petition together with a suit notice on 4.6.1986 and after getting the contents read out and explained, they came to know for the first time that the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao along with plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 actually played fraud on them and cheated them when they made part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and subsequently making promises that they would intimate them about the date for registration of the documents and they were kept all through subsequently under the belief that they would register the five documents typed on that day on stamp paper. They further came to know of the collusion between the plaintiffs 3, 8 21 APKR030006662008 and 9 and the vendors. Though plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 entered into registered agreements of sale along with these defendants as early as on 26.7.1980 and were continuing in possession and enjoyment of their plots just as they entered into agreement of sale for their respective plots which are continuing in their possession and enjoyment, the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 have suppressed all the said earlier registered contracts of sale and also their possession of the respective plots marked as red in the plan and they have set up a false case now that plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 purchased the schedule property under registered sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 only and that on that very day they were inducted into possession by the vendors. This very fact coupled with the collusion between the vendors and the plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 falsifies the entire case set forth in the plaint and in the affidavit in support of the injunction petition. Except that, plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 are continuing in lawful possession of their plots marked in the plan which are the plots purchased by them as per the earlier sale deeds, the plots marked in the red are continuing in defendants lawful peaceful and exclusive possession and the exclusion of the plaintiffs and their vendors from the year 1961. The plaintiffs were not in possession of the same prior to the suit or subsequently till this date. The defendants’ possession thereof is that of purchasers for good and valuable consideration and by virtue of
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act they are entitled to defend and safeguard their possession both outside the Court as well as through the Court. Neither the vendors nor the plaintiffs have any right to defeat their right and interest in the said items and are not entitled to disturb their possession of the respective plots marked red in the plan filed by them. The vendors are bound to sign and register five sale deeds referred to above, at their expense and the vendors and plaintiffs claiming through them are bound by the said document beside their oral representation and earlier registered contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and they are estopped from 22 APKR030006662008 disputing the same or denying their right, title and interest and possession in the items marked red in the plan. They have no right to repudiate the said sale transaction and they are bound to complete by signing the sale deeds and registering the same for which they have always been ready and willing to have the sale deeds signed by the vendors and registered. They hereby invite the vendors along with the plaintiffs to perform their part as they have been inviting them earlier. Under the circumstances their possession of the said plots is lawful and the plaintiffs have no right to interfere with or disturb their possession for any reason.
(c) Plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 being purchasers who are parties to the unsigned sale deeds are aware of the preparation of the sale deeds in favour of these defendants and their possession and enjoyment of the red marked items which are part of plaint schedule property. The other plaintiffs were always fully aware that the said vendors have not been in possession and enjoyment in any way of even an inch of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs 3, 8 and 9 are not inducted in possession of the plaint schedule property on 5.5.1986 as falsely pleaded now and it is to make believe one. With eyes wide open and with full knowledge of the actual possession and enjoyment of these defendants over about 25 years as purchasers the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs 3,8 and 9 have now entered into a fraudulent and collusion transactions with the vendors and said transactions are intended to defraud these defendants and defeat their sale transactions. None of the plaintiffs are therefore bonafide purchasers without notice of the defects in the title and rights of the vendors in the schedule property and in fact they entered into the sale transaction dated 5.5.1986 in conspiracy to somehow dispossess the defendants forcibly and wrongfully. In so far as their plots marked in the plan are concerned which are continuing in their exclusive and lawful possession and enjoyment, in view of their possession and enjoyment all these 25 years the balance of convenience lies in their 23 APKR030006662008 favour but not in favour of the plaintiffs and their possession has to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, even if the vendors do not come forward to complete the transactions. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the plots of the defendants marked in the plan.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
Sl.No.NameS.NOExtent
Ac. Cts
1.A.Kamesanjanyea Sarma (D1)215/1B 1714.00
2.Kallam Rama Reddy (D3)215/1B0.43 ¾
3.Kallam Basivi Reddy (D4)1711.50 215/1B
4.Kallam China Basivi Reddy (D5) 215/1B3.57
5.Kallam Subba Reddy215/1B1.50
6.Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy215/1B1.50 (D8)
7.Pamulapati Venkatappareddy 215/1B0.37 (D9)171
8.Kallam Narapa Reddy (D12)215/1B0.43 ¾
9.Kallam Rami Reddy (D13)215/1B0.65 ¾
10.Kallam Veera Raghava Reddy215/1B0.43 ¾ (D14)
11.Baddigam Sanjeeva Reddy 215/1B0.43 ¾ 24 APKR030006662008 (D15)
12.Kallam Sambireddy (3rd plaintiff) 215/1B0.87 ½
13.Kallam Ramireddy (8th plaintiff)171 0.43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BaddigamKotireddy(9th1710.87 ½ plaintiff)215/1B
15.Joint1715.43 215/1B
(e) The various averments and allegations in the plaint, contrary to what is stated above, are all not true and correct and are hereby denied.
(f) The alleged sale deeds and transactions in favour of the plaintiffs are all collusive, fraudulent and are not valid and binding on the defendants and cannot defeat the right and interest of the defendants in the suit land. They are also entitled to have sale deeds executed and registered by their vendors and in case of failure they will be instituting a separate suit or suits for specific performance of their contracts. The defendants have paid entire sale consideration as stated above and have always been ready and willing to perform their part and to take registered sale deeds and have not committed any default. It is only their vendors who evaded to perform their part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions with the plaintiffs and committed breach of contract. The plaintiffs are also bound to join in execution and registration of the sale deeds in favour of the defendants and the defendants are entitled to continue in peaceful possession of the schedule land and the plaintiffs are 25 APKR030006662008 not entitled to interfere with their possession. Plaintiffs are not entitled to permanent injunction which is an equitable relief. They came to the Court with unclean hands and are not entitled for equity against the defendants who hold better title.
(g) The defendants contested OS No.513/1986 filed by the plaintiffs in District
Munsif Court, Vijayawada as well as the injunction petition which has been dismissed. The CMA preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiffs have brought the present suit seeking recovery of possession alternatively.
The cause of action is not true and correct. Valuation of the suit is too low as the market value as well as the value as per the basic register of the Government is far higher than the value put in the plaint. Therefore, the Court fee paid is not correct and is very low.
(h) The plaintiffs admitted in clear terms that their predecessors were not in possession and enjoyment of suit land for over 50 years last prior to their sale deeds and as such the suit is barred by limitation even if filed prior to the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1963 and for this reason the present suit is barred by limitation as the alleged sale deeds could not and have not conveyed any right, title or interest much less possession in their favour in relation to the suit land, as their right to the property was extinguished long prior to 1.1.1964 by virtue of Section 28 of the
Limitation Act, 1908 corresponding to Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
6)Defendants 3, 4, 5, 7 to 9 and 12 to 15 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1.
7)Additional written statement by defendant No.13:
The relief for mesne profits is barred by time and so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any mesne profits prior to date of amendment of the plaint in that regard.
26 APKR030006662008
8) Defendants 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 12, 14 and 15 adopted the above said
additional written statement of defendant No.13.
9)Defendants 10 and 11 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendants 19 and 20 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Defendants 16 to 18 filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1.
10)Defendant No.6 filed written statement as follows:-
Defendants 6, 10 and 11 are not necessary parties to the suit as they have nothing to do with the suit land. They believed that they are unnecessarily impleaded out of fear that they may be figured as witnesses on behalf of other contesting defendants as they are acquainted with the affairs relating to the suit land. Hence, seek to dismiss the suit with costs.
11)Following issues were settled on 4.10.1988.
1. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 5.6.1986?
2. Whether the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest have even been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1969 onwards?
4. Whether the defendants have purchased the property under contract of sale
dated 26.7.80?
5. Whether the possession of the defendants is perfected by virtue of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act?
6. Whether the right of the plaintiffs to claim the property was extinguished by
Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
7. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
27 APKR030006662008
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the plaint schedule property?
9. To what relief?
12)Following additional issue was framed on 7.3.1996:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for?
13)Appeal Suit No.28/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 627/1991 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
14)OS No.627/1991 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendants 2, 4 and 8 on one hand and the first defendant and others on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.340/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
15)Plaint pleadings:-
(a)The plaintiff along with some others purchased from the first defendant/Smt.Meka Raja Rajeswari and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra
Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed, hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying shallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the 28 APKR030006662008 said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough.
While so, the first defendant/Meka Raja Rajeswari and the other vendor/Meka
Samrajya Lakshmamma put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiff and others having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder.
The plaintiff and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiff and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The Harijan Field Labour Co- operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS
No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The 29 APKR030006662008 defendants therein who are also plaintiff herein and others contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiff and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant’s sister in
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiff and other vendees were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant’s sister were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her sister’s son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her sister’s son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed.
They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana 30 APKR030006662008
Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiff and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant’s sister, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by her. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiff and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant’s sister on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant's sister/M.Samrajya Lakshmamma and her son Rama Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the first defendant was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiff and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiff and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2, 4 and 8 played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them subsequently also by assuring them they would come forth and complete the sale 31 APKR030006662008 transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and others conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiff and other purchasers in the red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiff therein himself was not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiff in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date.
On contest by the plaintiff and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiff and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The possession of the plaintiff of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of the plaintiff. The sale deeds obtained by defendants 2 to11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide 32 APKR030006662008 purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 4 and 8 which are continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
S.No. NameR.S.No.Extent
1.A. KAMESANJANEYA SARMA 215/1B 4-00
A. SEETHA RAMA SARMA,171
A. VENKATE SWARA SARMA.
2. KALLAM RAMA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY..171 1-50 215/1B
4. KALLAM CHINA BASIVIREDDY..215/1B1-50
5. KALLAM SUBBA REDDY.215/1B3-57
6.KALLAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY 215/1B1-50
7.PAMULAPATI VENKATAPPA REDDY 215/1B, 0-37 171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAM VEERARAGHAVAREDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAMSAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½ 33 APKR030006662008
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY171 0-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY171 0-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT171 215-43
(e)It can be seen from the above that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration long back and has always been ready and willing to perform his part by taking registered sale deed at his own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform their part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiff and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2 to
11 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 12 and 13 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.10 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff along with defendants No.1 to 9 and 11 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
16)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it 34 APKR030006662008 is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiff made this allegation to appear as if he is in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiff and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiff and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and 35 APKR030006662008 retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiff and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of 36 APKR030006662008 the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
17)Written statement of defendants 2 to 11:-
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The suit is filed basing on a copy of agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 without any explanation for non-production of the original.
Suit is clearly barred by time as it is not filed within three years from 31.12.1980 fixed for the performance of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980.
The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not true and correct. The plaintiff cannot filed this suit within three years from 5.5.1986 when the defendants got sale deeds executed and registered in their favour by first defendant. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs.3850/- from the first defendant and took possession of the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiff threatened to interfere with the possession of the defendants, the defendants filed OS 513/1986 for permanent injunction on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Vijayawada. The proceedings in the said suit are not final and so, the orders passed in IA No. 1049/1986 and Appeal in CMA No.40/1986 are not binding on the defendants, as the relief sought for in that suit is different from the relief sought for by the plaintiff in this suit. It is not true that these defendants are aware of the suit agreement when they got executed and registered the sale deed on 5.5.1986. The defendants subsequently got amended the plaint in OS 513/1986 converting the suit into recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property therein. As the jurisdictional value exceeded the Munsif Court the plaint was returned for 37 APKR030006662008 presentation before proper Court and accordingly it was presented to the Sub-Court,
Vijayawada and numbered as OS No. 88/1988 and the suit is still pending. All the contentions now raised in this plaint were raised in that suit as a defence. Section 53-
A of Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the plaintiffs case as no possession was delivered to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale even assuming that the plaintiff is in possession of portions of plaint schedule property covered in OS 88/1988, his possession is illegal, unlawful and that of a trespasser and as such the equitable doctrine of part performance is not applicable to the plaintiff. Further as the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 they cannot rely upon the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit is filed on 5.4.1989 after a long delay of more than eight years and is liable to be dismissed. Defendants are not liable for the value of the stamps of Rs.380/- (Rs.340/- ?) alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff for getting the sale deed executed by the first defendant in their favour. The first defendant and the plaintiff colluded and got this suit filed to cause wrongful loss to the defendants who purchased the property for valuable consideration and put in possession of the property on 5.5.1986. Suit is filed to multiply the proceedings and cause wrongful loss to the defendants while OS 88/1988 was still pending as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
18)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the damages as claimed?
3. To what relief?
19)Appeal suit No. 29/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 625/1991 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
38 APKR030006662008 some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
20)OS No.625/1991 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendants 2, 4 and 8 on one hand and the first defendant and others on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.640/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
21)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 along with the father of other plaintiffs and defendants 2,4 and 8 purchased from the first defendant/Smt.Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmi and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds
dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from
that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other 39 APKR030006662008 vendor/Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and 6 and father of the 5th plaintiff and others along with the defendants 2, 4 and 8 having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder.
The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The Harijan Field Labour Co- operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff No.4 and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in
RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk
Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the 40 APKR030006662008 plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant in Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and other purchasers and defendants 2, 4 and 8 were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose
S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees and some others gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and 41 APKR030006662008 counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the the other vendor/M.Raja Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2, 4 and 8 and others played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and defendants 2,4 and 8 and others conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the
Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also 42 APKR030006662008 the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge,
Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The fifth plaintiff is the nominee of his father under the contract and thus, the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers defendants 2 to11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 4 and 8 which are continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
43 APKR030006662008
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
S.NO.NAMER.S.NO.EXTENT
1.A.KAMESANJANEYA SARMA215/1B4-00 171
2.KALLAM RAMA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY1711-50 215/1B
4.KALLAM CHINA BASIVIREDDY215/1B3-57
5.KALLAM SUBBA REDDY215/1B1-50
6.KALLAMSATYANARAYANA215/1B1-50
REDDY
7.PAMULAPATI215/1B0-37
VENKATAPPAREDDY171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAMVEERARAGHAVA215/1B0-43 ¾
REDDY
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½ 44 APKR030006662008
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY1710-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT1715-43 215/1B
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform her part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2 to
11 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 12 and 13 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.10 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 9 and 11 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
22)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it 45 APKR030006662008 is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and 46 APKR030006662008 retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P. Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of 47 APKR030006662008 the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
23)Written statement of defendants 2 to 11:-
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant on 5.5.1986 for a sum of Rs.9000/- and it was registered as document No.1310 on the file of the SRO, Vuyyuru. The property was sold by the first defendant as she was not living at Chagantipadu village and as she was not getting any income from the schedule property and for other reasons mentioned in the sale deed. The first defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants on the date of sale deed and consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and since then defendants 2 to 11 are in continuous possession and enjoyment with absolute rights raising crops therein.
The suit is frivolous and vexatious. Defendants 2 to 11 adopt the written statement of the first defendant as far as it is not inconsistent with their written statement. The matter in OS 513/1986 is pending and has not become final. The contents of OS 88/1988 are true and correct. Defendants 2 to 11 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiffs and first defendant are colluding together only to defeat the rights of the defendants 2 to 11. Section 53-A is not applicable to the facts of the case. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property at any point of time particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. They are not entitled for specific performance which is an equitable remedy 48 APKR030006662008 and they are guilty of suppression of facts and invented new facts. The suit is barred by limitation. Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
24)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the suit is barred by time?
2. Whether the payment endorsement dated 13.12.1980 is correct?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for specific performance?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.640/- towards damages as prayed for?
5. To what relief?
25)Appeal suit No. 30/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 103/1992 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
26)OS No.103/1992 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 13 on one hand and the first defendant on the other on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.640/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
27)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and predecessors of 3 to 10 along with some others purchased from the first defendant and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra
Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as 49 APKR030006662008 the plan by three registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiffs and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Samarjya
Lakshmamma put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiffs and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 9 and Kallam
Pedda Basivi Reddy and others along with the defendant No.4 having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder. The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The Harijan Field Labour Co-operative 50 APKR030006662008
Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff No.1 and some others seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. Plaintiff No.10 is nominee of Kallam Pedda Basivi Reddy under the said contract entitled to have a sale deed executed in his favour also.
While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant’s sister in
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and other purchasers and defendants 2, 4,5, 9 and 13 and others were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose
S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant’s sister were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees and some others gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in
Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her sister, and her son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her sister’s son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them 51 APKR030006662008 dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama
Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant’s sister, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant’s sister on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant’s sister and Rama
Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the other vendor/M.Raja
Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition 52 APKR030006662008 in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2, 5 and 9 played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and the said defendants conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof.
From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
53 APKR030006662008
(c) The 10th plaintiff is the nominee of Kallam Pedda Basivi Reddy under the contract and thus, the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers defendants 2,3,5 to11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs has nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds
dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 5 and 9 which are
continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and marked red in the plan are as follows:-
S.NO.NAMER.S.NO.EXTENT
1.A.KAMESANJANEYA SARMA215/1B4-00
2.KALLAM RAMA REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY1711-50 215/1B
4.KALLAM CHINA BASIVI REDDY215/1B3-57 54 APKR030006662008
5.KALLAM SUBBA REDDY215/1B1-50
6.KALLAMSATYANARAYANA215/1B1-50
REDDY
7.PAMULAPATIVENKATAPPA215/1B0-37
REDDY
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAMVEERA215/1B0-43 ¾
RAGHAVAREDDY
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215 1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY1710-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT1715-43 215/1B
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform their part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and 55 APKR030006662008 committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2, 3,
5 to 12 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 4 and 13 are also purchasers along with the plaintiffs and earlier registered contracts dated 26.7.1980 and signed sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and they are also entitled to seek specific performance along with the plaintiffs but as they have not come forth to join the plaintiffs and have not co-operated they are also impleaded as defendants and the plaintiffs are seeking specific performance in their favour also either by a single sale deed in their favour or separate sale deed.
Defendants 14 and 15 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.11 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 10, 12 and 13 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
28)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land 56 APKR030006662008 and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and 57 APKR030006662008 others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
58 APKR030006662008
29)Written statement of defendants
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The suit is filed basing on a copy of agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 without any explanation for non-production of the original.
Suit is clearly barred by time as it is not filed within three years from 31.12.1980 fixed for the performance of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980.
The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not true and correct. The plaintiff cannot filed this suit within three years from 5.5.1986 when the defendants got sale deeds executed and registered in their favour by first defendant. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property for valuable consideration from the first defendant and took possession of the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiffs threatened to interfere with the possession of the defendants, the defendants filed
OS 513/1986 for permanent injunction on the file of the Prl. District Munsif Court,
Vijayawada. The proceedings in the said suit are not final and so, the orders passed in IA No. /1986 and Appeal in CMA No. /1986 are not binding on the defendants, as the relief sought for in that suit is different from the relief sought for by the plaintiffs in this suit. It is not true that these defendants are aware of the suit agreement when they got executed and registered the sale deed on 5.5.1986. The defendants subsequently got amended the plaint in OS 513/1986 converting the suit into recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property therein. As the jurisdictional value exceeded the Munsiff Court the plaint was returned for presentation before proper Court and accordingly it was presented to the Sub-Court, Vijayawada and numbered as OS No. 88/1988 and the suit is still pending. All the contentions now raised in this plaint were raised in that suit as a defence. Section 53-A of Transfer of
Property Act does not apply to the plaintiffs case as no possession was delivered to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale even assuming that the plaintiffs are in 59 APKR030006662008 possession of portions of plaint schedule property covered in OS 88/1988, their possession is illegal, unlawful and that of a trespasser and as such the equitable doctrine of part performance is not applicable to the plaintiffs. Further as the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 they cannot rely upon the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit is filed on 5.4.1989 after a long delay of more than eight years and is liable to be dismissed. Defendants are not liable for the value of the stamps of Rs.380/- (Rs.640/- ?) alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiffs for getting the sale deed executed by the first defendant in their favour. The first defendant and the plaintiffs colluded and got this suit filed to cause wrongful loss to the defendants who purchased the property for valuable consideration and put in possession of the property on 5.5.1986. Suit is filed to multiply the proceedings and cause wrongful loss to the defendants while OS 88/1988 was still pending as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
30)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?
2. Whether the suit is barred by time?
3. To what relief?
31)Appeal suit No. 31/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 100/1992 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
32)OS No.100/1992 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs 60 APKR030006662008 and defendants 4 and 6 on one hand and the first defendant and on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.500/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
33)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiffs 1 to 4, 8 and 9 and fathers of other plaintiffs along with some others purchased from the first defendant and Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one
Tandra Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Raja
Rajeswari Devi put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered 61 APKR030006662008 contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 6, 8 to 16 and fathers of plaintiffs 7 and 17 and others along with the defendants 2, 4,5, 10 and father of the 6th defendant having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder. The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The
Harijan Field Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against some of the said purchasers that is, plaintiffs 1, 3, 6 and 8 seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged trespass on any land belonging to the said Society.
In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant in
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5, 8, 10 and father of 6th defendant and others were ready with the general stamps for executing 62 APKR030006662008 five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose
S.Venkateswara Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant were also present along with the vendors and vendees. Both the vendors and vendees and some others gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her son Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds relating to the first defendant, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no 63 APKR030006662008 reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the the other vendor/M.Raja Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with defendants 2,5 and 10 played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and defendants conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and 64 APKR030006662008 occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The plaintiffs 7 and 17 are the nominee and successors of their fathers respectively and thus, the possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers, defendants 2, 3, 5, 7 to 13 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds
dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2,5 and 10 which are
continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:- 65 APKR030006662008
S.NO.NAMER.S.NO.EXTENT
1.A.KAMESANJANEYA SARMA215/1B4-00
2.KALLAM RAMA REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY1711-50 215/1B
4.KALLAM CHINA BASIVI REDDY215/1B3-57
5.KALLAM SUBBA REDDY215/1B1-50
6.KALLAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY 215/1B1-50
7.PAMULAPATI VENKATAPPA REDDY 215/1B1710-37
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY 215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAM VEERA RAGHAVA REDDY 215/1B0-43 ¾
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-871/2
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY1710-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY1710-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT1715-43 215/1B 66 APKR030006662008
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform her part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2, 3,
5, 7 to 13 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 4 and 6 are also purchasers along with the plaintiffs under earlier registered contracts dated 26.7.1980 and unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 and they are also entitled to seek specific performance along with the plaintiffs but since they did not come forward to join as plaintiffs and have not co-operated they are impleaded as defendants and the plaintiffs are seeking specific performance in their also either by single sale deed or by separate sale deeds. Defendants 14 and 15 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.12 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 11 and 13 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
34)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under 67 APKR030006662008 water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and 68 APKR030006662008 later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after 69 APKR030006662008 the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
35)Written statement of defendants
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant on 6.5.1986 for a sum of Rs.7000/- and it was registered as document No.1311 on the file of the SRO, Vuyyuru. The property was sold by the first defendant as she was not living at Chagantipadu village and as she was not getting any income from the schedule property and for other reasons mentioned in the sale deed. The first defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants on the date of sale deed and consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and since then the above defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment with absolute rights raising crops therein. The suit is frivolous and vexatious. Above defendants adopt the written statement of the first defendant as far as it is not inconsistent with their written statement. The matter in OS 513/1986 is pending and has not become final. The contents of OS 88/1988 are true and correct. Above defendants are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiffs and first defendant are colluding together only to defeat the rights of the above defendants. Section 53-A is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property at any point of time particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. They are not entitled for specific performance which is an equitable remedy and they are guilty of suppression of facts and invented new facts.
The suit is barred by limitation. Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
70 APKR030006662008
36)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
37)Appeal suit No. 33/2008
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in OS 626/1991 on the file of the Prl.Senior
Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada against the defendants therein.Due to death of
some of the parties their legal representatives brought on record and for the sake of convenience they are referred by their position in the original suit including the added legal representatives.
38)OS No.626/1991 was filed for specific performance of registered contract of sale dated 26.7.1980 read with the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendants 2, 4 and 8 on one hand and the first defendant on the other hand on 6.4.1986 resulting in engrossing of unsigned sale deed dated 6.4.1986 on stamp paper and subsequent undertakings of the first defendant to execute and registered a sale deed on 9.4.1986 and 28.4.1986 in respect of the plaint schedule property; and for Rs.380/- as damages or as reimbursement against the defendants with interest from the date of the suit at 6% till realization and costs.
39)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) The plaintiff’s adjoining owners purchased from the first defendant and
Smt. Meka Ratna Kumari and one Tandra Venkatappaiah, the items marked blue in the plan annexed hereinafter referred to as the plan by three registered sale deeds
dated 4.7.1961 and have been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof from
that time till now. As the plaint schedule lands marked red in the plan were lying fallow with shrubs etc., uncultivated and the said vendors practically abandoned the same, the plaintiff and other aforesaid purchasers occupied the said lands too in the 71 APKR030006662008 year 1961 itself as they adjoining lands marked blue purchased under the registered sale deeds above and from then they have been continuing in possession of the lands marked red also along with the items covered by the sale deeds. The plaintiff and other purchasers having cleared small extents, brought them under cultivation out of the red marked lands and they have been raising crops and some times ‘rellu’ and enjoying the produce althrough. While so, the first defendant and the other vendor/Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi put for sale the items marked red and thereupon the plaintiff and others negotiated with them to purchase, as the red marked items adjoining the blue marked lands and also both the blue and red marked items have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and others to the knowledge of the vendors. Ultimately the bargain was settled and the vendors executed registered contracts of the sale dated 26.7.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs and others having received bulk of the sale consideration except paltry sum of
Rs.100/- under each one of the sale deeds and thus their possession of the items covered by the contracts of sale marked red has been in their own right as purchasers thereunder. The plaintiffs and other purchasers have been enjoying their respective red and blue marked extents as single plots conveniently, paying land revenue etc. Subsequently plaintiffs and other purchasers paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.100/- also under each one of the contracts to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendors. The
Harijan Field Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 on the file of this Court against some of the said purchasers seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of an extent of a land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem hamlet of Chagantipadu and other reliefs. The defendants therein contested the suit and a temporary injunction petition filed against them pleading the same facts now pleaded and denying the alleged 72 APKR030006662008 trespass on any land belonging to the said Society. In that suit the Court appointed the Taluk Surveyor as commissioner. He inspected the suit lands as well as the items referred above and filed report along with sketch which show the plaint schedule items marked red being in possession and enjoyment of the purchasers who had contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 in their favour. While so, the aforesaid vendors and the plaintiffs and other vendees assembled on 6.4.1986 at about 8.30 am, at the residence of first defendant in Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11 for the purpose of completing the sale transactions as earlier thought of. The plaintiffs and other purchasers were ready with the general stamps for executing five sale deeds in all in their favour jointly. A scribe fetched for the purpose S.Venkateswara
Rao and Rama Mohana Rao son of the first defendant were also present along with the vendors and vendees and some others. Both the vendors and vendees gave instructions to scribe who prepared five draft sale deeds in Telugu in favour of all the purchasers incorporating the recitals given up by the first defendant and her son
Rama Mohana Rao in the main. They were read over and the first defendant and her son also read them and gave their approval and instructed the scribe to get the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on general stamp already made ready by the purchasers as per the draft and all of them dispersed. They all assembled again at about 3.30 pm, and the scribe brought the five sale deeds typed in Telugu on stamp papers and the vendors and M.Rama Mohana Rao read all of them and found them correct and the vendors expressed their willingness and consent to sign all the documents as executants. With the bonafide belief that they would do so, the scribe put his signatures thereon as one having prepared the drafts in their presence. At that juncture, the vendors and the said Rama Mohana Rao stated that they would go to
Eluru and consult their people and counsel and asked the plaintiffs and others to come again two days later and so saying they took three out of five sale deeds 73 APKR030006662008 relating to the first defendant, engrossed on stamp papers and the corresponding contracts dated 26.7.1980 executed by the first defendant. All of them agreed to meet two days later and dispersed. When the plaintiffs and other purchasers went to the house of the first defendant on 9.4.1986, the said vendors and Rama Mohana
Rao stated that they could not go and consult their people and counsel and there was no hurry for registration and they need not cherish any doubts as they were continuing in possession and enjoyment and were already having the other two sale deeds in their hands and further stated that they would intimate the vendees about the date of registration of the documents. Therefore they had no reasons to doubt their bonafides and went away requesting them to expedite the matters. Having waited without any intimation they again contacted the first defendant and Rama
Mohana Rao on 28.4.1986, when the latter stated that the the other vendor/M.Raja
Rajeswari Devi was not in town and assured them that they would get ready for registration of all the five sale deeds on her return and intimate them. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and others came away.
(b) While the plaintiffs and other purchasers were waiting for intimation from the vendors, to their shock and surprise they received copy of the plaint and petition in OS 513/1986 on the file of this Court together with notices from the Court on or about 4.6.1986 and on taking advise they came to know for the first time that the first defendant and Rama Mohana Rao and the other vendors along with others played fraud on them and cheated them having induced to part with the said three sale deeds engrossed on stamp paper along with the corresponding earlier registered contracts of sale and continued to play fraud and cheat them, subsequently also by assuring them that they would come forth and complete the sale transactions by registering the said five sale deeds. It was evident that the said vendors and defendants and others conspired and colluded together in order to defeat their 74 APKR030006662008 earlier contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the rights and interests of the plaintiffs and other purchasers in the respective red marked items which they have acquired and to be protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The case set up by them in OS 513/1986 is totally untrue and incorrect and they played fraud on the plaintiffs and other purchasers and also the Court. They are guilty of perjury and suppression of facts, truth and willful misrepresentation thereof. From a reading of the plaint in OS 513/1986 it is evident that the vendors of the plaintiffs therein were themselves not in possession of red marked items for over 50 years prior to the suit as admitted in the plaint and therefore there was no scope and occasion for their delivering possession to the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 on 5.5.1986 or any other date. On contest by the plaintiffs and others the said injunction petition was dismissed. CMA preferred against the said dismissal order was also dismissed.
Thereupon the plaintiffs in OS 513/1986 have represented their plaint in OS 88/88 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada by adding a prayer for possession of the said property which includes the items marked red in the plaint plan. The plaintiffs and other purchasers as defendants therein filed written statements and are contesting the same.
(c) The possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land is that of purchasers for good valuable consideration under earlier contracts of sale read with unregistered sale deeds dated 6.4.1986. The vendors as well as the subsequent purchasers from the vendors are bound to execute and register proper sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at the expenses of the plaintiffs. The sale deeds obtained by the subsequently purchasers, defendants 2 to 11 are fraudulent, collusive and not supported by consideration and were obtained with full knowledge of registered contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs as well as sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 engrossed on stamp papers and they are not bonafide purchasers as such the 75 APKR030006662008 subsequent sale deeds by first defendant are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have nothing to do with the other plots covered by unsigned sale deeds
dated 6.4.1986 in favour of the original purchasers, defendants 2, 4 and 8 which are
continuing in possession of the said purchaser.
(d) The details of the extents covered by the earlier five contracts of sale dated 26.7.1980 and the five sale deeds typed on stamp papers are as follows:-
S.No. NameR.S.No.Extent
1.A. KAME SANJANEYA SARMA 215/1B 4-00
A. SEETHA RAMA SARMA,171
A. VENKATESWARA SARMA.
2. KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾ 171
3.KALLAM BASIVI REDDY..215/1B1-50
4. KALLAM CHINA BASIVIREDDY..215/1B3-57
5. KALLAM SUBBA REDDY.215/1B1-50
6.KALLAM SATYANARAYANA REDDY 215/1B1-50
7.PAMULAPATI VENKATAPPA REDDY 215/1B, 0-37 171
8.KALLAM NARAPA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
9.KALLAM RAMI REDDY215/1B0-65 ¾
10.KALLAM VEERARAGHAVAREDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
11.BADDIGAM SANJEEVA REDDY215/1B0-43 ¾
12.KALLAM SAMBI REDDY215/1B0-87 ½ 76 APKR030006662008
13.KALLAM RAMI REDDY171 0-43 ¾ 215/1B
14.BADDIGAM KOTI REDDY171 0-87 ½ 215/1B
15.JOINT171 215-43
(e) It can be seen from the above that the plaintiffs paid the entire sale consideration long back and have always been ready and willing to perform their part by taking registered sale deed at their own expense and it is only the vendors who evaded to perform her part and ultimately entered into fraudulent transactions and committed breach of contract. The possession of the plaintiffs and other purchasers of other plots is lawful and is to be protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act and they are entitled to specific performance of the contracts of the sale
dated 26.7.1980 read with unsigned sale deeds dated 6.4.1986 and defendants 2 to
11 are also bound to join in execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with the first defendant and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(f) Defendants 12 and 13 are impleaded being the legal representatives of the defendant No.10 and are therefore bound to join execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.1 to 9 and 11 and reimburse the value of the stamp.
(g) Plaintiff No.3 died on 1.2.2002 and plaintiffs 4 to 6 are added as his legal representatives.
77 APKR030006662008
40)Written statement of defendant No.1:-
(a) The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct. Plaintiffs are not entitled for specific performance as claimed. The suit is barred by limitation. The allegations made in para No.3 of the plaint are false. It is absurd to state that while it is admitted that the first defendant sold the blue marked land, it is strange to contend that she allowed the red marked land to be occupied by the plaintiff and others. The red marked land for a very long time remained fallow submerged frequently under water and unfit for cultivation till 1986 when only defendants 2 to 10 purchased the red marked land from first defendant by registered sale deeds and made the land fit for cultivation. They used to be now and then ‘rellu’ in portion of the red marked land and question of raising crop in the said land never arose. Plaintiffs made this allegation to appear as if they are in possession of the red marked land along with others since 1961.
(b) It is no doubt true that the first defendant agreed to sell the red marked land to the plaintiffs and others and executed agreements of sale in their favour on 26.7.1980. The plaintiffs and others abandoned the said land and did not seek registered sale deeds from the first defendant. They had no possession of the schedule land either before 26.7.1980 or from 26.7.1980. It is clearly stated in the agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 that the possession of the lands purchased could be delivered at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. If so, it is fantastic on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he and others are in possession of the red marked land from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff and others felt that they entered into an useless transaction with the first defendant as they could not get any income on the red marked land. They were regretting for the investment made by them. So, they approached the defendant No.1 through Putchakayala
Gangi Reddy, who originally arranged the sale of the red marked land and got the 78 APKR030006662008 agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 executed in their favour and requested the defendant No.1 to pay back the monies paid by them under the above said agreements of sale and retain the land to herself. On the pursuation of Gangi Reddy first defendant agreed to return the sale amounts paid by the plaintiff and others and retained the land to herself and her sister. The first defendant has been acting for herself and on behalf of her sister Rajeswari Devi, who together owned the red marked land. Both at the time of entering into the agreements of sale in 1980 and later when the plaintiff and others negotiated for the return of sale amount and giving up lands. Accordingly the first defendant and Rajeswari Devi paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiff and others through P.Gangi Reddy. Thus, the plaintiff and others had given up the red marked land and are in no way concerned of it. In fact three original registered agreements executed by the first defendant were handed over to her by the respective purchasers.
(c) The allegations in para No.4 of the plaint relating to the suit OS
No.664/1991 on the file of this Court filed by Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society for permanent injunction are irrelevant for the purpose of this suit.
(d) The allegations in para No.5 are totally false. The plaintiffs and others never approached the first defendant or her sister for the execution of the sale deeds and the story in para No.5 is false and invented for the purpose of the suit made with oblique purpose.
(e) The allegations in para No.6 are false. The suit is not for possession and so, mentioning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct. OS 513/1986 is still pending and findings therein are erroneous. Defendants 2 and 11 converted the said suit in to one for possession.
(f) The allegations in para No.7 are false and it is not correct to state that the sale deeds obtained by D2 to D11 are not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants are 79 APKR030006662008 not liable to execute and register sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and others. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The suit ought to have been filed within three years from 31.12.1980 which is the date fixed for performance and having been filed beyond three years from 31.12.1980. It is liable to be dismissed as per Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act. The cause of action is false. The relief claimed is equitable.
The plaintiff being aware of the suit filed by D2 to D11 against him pending since 1986 did not choose to file the suit till now. So, the suit is filed about nine years after the date fixed for specific performance. So, the equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted and the suit be dismissed with costs.
41)Written statement of defendants 2 to 11:-
The allegations made in the plaint are not true and correct and are required to be proved except the admitted facts. The defendants purchased the plaint schedule property from the first defendant on 5.5.1986 for a sum of Rs.5000/- and it was registered as document No.1312 on the file of the SRO, Vuyyuru. The property was sold by the first defendant as she was not living at Chagantipadu village and as she was not getting any income from the schedule property and for other reasons mentioned in the sale deed. The first defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants on the date of sale deed and consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and since then the above defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment with absolute rights raising crops therein. The suit is frivolous and vexatious. Above defendants adopt the written statement of the first defendant as far as it is not inconsistent with their written statement. The matter in OS 513/1986 is pending and has not become final. The contents of OS 88/1988 are true and correct. Above defendants are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the alleged agreement of sale. The plaintiffs and first defendant are colluding together only to defeat the rights 80 APKR030006662008 of the above defendants. Section 53-A is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property at any point of time particularly as on the date of filing of the suit. They are not entitled for specific performance which is an equitable remedy and they are guilty of suppression of facts and invented new facts.
The suit is barred by limitation. Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
42)On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract of sale as prayed for in the plaint?
2. Whether the suit is barred by time?
3. To what relief?
43)Joint trial of all the suits:
Since the suit schedule property in OS 88/1988 and other suits OS Nos.626, 625, 627/1991, 100 and 103/1992 is one and the same and since all the parties in all the suits are one and the same, as per the memo filed by both the parties on 17.11.2001, all the suits were clubbed and common evidence was recorded in OS 626/1991. The evidence of the plaintiffs’ side recorded in OS 626/1991 was treated as plaintiffs’ evidence in OS Nos.625, 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 and as the evidence of defendants in OS 88/1988. Similarly the evidence of the defendants recorded in OS 626/1991 is treated as evidence of plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 and as evidence of defendants in OS Nos.625, 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992.
44)The plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.A1 to A26.
Defendants examined DWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs.B1 to B17. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, by common judgment and decree dated 30-9-2004, dismissed
OS Nos. 625, 626 and 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 asking the parties to bear their own costs and decreed OS 88/1988 granting possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs therein evicting the defendants in that suit and granting 81 APKR030006662008 permanent injunction in their favour and against defendants 1, 3 to 20 therein asking the parties to bear their own costs. Challenging the same, defendants in OS 88/1988 filed AS 89/2004 and the plaintiffs in OS Nos. 626, 627, 625 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992 have filed AS Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33 of 2008.
45)In this judgment, the appellants mean the plaintiffs in Original Suits
Nos.625,626,627 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992 and defendants in Original Suit
No.88/1988 and Legal representatives of the parties added due to the death of the original parties and Respondents mean the defendants in Original Suits Nos.625, 626, 627 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992 and plaintiffs in Original Suit No.88/1988 and legal representatives of the parties added due to the death of the original parties.
46)Grounds of Appeal in all the appeals:
(1) The judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(2) The trial Court ought to have found that the respondents’ pleading that the agreements of sale are barred is very vague and without reasons.
(3) The trial Court should have seen that respondents specifically pleaded that they purchased the entire plaint schedule property under four different sale deeds for good consideration and they are bonafide purchasers without notice of the agreement of sale executed by their vendors in favour of the appellants.
(4) The trial Court did not see that the respondents failed to plead that the prior agreements of sale were abandoned or cancelled or the consideration was refunded to the appellants.
(5) The trial Court did not see that no issues were framed in the suits regarding bonafide nature of the sale deeds in favour of the respondents or regarding abandonment or cancellation or refund of the sale consideration to the appellants by their vendors and should have held that the respondents are not entitled to adduce 82 APKR030006662008 any evidence in that respect and that any amount of evidence without pleading cannot be looked into as held in AIR 1966 SC 1861, AIR 1975 Bombay 52, AIR 1974
AP 193 and AIR 1984 Calcutta 215 and should have ignored the evidence of the respondents in that respect and even if considered should have held that it is lacking in material particulars.
(6) The trial Court should have considered a report of the commissioner in OS 513/1986 which was referred in CMA 60/1986 and the findings in the CMA about the appellants continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from 1961 and it erred in ignoring the same.
(7) The trial Court erred in holding that the plaint, written statement and report of the
Surveyor with sketch in OS 664/1981 and the judgment in the said suit are not binding on the respondents as they are not parties to the said suit and ought to have held them as relevant and considered the same.
(8) The trial Court ignored and over looked several decisions cited by the counsel for the appellants inspite of filing of the same with memo as directed by the Court.
(9) The trial Court ought to have seen that the respondents pleaded in the plaint in
OS 88/1988 that vendors have not been cultivating the plaint schedule property since
last more than 50 years as they were living far away from the plaint schedule property and that the appellants were raising crops in the plaint schedule property.
(10) The trial Court ought to have found from the depositions of Dws 1 and 2 that they admitted that the vendors never exercised any acts of possession in the red marked plaint schedule land after sale of the adjoining blue marked lands to the appellants and others 40 years ago.
(11) The trial Court did not consider the evidence of DW4 that his father or the vendors or himself paid any land revenue for the schedule land; that they did not lease out for cultivation or grazing; that they did not grant any permission/license for 83 APKR030006662008 cutting wood or trees in the suit land; that they did not keep any watchman for the suit land; that they were not enjoying the suit land and they never visited the suit land after the agreements in favour of the appellants and does not know who were enjoying the property thereafter and therefore DW4 did not know on which side of the land the suit lands are situated.
(12) The trial Court did not see the admission of DW3 that the suit lands were full of bushes and shrubs without cultivation which is falsified by the report of the commissioner.
(13) The trial Court should have considered the evidence of DW3 that they have not taken possession of the suit land purchased under Exs.B1 to B4 though possession was referred in the sale deeds and that some of the appellants were raising sugarcane in part of the suit lands and that chillies and vegetables are grown in the suit land.
(14) The trial Court erred in ignoring the cist receipts paid for the suit land by PW1 and ought to have found that the evidence proves the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the appellants from 1961 and that the vendors or anyone else claimed to have been in possession and enjoyment at any time.
(15) The trial Court ought to have presumed on a report of the Commissioner that the appellants have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land during the period anterior thereto as well as subsequent thereto and prior to or subsequent to OS 664/1981 by drawing presumption of continuity of possession and enjoyment backwards as well as forwards in view of the decision in 1966 SC 605 and 1985 (3)
APLJ 83.
(16) The trial Court held in finding issue No.2 in OS 88/1988 that the vendors had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land which is contrary to the pleadings and evidence.
84 APKR030006662008 (17) The trial Court erred in it’s findings that the appellants admitted the possession of the vendors as per the agreements of sale.
(18) The trial Court should have found that the usual recitals regarding delivery of possession made in the registered agreements of sale cannot stand and falsify the valuable and voluminous documentary evidence and admissions of the respondents and proved by the report of the commissioner and receipts.
(19) The trial Court should have found that the appellants have been in possession through out prior to the agreements of sale and from the date of agreements in furtherance of agreements.
(20) The trial Court should have considered that the entire sale consideration except paltry amount of Rs.100/- which was also paid on 31.12.1980 as asserted by them and so, the continuing in possession was in furtherance of the agreements of sale.
(21) The trial Court should have found that the vendors never protested against the appellants that they are not entitled to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property though they were continuing in possession.
(22) The trial Court should have found that the appellants who parted bulk of the sale consideration under the agreements have been continuing in possession to the knowledge of and with the express or implied consent of the vendors and that the vendors did not raise any protest for the said reason and therefore the appellants satisfied the requirements under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
(23) The trial Court erred in not referring to the memo filed by the appellants on 28.9.2004 that they are ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of
Rs.100/- under each agreement in all the five suits filed for specific performance and in view of the decision in 1982 (2) ALT 86 should have found that the appellants have bonafides and were always ready and willing to perform their part.
85 APKR030006662008 (24) The trial Court should have found that the appellants having paid the entire sale consideration in thousands of rupees except paltry amount of Rs.100/- under each agreement would not have withheld the balance of small amount of Rs.100/- and would not have kept quiet without continuing in possession and enjoyment of the lands by bringing the lands under cultivation clearing the bushes raising commercial crops and would not have abandoned or cancelled the agreements for any reason and therefore they are entitled for invoking Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property
Act and ought to have considered the inaction on the part of the vendors in not raising any protest and not making any demand regarding performance of the agreements.
(25) The trial Court, and the admission in the pleading, evidence of DW4 ought to have found that the vendors were not in possession since last 50 years and that the assertion of the appellants that they came into possession in 1961 and have been in continuous possession and ought to have considered it as unauthorized and it amounts to dispossession of the vendors by virtue of Section 27 and Articles 64 of the New Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 28 and 142 of the old Limitation Act and their right and title and of the respondents be deemed to have been extinguished in view of the judgment in AIR 2000 SAR 710 in alternate their contention regarding
Section 53- A of the Transfer of Property Act, if the relief for specific performance is to be held by barred by time by virtue of the ratio in 2004 SAR 451. Further as the appellants are ready and willing to deposit the paltry amount of Rs.100/- with interest as stated in the memos and as they are entitled for specific performance as in the decision 1982 (2) ALT 686 (referred above).
(26) The trial Court ought not to have considered the evidence of DW4 power of attorney of his mother and her sister as he did not file the pleadings and has no knowledge about the agreements and he can gave evidence only as a witness and 86 APKR030006662008 cannot substitute his principals and that the principals should have been examined to face the cross-examination regarding the contentions of the appellants and in the absence of the same without genuine and valid reasons should have drawn adverse inference against them as laid down in the decisions in AIR 1961 SC 1413 and AIR 1958 AP 22.
(27) The trial Court should have kept the burden of proof on the respondents to prove that they are bonafide purchasers without notice and could have seen that their pleading is falsified by the fact that respondents 2 to 4 who are parties to prior agreement also joined other respondents in obtaining the sale deeds/Exs.B1 to B4.
(28) The trial Court should have considered that the appellants came to know about the vendors refusal to perform their part only after notices in OS 513/1986 on 4.6.1986 and should have found all the suits for specific performance are within limitation and erred in finding the suits are barred by time.
(29) The trial Court did not consider that the balance sale consideration could be paid with interest at 18% after the stipulated date and sale deeds could be executed and registered and so, no time is fixed for the performance of the contract and so, the suits are within limitation from the date of knowledge of refusal or even from 28.4.1986 when they assured that they would complete the sale transaction.
(30) The trial Court erred in finding that the balance consideration of Rs.100/- was not paid as the payments are not evidenced by any endorsements and there is no documentary evidence to prove the same and that the appellants who were continuing in possession did not find it necessary to have the payments endorsed on the agreements and it is natural and probable.
(31) The trial Court should have disbelieved the case of the respondents and evidence of DW4 that the entire sale consideration was refunded to the appellants 87 APKR030006662008 without any endorsement of cancellation on the agreements and without any vouchers though it did not accept the version of the appellants by the same test.
(32) The trial Court should have disbelieved the evidence of defence witnesses that the appellants postponed the returning of two original agreements/Exs.A1 and A2 for one reason or the other and should have found that the three original agreements/Exs.B1 to B3 together with corresponding sale deeds were handed over by the appellants to the vendors in the circumstances stated by them.
(33) The trial Court should have found the undue haste in which the sale deeds/Exs.B1 to B4 were directly executed and registered on 5.5.1986 and 6.5.1986 without any prior agreements against reasonable practice adopted the sale transaction in the background of the case of the appellants and should have concluded that the vendors and respondents played fraud on the appellants to defeat the agreements in favour of the appellants and ignored the ratio laid down in AIR 2000 SC 1658 and 2000(4) ALT 81 showing that subsequent purchasers are not bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the original contracts.
(34) The trial Court should have found that the mere delay does not amount to waiver of agreement of sale.
(35) The trial Court should have scrutinized the conduct of both parties with probabilities.
(36) The trial Court should have found that the respondents have given a gobye to the pleadings and adduced evidence contrary to the pleadings and attempted to prove that the vendors were continuing in possession and delivered possession under Exs.B1 to B4 and failed to produce the vendors in to the witness box intentionally.
88 APKR030006662008 (37) The trial Court should have seen that entire version of the respondents is concocted and false and held they are not bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the earlier agreement of sale.
(38) The trial Court should have considered the circumstances to know whose version is true and acceptable and should have found all the issues in favour of the appellants as per the decision in 2000 SC 1653 and could have decreed the suits for specific performance and dismissed OS 88/1988.
(39) The trial Court should have considered that the contention of the respondents regarding non-joinder of some parties is fatal to the suit is not tenable in view of the memos dated 7.11.2002 filed restricting their claims to their shares only and giving up the remaining of the persons who are not before the Court.
(40) The trial Court should have kept in mind Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act that the Court retains jurisdiction to amend the decrees suitably and decreed the suit in terms of the agreements of sale to work out other reliefs as per the memos filed by them.
(41) The trial court erred in finding that Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act barred the appellants from adducing evidence that they are continuing in possession from 1961 in view of the recitals of agreements of sale and could have found that the same is barred in case of documents which are required to be in writing under law and as the agreements of sale are not required to be law in writing and should have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants in support of their case about possession.
(42) The trial Court should have seen that all the suits for specific performance were originally filed before the District Munsif Court as OS Nos.926, 920, 927, 921 and 925 of 1989 and re-numbered as 625, 626, 627 of 1991 and 100 and 103 of 1992.
89 APKR030006662008
47)Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. The written arguments and reply written arguments filed by the appellants earlier are on record. The learned counsel for the respondents, in the place of written arguments filed earlier, filed synopsis of the arguments filed earlier.
48)The pleadings of the plaintiffs in all the suits for specific performance are same and they filed written statement in the suit for recovery of possession on the same pleadings. Similarly, the pleadings of the defendants in the suits for specific performance are same and they filed the suit for recovery of possession also on the same pleadings. The issues involved in all the suits are common. Common evidence was recorded in one suit OS 626/1991 for all the suits.
49)The plaint schedule property in OS 88/1988 is of four items. Item No.1 is
Ac.4.00 of land which is the plaint schedule property in OS 626/1991. Item No.2 is
Ac.5.43 cents of land which is the plaint schedule property in OS100/1992. Item
No.3 is Ac.7.00 of land which is the plaint schedule property in OS 625/1991. Item
No.4 is Ac.10.57 cents of land out of which Ac.3.57 cents is the plaint schedule property in OS 627/1991 and Ac.7.00 cents is plaint schedule property in OS 103/1992 all in R.S.D No. 215 and 215/1 and RS No.171 of Chagantipadu village,
Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District.
50)Hereinafter, appellants mean plaintiffs in OS Nos.625, 626, 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 and defendants in OS No.88/1988 whereas respondents mean defendants in OS Nos. 625, 626 and 627 of 1991, 100 and 103 of 1992 and the plaintiffs in OS 88/1988. The vendor under the sale agreements in OS Nos.625, 626/1991 and 100/1992 Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma is shown as
Defendant No.1 in the said suits and vendor under agreements in O.S.Nos. 627/191 and 103/1992 Meka Rajarajeswari is shown as Defendant No.1 in the said suits and they are not parties to O.S.88/1988 and they are referred as vendors. The plaint 90 APKR030006662008 schedule property hereinafter means the plaint schedule property in OS 88/1988 which includes the plaint schedule properties in other suits.
51)Now the points for determination in these appeals are:-
1. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the agreements for sale dated 26.7.1980?
2. Whether the respondents/defendants are entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction?
3. Whether there are the grounds to interfere with the decree and judgment of the trial Court?
4. To what relief?
52)POINT NO.1:-
Admitted facts:-
The plaint schedule property in OS Nos.625, 626/1991 and 100/1992 belongs to Meka Venkata Samrajya Lakshmamma (D1) and the plaint schedule property in
OS Nos. 627/191 and 103/1992 belongs to Meka Raja Rajeswari (D1). The plaintiffs in the specific performance cases purchased the properties situated adjoining the plaint schedule property from them and others under registered sale deeds dated 4.7.1961 and have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties which are marked in blue colour in the plan filed in those suits. The plaint schedule properties are shown in red colour in the said plan. The plaintiffs entered into registered agreements for sale of the plaint schedule properties vide five registered documents dated 26.7.1980 with the above said Venkata Samrajya
Lakshmamma and Raja Rajeswari making payment of major part of consideration keeping balance of Rs.100/- under each document and the sale agreements are marked as Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10(certified copies)/B11 to B13(Originals). The recitals of the said documents show that the properties will be delivered at the time of 91 APKR030006662008 execution of the registered sale deeds. The Harijan Field Labour Co-operative
Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS No.664/1981 against the plaintiffs and other purchasers for permanent injunction. Taluk Surveyor is appointed as commissioner for inspection of the said properties and he filed a report with sketch. The defendants 2 to 11 purchased the plaint schedule property from Meka Venkata Samrajya
Lakshmamma and Raja Rajeswari under registered sale deed dated 5.5.1986.
53)The 1st plaintiff in OS 626/1991 is examined as PW1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 therein are the brothers of PW1. It is his evidence that the land covered by OS
Nos.625/91, 626/91, 627/91, 100/92 and 103/92 belonged to the 1st defendant in the said suits and her sister and that the plaintiffs and others purchased the blue marked property in the plan in the year 1961 from them. PW1 produced Ex.A3 registered sale deed dated 4.7.1961 executed by D1 in favour of Ramineni Rajamma and others,
Ex.A4/ registered sale deed dated 4.7.1961 executed by D1 in favour of Rajamma and others and Ex.A5/registered sale deed dated 4.7.1961 executed by Tandra
Venkatappaiah in favour of Rajamma and others. He stated that Exs.A3 to A5 were scribed by him. Exs.A3 to A5 are relating to the property adjoining the plaint schedule properties.
54)PW1 stated further that subsequently in the year 1961, the plaint schedule properties, which are adjoining properties to the above purchased properties, shown in red colour in the plan, which were fallow, covered with shrubs and not useful for cultivation were abandoned by the vendors and that the plaintiffs in the suits have occupied the same and brought them to cultivation clearing the bushes. According to him, when the owners of the said lands, that is, D1 and her sister put the said properties for sale, himself and other plaintiffs in other suits entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of the property at Rs.900/- per acre and that himself and his brothers purchased Ac.4.00 of land from D1 under 92 APKR030006662008 agreement of sale dated 26.7.1980 registered on 26.8.1980 and paid the consideration keeping only Rs.100/- as balance. Further he stated that likewise, the plaintiffs in other suits also entered into agreements with D1 and her sister paying the entire consideration except Rs.100/- agreeing to repay the said amount by 31.12.1980. He stated that the vendors agreed to execute sale deeds in respect of agreement of sale subsequently whenever asked for.
55)It is further evidence of PW1 that the registration of the sale deeds was postponed though the entire sale consideration is paid because the purchase value is lesser than the basic value register and that they came to know in the year 1986 that the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar, Vuyyuru to register the sale deeds as per the value mentioned in the documents.
56)Further PW1 stated that they paid the balance consideration of Rs.100/- to the vendors within the stipulated time of 31.12.1980 and the lands delivered to them and since then they have been in possession of the respective lands while the plaintiffs in other suits are in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands even prior to the agreements for sale.
57)It is further evidence of PW1 that during the time of the suit transaction, the 1st defendant was residing in Satyanarayanapuram along with her son and that on 6.4.1986, himself, defendants 2 to 4 and two other defendants went to the house of D1 and requested to execute registered documents in pursuance of agreements for sale and that D1, her son and sister/Raja Rajeswari agreed to execute five sale deeds in pursuance of the sale agreements. Further he stated that Swarna
Venkateswara Rao/PW2, document writer drafted the sale deeds and asked them to get them typed on stamp papers and at that stage D1 informed them that she wants to get the title deeds examined by their advocate at Eluru. Further he stated that
PW2 signed on the documents and gave three documents to D1 to be executed by 93 APKR030006662008
D1 along with agreements and D1 promised to return them after two days. Further he says that they went to D1 on 9.4.1986 and she asked them to come after 15 to 20 days as she could not get the draft sale deeds checked by her advocate and so, again they went to her on 29.4.1986 but D1 informed them that she could not take the sale deeds from her advocate at Eluru and that she would inform them as to when they have come but they could not get any information from D1 and in the meantime they received notices in the injunction suit filed by D2 to D4 in OS 513/1986 of the Munsif Court, Vijayawada.
58)It is further evidence of PW1 that the injunction in OS 513/1986 was vacated on merits and when appeal was preferred before the Sub-Court, Vijayawada, it was also dismissed and then D2 to D4 have withdrawn OS 513/1986 and filed OS 88/1988 on the file of this Court and then they filed the suits for specific performance of the sale agreements. He produced Ex.A6/certified copy of the order in IA 1046/1986 in OS 513/1986 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vijayawada and
Ex.A7/certified copy of the order in CMA No.60/1986 on the file of Sub-Court,
Vijayawada. PW1 produced Ex.A14 as the typed copy of the draft sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and his brothers dated 6.4.1986 scribed by PW2. Further he stated that he got the five (5) draft sale deeds typed on Non-Judicial stamps and the scribe signed on the typed sale deeds on Non-judicial stamps. He produced Ex.A15 as the draft sale deed dated 6.4.1986 in favour of Kallam Venkata Reddy and others signed by PW2; Ex.A16/draft sale deed in favour of Kallam China Basivi Reddy dated 6.4.1986 signed by PW2. Exs.A14 to A16 were marked subject to objection to be decided by the Hon’ble High Court filed against the orders of the trial Court dated 22.6.2001.
59)Further it is deposed by PW1 that he was the scribe of registered sale agreements executed by D1 and Raja Rajeswari Devi and also the earlier sale 94 APKR030006662008 deeds. PW1 produced Ex.A1 and A2 agreements for sale both dated 26.7.1980 executed by Raja Rajeswari Devi. Ex.A1 relates to plaintiffs in OS 103/1992 and
Ex.A2 relates to plaintiffs in OS 627/1991. He produced Ex.A8 registration extract of the sale agreement dated 26.7.1980 executed by D1 in favour of himself and his two brothers, plaintiffs in OS No.626/1991; Ex.A9/registration extract of the sale agreement dated 26.7.1980 executed by D1 in favour of Sri K.China Punna Reddy and others (plaintiffs in OS 100/1992) and Ex.A10 registration extract of the sale agreement dated 26.7.1980 executed by D1 in favour of Kallam Subba Reddy and others (plaintiffs in OS 625/1991).
60)PW1 further stated that the plaint schedule properties in all the suits are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and while so, Harijan Field
Labour Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem filed OS 664/1981 on the file of
Munsif Court, Vijayawada against Kallam China Basivi Reddy and others for injunction claiming title to the Society land which is adjacent to the plaint schedule property intervened by a fund and in that suit a Suveyor was appointed as a
Commissioner and ultimately the said suit was dismissed.
61)PW1 deposed that D2 to D4 are plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 and though they obtained agreements for sale along with them, they obtained registered sale deeds from D1 and her sister/Raja Rajeswari Devi and along with others, who obtained sale deeds for the plaint schedule property they filed OS 88/1988 against the plaintiffs.
He says that the other plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 are also aware of the sale agreements in favour of plaintiffs and about their possession of the plaint schedule property.
Further he stated that defendants 2 to 4 did not inform them about the sale deeds in their favour by D1 and her sister. Further he says that D2 to D4 were also present with them on 6.4.1986 in the house of D1 and they very well are aware of the preparation of the draft sale deeds and typing of sale deeds on stamp papers and 95 APKR030006662008 that their documents were also typed on stamp papers and therefore, they are not bona-fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs and that their sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs and they have no right to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property.
62)PW1 produced Exs.A11 to A13 as the cist receipts showing payment of cist by them for the plaint schedule property in their possession and enjoyment.
Stating that they have performed their part of the contract and were ready to obtain sale deeds and as sale deeds were executed in favour of D2 to D4 and others, he seeks to decree the suits for specific performance against them including the original vendors and to dismiss the OS 88/1988.
63)The scribe of the draft sale deeds/Exs.A14 to A16 is examined as PW2.
PW2 in his evidence in chief-examination deposed that he is a lineman in APSPDCL,
Sub-Station, Bantumilli residing at Bantumilli. According to him on 6.4.1986 himself,
PW1 and his brothers went to the upstairs of Weights and Measures office,
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada to scribe the sale deed for the lands sold by
Meka Venkata Samrjaya Lakshmamma and Raja Rajeswari (D1s in the specific performance suit). Further he stated that when PW1 asked Samrajya Lakshmamma whether the sale deeds are to be scribed, she accepted and so, he scribed the draft sale deeds, on white paper on the dictation of PW1 and read over the contents to all of them. Further he says that he was asked by them to get the sale deeds typed on stamp paper which were already brought by PW1 and then he prepared five (5) sale deeds, three (3) in the name of Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma and two (2) in the name of Raja Rajeswari Devi, read over the contents of the sale deeds again and on their asking he signed as scribe on all the sale deeds. Further he stated that
PW1 took carbon copies of the sale deeds and Sambrajya Lakshmamma and Raja
Rajeswari took the original sale deeds stating that they would come after two days 96 APKR030006662008 showing the sale deeds to their counsel for registration and later they all disbursed.
He identified Ex.A14 as the carbon copy of the document typed on Non-Judicial papers and Exs.A15 and A16 which are on stamp papers.
64)The plaintiff in OS 627/1991 Kallam China Basivi Reddy is examined as
PW3. PW3 also deposed that he purchased the plaint schedule property on 26.7.1980 @ Rs.900/- per acre under registered agreement for sale and paid the entire sale consideration except Rs.100/- at the time of agreement. Further he stated the adjoining land to the plaint schedule property was purchased about 40 years prior to the registered agreement for sale and both the properties are under his possession and enjoyment. Further he says that he clear the shrubs in portion of the plaint schedule land and is cultivating the same and that the other plaintiffs in other suits got similar registered agreements for sale.
65)PW3 further deposed that six years prior to his evidence dated 17.7.2001, when they asked their vendors, that is, defendant No.1 and her sister to execute registered sale deed, they asked them to come with Non-judicial stamps and at that time, D1, her son and her sister were present. PW3 stated that PW2/scribe of
Chagantipadu village accompanied them and first he scribed documents on white papers and then they handed over three sets of Non-Judicial stamps and three agreements to D1 and that D1 promised them to come after two days for registration.
PW3 further deposed that after two days when they went to D1, she informed them that they applied for reduction of the value of the stamp duty to the District Registrar and it will take time. PW3 further stated that even after one month nothing was informed to them but later they received court notices from Baddigam Koti Reddy,
Baddigam Sambi Reddy and Kallam Rami Reddy claiming that they have purchased the plaint schedule lands. Further he says that they also have got sale agreements 97 APKR030006662008 along with the plaintiffs. PW3 says that D2 to D4 did not accompany them to the house of the 1st defendant.
66)PW3 produced Ex.A17 as the typed carbon copy of the sale deed dated 6.4.1986 executed by Meka Sambrajya Lakshmi and Exs.A18 and A19 tax receipts for payment of cist for the plaint schedule land. He stated further that Co-operative society filed a suit against him and the said suit was dismissed but the advocate- commissioner appointed in that suit along with Surveyor demarcated the land of the
Co-operative Society and filed a plan into the Court.
67)The 6th plaintiff in OS 103/1992 is examined as PW4. It is the evidence of
PW4 that the plaint schedule property is Ac.7.00 and as D5 and sister of D5 did not co-operate, himself and other plaintiffs filed the said suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 26.7.1980 and that prior to the said agreement they were in possession of the plaint schedule property which is abutting their land.
Further he stated that they paid cist Rs.6,200/- to D1 on the date of agreement and balance of Rs.100/- after four or five months as a registration was delayed. Further he stated that prior to the suit they paid cist to the plaint schedule property. He says that the plaint schedule property was purchased at Rs.900/- per acre but as the Sub-
Registrar asked them that the basic register value is Rs.13,000/-, they filed petition
before the District Registrar for reduction of the stamp duty for the sale deed and
after enquiry the Sub-Registrar informed them that they accepted the sale consideration amount as basis for stamp. Further PW4 says that then they met D1 and requested her to execute registered sale deeds basing on the sale agreements and D1 informed them to come after two days ready with Non-Judicial stamps for ready with registration, himself and other plaintiffs along with scribe/PW3 went to D1 with the Non-Judicial stamps. Further he says that D1, her sister and son were present in the house of D1, that PW1 gave the contents of the sale deed and PW2 98 APKR030006662008 scribed the same on white paper and the same were read over by PW2 and approved by all including the vendors. Further he stated that the vendors asked them to have the sale deeds typed on Non-Judicial stamps and then they went to Vuyyuru and got typed the five (5) sale deeds on Non-Judicial stamps and on the same day at about 3.30 pm, they came back with typed sale deeds to D1 and the vendors told them that they would go and check the sale deeds by their counsel at Eluru requesting to come after two days. Further he deposed that Sambrajya Lakshmi took three (3) sale deeds from them which were typed on Non-Judicial stamp along with corresponding three agreements for sale. PW4 further deposed that PW2 expressed that he would be not convenient for him to come back again after two days and thereupon the vendors asked him to put his signature as scribe on the five (5) typed sale deeds. PW4 says that Ex.A15 is the sale deed in their favour and that D2 to D5, who are also vendees under Ex.A15 accompanied them on the date of above transaction and that the corresponding sale deed typed on stamp papers was handed over to the vendors on that day. He stated that D2 to D5 were also present when their sale deeds were got typed on Non-Judicial stamps and that the vendors asked them to come after three days for completion of the sale transaction and registration and that when they went there on third day the vendors told them that they could not go to Eluru and informed them that they will send a word within 20 days and also assured that they need not be afraid as the land is continuing in their possession. Further PW4 deposed that though they waited, there was no intimation from the vendors and that later they received notices from the Court and found that plaintiff in OS 88/1988 filed the suit along with D2, D3 and D5 and some others.
PW4 says that the injunction petition filed by them was dismissed and thereupon they filed these suits.
99 APKR030006662008
68)PW4 further deposed that the Field Labour Co-operative Society owns land on the West of the plaint schedule land and the Society filed a suit against them and they filed written statement in the said suit. PW4 produced Ex.A20 as the certified copy of the plaint in OS No.664/1981 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Vijayawada filed by the Society and Ex.A21 as the written statement filed by D2 to
D5 in the said suit. He stated that the Court appointed a Commissioner in that suit to inspect and measure the plaint schedule property and whether the suit land was purchased by the Society and decided that the suit lands are owned by them but not by the Society. PW4 further stated that D2, D3 and D5 who were sailing with them through the agreement for sale are now sailing with the plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 to defeat them and cause loss to them.
69)PW5 is the 4th plaintiff in OS 625/1991 and 6th plaintiff in OS 100/1992. It is the evidence that they have registered agreements for sale of the plaint schedule property and agreed sale consideration of plaint schedule property in OS 625/1991 is
Rs.6,300/- for Ac.7.00 of land and they paid Rs.6,300/- at the time of agreement.
Further he stated that the agreed sale consideration for the plaint schedule property of Ac.5.23 cents in OS 100/1992 was paid at the time of agreement except Rs.100/- and that the entire extent of both suits is in their possession and enjoyment even prior to the sale agreements, since the time of registered sale deed obtained for adjoining lands and that they are continuing in possession paying cist to the said lands. He produced Ex.A22/cist receipt dated 22.4.1984 and stated that later they could not pay cist as the same was not collected.
70)Further it is the evidence of PW5 that D1 is the vendor under both agreements/Exs.A1 and A2 and the balance consideration of Rs.100/- each under the both agreements was paid to D1 asking to execute registered sale deeds and that D1 informed them to come after two days with stamps. Further he stated that 100 APKR030006662008 they already purchased Non-Judicial stamps for execution of sale deeds and they filed a petition to the District Registrar for reduction of stamp value for their sale deeds and the District Registrar gave direction for valuing the sale according to the sale consideration @ Rs.900/- per acre and so, they purchased stamps accordingly.
Further he deposed they in all ten (10) persons used to go to the vendors in that connection. He stated that PW1 and the 1st plaintiff in OS 100/1992 were looking after the valuation and purchase of stamps and that the 1st plaintiff in OS 100/1992 died after filing of the suit and that he filed a memo giving up his claim in the suit. But he does not know why he gave up the claim and later he came to know he colluded with the defendants and others and filed a memo.
71)Further he deposed that D2, D3, PW1, the 2nd plaintiff in OS 625/1991,
PW3, himself and plaintiffs in other suits approached D1 after purchasing the Non-
Judicial stamps and again after two days they went along with PW2 to prepare the draft sale deeds. Further he deposed that PW2 prepared the draft sale deeds at the house of D1 on the dictation of PW1 in the presence of D1, her sister/Rajeswari and son/Rama Mohana Rao and that the same were read over to D1 and her sister.
Further he deposed that the vendors wanted them to type the sale deeds on Non-
Judicial stamps and they got typed five (5)sale deeds on Non-Judicial stamps at
Vuyyuru and came back to D1’s house on the same day evening. Further he deposed that D1 and her sister told them that they will show the sale deeds to their advocate at Eluru and asked them to come after two days and they asked the scribe to put his signature on the five (5) sale deeds and when the scribe raise objection to put his signatures first without the signatures of the vendors. Further he deposed that as required by the vendors the typed sale deeds relating to PW1, PW3 and himself together with corresponding register agreements of sale were delivered to the vendors for being examined by their advocate at Eluru.
101 APKR030006662008
72)PW5 says further that PW3 is his father; that they retained xerox copies of the original sale deeds with them; that the typed documents were prepared in favour of D2, himself and other plaintiffs and that D2 to D4 were figured as vendees as per the typed sale deeds to be executed and registered by D1. Further he says that D2 to D4 were also present through out the transaction along with them when they visited the residence of vendors and the documents were typed and delivered to the vendors. PW5 further deposed that vendors asked them to come after two days as they have to show the documents to their advocate at Eluru and so, they went them after two days and at that time D1 was not present but her sister and Rama
Mohana Rao asked them after twenty days but in the meanwhile they received suit summons in the suit filed by D2 to D5 and others. PW5 further deposed that they moved temporary injunction petition for the plaint schedule lands against the purchasers and agreements for sale and the said petition was dismissed after contest and later they filed these suits for specific performance of sale agreements.
He stated that the plaintiffs in Os 88/1988 are aware that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land since about 40 years. He produced Ex.A23 typed carbon copy of the sale deed on Non-Judicial stamps in their favour. PW5 produced Ex.A26/certified copy of judgment in OS 664/1981 which show that the said suit was dismissed due to compromise in terms of the compromise petition.
73)The 5th defendant in OS 626/1991, OS 625/1991 and 627/1991 and 6th defendant in OS 103/1992 and 7th defendant in OS 100/1992, Kallam Jagan Mohana
Reddy, is examined as DW1 and he is the 1st plaintiff in OS 88/1988 and native of
Kallamvaripalem. He stated the total extent of the plaint schedule lands is Ac.27; that on 5.5.1986 ten (10) persons including himself purchased the said land from Meka
Sambrajya Lakshmi and Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi @ Rs.1250/- per acre and obtained four registered sale deeds in their favour and the bargaining was negotiated 102 APKR030006662008 by one Putchakayala Gangireddy of Bhadrirajupalem. DW1 produced Exs.B1 to B3/ sale deeds dated 5.5.1986 and Ex.B4 as sale deed dated 6.5.1986 and all registered on 6.5.1986 stating that they were delivered possession of the lands on the same day. He stated that the matter was referred under Section 47-A of Stamp Act calling for additional stamp duty and subsequently the District Registrar fixed the market value granting some remission and as per the said orders they paid the deficit stamp duty. He produced Ex.B1-A and B1-B as the receipt and endorsement both dated 12.1.2001 on the back of Ex.B1; B2-A and B2-B as the receipt and endorsement both dated 12.1.2001 on the back of Ex.B2 and Ex.B4-A and B4-B as the receipt and endorsement both dated 12.1.2001 on the back of Ex.B4.
74)It is the evidence of DW1 that by the date of purchase under Exs.B1 to
B4 they have no knowledge of sale agreements in respect of the lands and that they were informed by D2 to D4, deceased Ramachandra Reddy, the 1st plaintiff and PW3 that the previous sale agreements of the said lands were abandoned by them.
Further it is his evidence that one week after the purchase they went to the suit lands to clear the bushes and shrubs and at that time 1st plaintiff, PWs 3, 4 and some other persons totally 25 in number went there and demanded them that the land belong to them and threatened them to go out of the land and they went out and filed a report at Kankipadu PS and marked Ex.B5/office copy of report given by them. Further he deposed that the police went to the lands and handed over the cut trees weighing about 2 or 3 tonnes to Kallam Sambi Reddy, Vice President of the village and then they filed OS 513/1986 seeking injunction against them and when injunction was not granted they preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed. Further he says that they converted OS 513/1986 into a suit for recovery of possession numbered as
OS 88/1988. It is his evidence that by the date of Exs.B1 to B4 their vendors were in
possession of the lands and the entire cattle of the village were grazing in the lands.
103 APKR030006662008
He stated that on the West of the schedule lands the lands belonging to
Kallamvanipalem Field Labour Co-operate Society are situated but he does not know about OS 664/1981.
75)Further it is the evidence of DW1 that the plaintiffs in all the suits are in illegal possession of the schedule lands and they trespassed into the lands after they purchased the lands and they have no right to continue their possession. He stated that Putchakayala Gangi Reddy negotiated the sale transaction and attested Exs.B1 to B4.
76)The 3rd defendant in OS 626/1991 gave evidence as DW2. He stated about purchase of the plaint schedule property under four registered sale deeds/Ex.B1 to B4, B1-A, B2-A and B4-A by making payment of entire sale consideration followed by delivery of possession. DW2 states that the suit lands were sold to PWs 1,3 and others prior to their purchase but defendants 2, 8, PWs 1,3,
Kallam Subba Reddy and others informed them that they abandoned their agreements of sale for the suit lands and after that they purchased the lands after six weeks and that by that date the vendors were in their possession of the land. He stated that by the date of their purchase there were shrubs and bushes and land was uneven and the cattle of entire village was grazing in the land. Further he deposed that one week after the purchase they went to the plaint schedule property to clear the shrubs and bushes and the plaintiffs along with 25 others went there and dispossessed them forcibly and cut the trees in the schedule property and when they reported the matter to the police, police took possession of the cut trees and kept them in the custody of Vice President of the village.
77)DW2 further stated about filing of OS 513/1986 for injunction, dismissal of the injunction petition and appeal and later filing OS 88/1988 for possession.
Further he stated that they filed a petition for mesne profits in the High Court and 104 APKR030006662008 interim order was passed directing the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.4000/- per year towards mesne profits and that now the lands are in possession of the plaintiffs which is illegal. He stated further that Kallam Subba Reddy, Kallam China Sambi Reddy, who also obtained earlier agreement of sale did not join as parties to the specific performance suits and seven plaintiffs in the above suits filed memos withdrawing their claims. DW2 further stated that the lands of Kallamvaripalem Field Labour Co- operate Society are situated adjacent to the plaint schedule lands.
78)DW3/Kallam Ramireddy, s/o Krishna Reddy/8th defendant in OS 626/1991 gave evidence that himself and 22 others entered into registered sale agreement without delivery of possession on 26.7.1980 in respect of the plaint schedule properties of 27 acres with Meka Sambrajya Lakshmi and Meka Raja
Rajeswari @ Rs.900/- per acre paying the sale consideration except Rs.100/- to be payable on or before 31.12.1988 and to get registered sale deeds. He says that they did not pay the balance consideration as agreed and that the possession is to be delivered at the time of registration. Further he stated that as the lands were not fit and worthy for cultivation because of full sand and bushes, they abandoned their agreements during September, 1980 and that Putchakayala Gangireddy, who arranged the bargain also arranged refund of the advance amounts paid by them to the vendors on return of the sale agreements and accordingly they returned three sale agreements informing that the other two agreements were not traced and would be given afterwards. He says that by the time of the agreements the vendors were in possession of the schedule properties and that the cattle of the entire village used to graze in the said lands and that they did not take possession of the lands pursuant to the agreements.
79)Further DW3 stated that during 1986 due to the negotiation of
Putchakayala Gangireddy they in all ten persons purchased the schedule lands @ 105 APKR030006662008 1250/- per acre and obtained sale deeds from the vendors on 5.5.1986 and 6.5.1986 and got them registered on 6.5.1986 under Exs.B1 to B4. Further he deposed that after registration, Putchakayala Gangireddy and the son of Sambrajya Lakshmi, namely, Venkata Mohana Appa Rao took them to the lands and delivered possession to them. Further he stated that one week thereafter they went to the lands to clear the bushes and shrubs but PWs 3 to 5 and others about 25 persons went to the land and objected them from entering into the land and so, they came out of the land.
Further he stated that PW3 and others cut babul trees in the schedule lands and they reported the matter to the police and on that the police came and entrusted the cut trees to the Vice President of the village and thereafter they filed the suit for injunction. Further he stated that since injunction was not granted to them they converted the suit for recovery of possession. DW3 stated that Exs.A17 and A23 contain his name but he never into the owner and got typed the sale deeds on 6.4.1986 as they have already abandoned their agreements in September, 1980 and that they did not pay the balance consideration on 13.12.1980.
80)DW4 is the GPA holder of the 1st defendant in OS 625/1991, 626/1991 and 100/1992, who is his mother and GPA holder of the 1st defendant in OS Nos.
627/1991 and 103/1992, who is his mother’s sister by virtue of Ex.B9 and B10 registered GPAs. It is his evidence that out of the plaint schedule property of 27 acres, his mother has 16.47 acres whereas his mother’s sister has 10.53 acres. He stated that the lands were sold to 22 persons under five (5) registered sale agreements on 26.7.1980 @ Rs.900/- per acre and except Rs.100/- under each agreement the remaining balance consideration was received by them at the time of the agreements and the balance amount is to be paid before 31.12.1980 and vendees have to obtain registered sale deeds at their expenses before the said date and possession of the lands is to be delivered at the time of registration.
106 APKR030006662008
81)Further he stated that as per the terms of the agreement the balance consideration was not paid within the stipulated time and the vendees have abandoned their agreements in September, 1980 and they refunded the amounts paid by the vendees and the vendees returned three agreements out of five promising to return the other two agreements and produced Exs.B11 to B13 as the returned original registered agreements of sale. Further he stated they did not obtain cancellation endorsements as the agreements were returned to them and demanded for return of other two agreements twice or other but they stated that they would return the same afterwards.
82)DW4 further deposed that on 5.5.1986 the entire land was sold to
K.Jagan Mohan Reddy and others in all ten persons under registered sale deeds/Exs.B1 to B4 and that the same were attested by himself and Putchakayala
Gangireddy. Further he stated that they informed the vendees under Exs.B1 to B4 regarding the cancellation of earlier agreements in the year 1980. Further he says that the lands were in their possession and enjoyment till they were sold under
Exs.B1 to B4 and as cist was not levied they are unable to file the cist receipts. He says that the land was full of bushes, shrubs and trees and was not fit for cultivation and that they delivered possession to vendees after registration of Exs.B1 to B4. He denied the case of the plaintiffs regarding payment of balance consideration, delivery of possession and preparing draft sale deeds.
83)DW4 stated that they are residing at Vijayawada from 1967 and they have their own advocates to look after their affairs at Vijayawada itself and to explain returned Exs.B11 to B13 they are stating that they were returned to them to show their advocate at Eluru.
84)Kallam China Sambi Reddy one of the agreement holders, is examined as DW5. He speaks of the registered agreements for sale of the suit lands but states 107 APKR030006662008 that after two months of the sale agreements they have given up the agreements as the lands were not fit for cultivation and received the consideration paid by them. It is his evidence that prior to the agreements his father purchased Ac.1.18 cents from
Zamindars which is situated adjacent to the suit lands and about 15 years back he sold 74 cents and his elder brother is in possession of the remaining 44 cents.
85)DW6 is a practising advocate at Vijayawada since 1969. It is his evidence that he filed vakalat/Ex.B14 for Kallam Subba Reddy, M.Nageswara Reddy,
K.Rajya Lakshmi and Kallam Sambireddy on 26.10.1992 in OS 103/1992 and on the same day he filed a memo/Ex.B15 on behalf of plaintiffs 3, 4 and 7 giving of their claims as per their instructions. Further he stated that similarly he filed another vakalat on 29.10.1992 on behalf of Kallam Ramachandra Reddy, Kallam Narapa
Reddy in OS 103/1992 under Ex.B16 and on the same day he filed a memo/Ex.B17 on behalf of plaintiffs 1 and 5 giving up their claims as per their instructions. He stated that he issued notice to the other side at the time of filing of Exs.B15 and B17.
He says that he filed the said memos only on the instructions of the persons.
86)Ex.B14 is vakalat filed by DW6 in OS 103/1992 for plaintiffs 3, 4, 7 and 10 and Ex.B16 is the memo filed by him in the said suit stating that plaintiffs 3, 4 and 7 have given up their claim in the suit and seeking to dismiss the suit without costs.
So, plaintiff No.10 did not withdraw the suit.
87)Ex.B16 is the vakalat filed by DW6 in OS 103/1992 for plaintiffs No.1 and 5 and Ex.B17 is the memo filed by them not-pressing their claim, seeking to dismiss the suit without costs. So, plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have not-pressed the suit OS 103/1992 and have withdrawn their claims against the defendants.
88)Discussion:
The case of the plaintiffs about the registered agreements of sale dated 26.7.1980 is admitted. As per the recitals of the said agreements/Exs.A1, A2, A8 to 108 APKR030006662008
A10/ Exs.B11 to B13, the entire sale consideration @ Rs.900/- per acre was paid except an amount of Rs.100/- under each agreement. As per the agreement the balance amount has to be paid by the vendees on or before 31.12.1980. It is clear from the document that the vendors agreed to deliver the possession of the property at the time of the registration of the property. So, possession was not delivered to the vendees as on 26.7.1980.
89)The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that they paid the balance consideration of Rs.100/- under each agreement to the vendors on 31.12.1980 and thus they paid the entire sale consideration to the vendors. On this aspect, it is the evidence of PW1 that they paid the balance consideration in the stipulated time of 31.12.1980. So, he is not specific about the date of payment as 31.12.1980. On this aspect, it is the evidence of PW3 that they gave the balance consideration of
Rs.100/- by the date of subscribing of the documents on stamp papers which according to the plaintiffs was on 6.4.1986 which is not the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of other plaintiffs. In his cross-examination he says that he paid balance sale consideration of about Rs.200/- and odd and that by mistake there is mention in the plaint that the said amount is Rs.100/-. It is the evidence of PW4/another purchaser that the balance consideration of Rs.100/- was paid to D1 after four or five months of the agreements without specifying the date of payment. In the cross- examination, PW4 says that the same was paid after four months but he cannot give the date of payment. Coming to another plaintiff as PW5 the balance consideration of
Rs.100/- was paid after two years which is different from the evidence of other witnesses. In the cross-examination, he stated that on the date of payment of balance consideration they asked the vendors to register the sale deeds which is not at all the case of the plaintiffs. So, the four plaintiffs examined as PWs 1, 3 to 5 are giving different versions regarding the payment of balance amount of Rs.100/- under 109 APKR030006662008 each agreement. Admittedly, there is no documentary proof for the alleged payments and no endorsement was obtained on the agreements regarding the said payment. If really such payments were made, the same would have been reflected on the agreements or at least by a separate receipt. In view of the above evidence of the plaintiffs and due to lack of any documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiffs regarding payment of the balance consideration is held as not proved.
90)There is no dispute that the plaintiffs purchased the adjoining lands of the plaint schedule property under Exs.A3 to A5 on 4.7.1961 and about their possession of the adjoining lands of the plaint schedule property. It is specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule properties were occupied by the plaintiffs in the year 1961 itself and have been enjoyed and that in the year 1980 they entered into the agreements under Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10/Exs.B11 to B13. It is admitted under the agreements that the vendors have agreed to deliver possession of the plaint schedule properties at the time of the registration of the sale deeds. So, as per the documents Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10/Exs.B11 to B13 the plaintiffs were not in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the agreements. So, their claim that they were in possession of the property even prior to that date cannot be accepted. Added to that, in his evidence, PW1 admitted that on the date of agreements, possession was not delivered to them and that after payment of the balance consideration on 31.12.1980 the lands were delivered to them, which means that they were not in possession of the schedule lands prior to 31.12.1980. It is against the pleading of the plaintiffs that they have been in possession of the schedule lands right from 1961. If really the plaintiffs were in possession by the date of sale agreements, there is no question of delivering the possession of the property at the time of registration or at the time of alleged payment of balance consideration 110 APKR030006662008 on 31.12.1980. So, the case of the plaintiffs regarding coming into possession of the plaint schedule property is not consistent.
91)Having pleaded that they paid the balance consideration by 31.12.1980, nothing is pleaded by the plaintiffs as to why they could not obtain registered sale deeds at the same time and why they waited upto 6.4.1986 when they approached the vendors. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in John
Thomas vs. Joseph Thomas [AIR 2000 Kerala 408] for the proposition that the delay or latches seeking performance of agreement when all payments were made and purchaser was put in possession of the property and when notice was given for specific performance four years after execution of the agreement, no delay or latches can be inferred on the part of the petitioner. There is no dispute about the same. But in this case payment of entire consideration and delivery of possession is not proved to take advantage of the above decision.
92)Coming to evidence in this case, PW1, on this aspect, says that the registration of the sale deeds was postponed as the purchase value is lesser than the basic value register and only in the year 1986 they came to know the direction of the
District Registrar to register the sale deeds as per the purchase value. This fact was not at all pleaded by the plaintiffs and it is only introduced in the evidence of PW1 and therefore, is not supported by pleadings. Further nothing is placed before the court to establish the statement made in the evidence of PW1.
93)Coming to PW3 on this aspect, there is nothing in his evidence as to why the registration was postponed. It is the evidence of PW3 that when they asked the vendors to execute registered sale deed six years prior to his evidence, which was given in 2001, that is, nearly in 1995, the vendors asked them to come with Non-
Judicial stamp and subsequently the vendors informed that they applied for reduction 111 APKR030006662008 of the value of the stamp to the District Registrar and that it would take some time.
So, this version of PW3 is totally different from the evidence of PW1.
94)On this aspect, PW4 stated that the purchase value of the land was less than the basic register value and therefore, they filed petition before the District
Registrar for reduction of the stamp duty and subsequently the same was accepted.
It is not stated as to when they made such a request to the District Registrar and when it was accepted. As already stated there is no pleading to that effect showing reason for not getting the registered sale deeds immediately after alleged payment of balance consideration. No document is also placed to substantiate the said fact.
95)Coming to PW5, as already stated he deposed that the balance consideration was paid after two years of the agreement that is, in the year 1982 and he gave no reason for not getting the registered sale deeds immediately. It is his evidence that after six years they approached the vendor and when the vendor asked to bring Non-Judicial stamps for execution of the sale deeds, they filed a petition for reduction of the stamp value and the District Registrar then gave direction to value the sale as per the sale consideration and they purchased the stamps accordingly.
So, the version given by PWs 1, 3 to 5 on this aspect is inconsistent apart from being not supported by pleadings. It shows that inspite of the averment that they paid the consideration by 31.12.1980 itself there is no explanation from the plaintiffs for not getting the registered sale deeds till they claim to have demanded the vendors to register the sale deeds on 6.4.1986. As already found, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their contention regarding payment of the balance consideration by 31.12.1980. All these facts show that the plaintiffs are unable to explain their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract till they made demand for registration of the sale deeds on 6.4.1986 nearly for a period of more than five years.
112 APKR030006662008
96)This is a suit prior to amendment to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, which mandates under sub-Section (c) that the plaintiff has to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. In this case, there is no pleading by the plaintiffs that they have performed or has always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Hence, in view of the bar contained in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act (prior to amendment) the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek specific performance of the contracts.
97)Nextly, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and vendors assembled on 6.4.1986 at 8.30 am, at the house of the 1st defendant at
Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada for completion of the sale transaction and that the plaintiffs were ready with the general stamps for executing the sale deeds, that draft sale deeds were scribed by PW2, that the same were en-grafted on stamp papers on the instructions of the vendors and that the vendors postponed the registration on the ground that they want to verify the sale deeds through their people and Advocate at
Eluru and subsequently they registered the property in the name of the defendants.
98)PW2 is examined as the scribe of the draft sale deeds. PWs 1, 3 to 5 are also examined to prove the said transaction on 6.4.1986 and subsequent dates.
It is the evidence of PW1 that on 6.4.1986 himself, D2 to D4 and two other defendants went to the house of the 1st defendant and requested to execute registered documents pursuant to the registered agreements. In the pleadings it is stated that the plaintiff and other vendees went to the house of vendors and that plaintiffs and defendants 2, 5, 8, 10 and father of 6th defendant and others were ready with stamps. So the evidence of PW1 is not consistent with the pleadings.
Further, in the cross-examination on this aspect, he stated that himself, PW2, his two brothers, D3 to D5 and D7 and some others went to the house of the vendors. So, 113 APKR030006662008 he is not giving the presence of his brothers, D2 and D5 in his chief-examination but he is giving their presence in the cross-examination.
99)On this aspect, PW2/scribe says in his chief-examination that on 6.4.1986 himself, PW1, Seetharama Sarma and Venkateswara Sarma, who are two brothers of PW1, went to the house of the vendors. He is not at all speaking the presence of D2 to D5, D7 or any other defendant. In his cross-examination he states that himself and PW1 and his two brothers only went to the house of the defendants.
So, the evidence of PW2 on this aspect, is not consistent with his own evidence in the chief examination and the evidence of PW1.
100) PW1 stated that PW2 prepared the draft sale deeds and then asked them to get typed on stamp papers. On this aspect, PW2 states that he was asked by the vendors to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers while PW1 stated that it is
PW2 who asked him to get the sale deeds typed.
101) In his cross-examination, PW1 says that on his dictation PW2 prepared the draft sale deeds and as the same were acceptable to all, himself and PW2 went to Vuyyuru, got the sale deeds typed on stamp papers and returned from Vuyyuru to
Vijayawada, picked up the brothers of PW1, who were at the house of their relatives and then went to the house of the 1st defendant. So, according to PW1 only himself and PW2 went to Vuyyuru to get the sale deeds drafted on stamp papers.
102) PW1 worked as Karanam of Chagantipadu village for about 40 years and scribed several documents and he knows the procedure of drafting sale deeds and getting them registered. He knows that sale deed is a compulsorily registrable document. He admitted that himself and PW2 have good intimacy as PW2 is residing in the neighbouring house. So, PW2 is closely acquainted to PW1, who is well versed in preparation of sale deeds and he himself is a document writer. PW1 pleaded ignorance about PW2 working in Co-operate Bank and being removed from service 114 APKR030006662008 on some allegations. But PW2 admitted that he worked in Chagantipadu Co- operative Bank for some time and he was removed from service of the Bank. PW2 admitted that he took lease of the lands of the plaintiffs which is denied by PW1. So,
PW1 is suppressing the fact that PW2 is their lessee and that PW2 was removed from the Co-operative Bank. PW2 is not a licensed document writer and he did not scribe any other documents. In fact, it is the evidence of both PWs 1 and 2 that on the dictation of PW1, PW2 scribed the documents. Further PW1 admitted that there are several persons in the village, who can draft the sale deeds and he has taken
PW2 because he is his neighbour though there are several well versed document writers in their village. It shows the closeness of PW2 with PW1 and it shows that
PW2 is an interested witness in the case of PW1.
103) PW1 says that he did not state to the vendors that the sale deeds will be prepared manuscript. It is not known why manuscripted sale deeds were not prepared on stamp papers immediately at the house of the defendants, when it is the case of PW1 that the stamps were purchased one month prior to 6.4.1986 and then went to the house of the vendors and why all the way they went to Vuyyuru which is at a distance of 20 miles to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers. Further even if they wanted to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers why they did not get them typed at Vijayawada and they went to Vuyyuru all the way spending time and money is not known. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that he went to Vuyyuru to a specified institute at the Sub-Registrar’s office as it was known to him.
104) PW1 stated that defendants 2 to 5 and 7 also accompanied him to the house of the vendors but he did not state their presence when again he went to the house of the vendors after getting the typed sale deeds. He only stated about his brothers accompanying him to the house of the vendors along with PW2.
115 APKR030006662008
105) PW1 stated that after typed sale deeds are brought and read over, the vendors informed that the sale deeds are to be shown their advocate at Eluru and when he questioned about the same they insisted verification by their advocate and asked to give them one typed sale deed with concerned agreement relating to one person. Then it is not known why three typed sale deeds with three agreements were handed over by the plaintiffs to the vendors as stated in the chief-examination. He tried to explain in his further cross-examination that as they were asked the sale deed and agreement relating to one person he gave three sale deeds and three agreements relating to one person, but the same cannot be accepted.
106) PW1 admitted that he did not ask the vendors as to why the typed stamp papers are required instead of draft copies and did not suggest them to take copies for verification by their advocate. He did not even ask them to take the carbon copies instead of original documents for the purpose of verification. So, the evidence of PW1 that the vendors insisted for typed sale deeds along with original agreements appears to be unnatural and not probable.
107) PW1 admits that he knows that the stamps have to be purchased as per the market value but not according to the sale value and that he verified the market value also. But he has not filed any market value certificates. He states that the market value as on 6.7.1980 was Rs.14,000/- per acre and that he did not enquire the market value as on 6.4.1986. When the stamps are to be purchased as per the market value PW1 says that he did not purchase the stamps as per the market value and there is no reason for doing so because if they want to proceed with registration they have to purchase the stamps as per the market value as agreed by them. In fact
PW1 says that one month prior to 6.4.1986 the stamps were purchased and they went to the house of the vendors along with stamps.
116 APKR030006662008
108) PW1 admits that normally the vendor has to sign first on the sale deed, then the attestors would sign and then only the scribe would sign. But in this case, the typed sale deeds were stated to have been signed by PW2 without the signatures of the vendors and attestors and it is stated by PW1 that PW2 signed on the documents and gave three documents on D1 along with respective agreements which is against the normal procedure adopted. In view of the closeness of PW2 with
PW1, this act of PW2 signing on the documents as scribe without the signatures of vendors and attestors also is doubtful.
109) The plaintiffs did not issue any notice to the vendors demanding them to execute sale deeds. They did not issue any notice to the vendors informing that they purchased stamps for the sale deeds. They did not issue any notice to the defendants from 6.4.1986 till the date of filing of the suit demanding to sign the sale deeds and register them.
110) It was suggested to PW1 that as on 6.4.1986 D1 was not residing at
Satyanarayanapuram where the plaintiffs have stated to have gone to the house of the D1 but she was residing at the house of one T.Rangadasu, Chaparlavari street,
Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada and the same is denied. No evidence is placed to show the residence of the defendant No.1 at Satyanarayanapuram as on the date of 6.4.1986.
111)PW1 admitted that one Putchakayala Gangi Reddy was attestor of the sale agreements but he denies the suggestion that Putchakayala Gangi Reddy negotiated the sale transactions between them stating that he himself transacted the same with the vendors.
112) As could be seen from the evidence of PW2, he speaks of the presence of Meka Sambrajya Lakshmamma only but not the other vendor/Meka Raja
Rajeswari Devi and Rama Mohana Rao saying that he does not know the others 117 APKR030006662008 present at that time. He states that after preparing draft sale deeds on white papers and reading over the contents he was asked to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers and accordingly he prepared five sale deeds on the stamps brought by PW1, three in the name of Meka Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmamma and two in the name of
Meka Raja Rajeswari Devi. So, at the first instance PW2 is not stating about preparing the typed sale deeds by going to Vuyyuru after preparation of the draft sale deeds. Only in the cross-examination he says about the same. PW2 does not know what is meant by schedules, which is part of a sale deed showing that he has no knowledge about the drafting of sale deeds. PW2 stated that only himself and PW1 came to the house of the 1st defendant after preparation of the typed sale deeds from
Vuyyuru but PW1 stated that himself and his brothers, who were fetched from the house of relatives also went to the house of the 1st defendant. PW2 is not giving the presence of the brothers of PW1 when they went second time on 6.4.1986. As already stated he has not stated about the presence of defendants 2 to 5 and 7 when they went to the house of D1 in the morning hours.
113) PW1 says that three sale deeds and three agreements of Sambrajya
Lakshmamma were handed over as they wanted to be verified by their advocate. If that is so, why the documents relating to Raja Rajeswari Devi were not taken is not known. PW2 says that he cannot say why only three sale deeds were given and why the other two sale deeds were not given.
114) As per the evidence of PW3 about six years prior to his evidence, in summer time when they asked their vendors to execute register sale deed, they asked them to come with Non-Judicial stamps and then they approached them along with one Satyanarayana/scribe of Chagantipadu. The evidence of PW3 was given on 17.7.2001 and if the above incident is taken as spoken to by PW3 it must have happened in 1995. But it is the case of the plaintiffs that the draft sale deeds were 118 APKR030006662008 prepared on 6.4.1986 nine years prior to 1995. So, the evidence of PW3 about the said aspect is completely inconsistent with the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Further PW3 gives the name of one Satyanarayana as scribe, but in this case PW2’s name is Swarna Venkateswara Rao.
115) As per PW1 and the case of the plaintiffs the balance consideration of
Rs.100/- was paid on 31.12.1980 but PW3 says that it was paid by the date of scribing of the documents on stamp papers, which is on 6.4.1986 as per the plaintiffs case and which is in 1995 as per the evidence of PW3. Further according to PW3 the balance consideration was about to Rs.200/- and odd which is incorrect and not in accordance with the case of the plaintiffs.
116) PW3 is plaintiff in OS 627/1991. The presence of PW3 is not at all spoken to by PWs 1 and 2 as one of the persons, who went to the vendors on 6.4.1986. But PW3 speaks about drafting of the sale deeds on white papers and giving three sets of stamps and agreements and D1 promising them to come after two days for registration.
117) PW1 says that after giving of the typed sale deeds and agreements, the vendors stated to them that they would return the same after two days and so, they went to the vendors on 9.4.1986 and again they were asked them to come after 15 to 20 days, so, that they can get drafts verified by their advocate. On this aspect, it is the evidence of PW3 that vendor asked them to come after two days for registration and when they went after two days for registration they were informed by the vendor that they applied for reduction of value of the stamp duty to the District Registrar and it will take some time. This is a strange version from PW3 which is not the case of the plaintiffs and evidence of PW1.
118) PW1 stated that D2 to D4 and two other defendants accompanied them to the house of the vendors on 6.4.1986. In fact, he stated that they were well aware 119 APKR030006662008 of preparation of draft sale deeds and typing of the sale deeds on stamps including their documents. Now, PW3 in his evidence says that D2 to D4 did not accompany them to the house of the vendors. PW1 stated that he negotiated the transaction of the sale with the vendors and PW3 says that he himself negotiated the same with the vendors personally.
119) The sale agreements are dated 26.7.1980. PW3 is unable to give the date of the agreements. The sale agreements were registered one month after their execution. But PW3 says that on the same date of agreements they were registered.
PW3 does not know the contents of the agreements and what is the recital in the agreements about delivery of possession of land.
120) PW1 stated that they purchased the stamps one month prior to 6.4.1986.
PW3 says that the scribe came along with them on the date of purchase of the stamps at the Registrar’s office, Vuyyuru at about 8.30 am. Further PW3 says that on the same date of purchase of Non-judicial stamps at Vuyyuru they took them to
D1 that is, on 6.4.1986 they purchased the stamps and on the same day they went to the house of D1 which is not the version of PWs 1 and 2.
121) PW3 says that the balance consideration was paid on the date of handing over the Non-Judicial stamps to D1 which according to the plaintiffs is 6.4.1986. As per the pleadngs of the plaintiffs they made the payment of balance consideration on 31.12.1980 but not on 6.4.1986. PW3 is unable to state the amount of balance consideration paid by him and when he made payment to D1. Further he says that he handed over the stamps and balance consideration to the son of D1, namely, Rama Mohana Rao in the presence of D1 and her sister.
122) It is the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PW1 that while they were waiting for the information from the vendors, they received the notices in OS 513/1986. It is not their case that they approached D1 after the notices. But PW3 120 APKR030006662008 strangely deposes that after receipt of the notice from the Court in OS 513/1986 himself, PW1 and Rami Reddy went to D1 and asked about the execution of the sale deed and that they informed that they would execute the sale deed in due course of time and send word to them and therefore, they kept quiet. This version of PW3 is altogether a new version from the case of the plaintiffs.
123) It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property from 1961 onwards but PW3 says that they have been in possession of the property from the last 20 years prior to his evidence given in 2001 which means he claims possession from 1980 only.
124) It is the case of the plaintiffs and evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that typed sale deeds on stamp papers were handed over to the vendors on 6.4.1986 but PW3 says that only blank Non-judicial stamps were handed over to the vendors. In fact,
PW3 produced Ex.A17 as typed carbon copy of the sale deed dated 6.4.1986. So, the evidence of PW3 is inconsistent with his own version. PW1 says that himself and
PW2 went to Vuyyuru and got the sale deeds typed but PW3 says that he also went along with PW1 and scribe to Vuyyuru for getting the sale deeds typed. Further he stated that all the purchasers were present at the time of getting the sale deeds typed at Vuyyuru.
125) PW3 produced Ex.A17 as carbon copy of typed sale deed stating that the original was handed over to the vendors and it is the prosecution case only scribe signed on the typed sale deed. But in the cross-examination PW3 says that the 1st defendant signed on the original of Ex.A17 and the same is available with him and he can produce the same before the court if necessary. This evidence of PW3 completely destroys the case of the plaintiffs regarding handing over typed sale deeds without the signatures of the vendors and only with the signatures of the scribe to the vendors. So, the discussion made above shows that the evidence of PW3 is 121 APKR030006662008 inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ case and is such that it destroys the case of the plaintiffs regarding the episode on 6.4.1986.
126) On this aspect, the 6th plaintiff in OS 103/1992, examined as PW4 states that as the Sub-Registrar told them that the basic register value is Rs.13,000/-, they filed petition before District Registrar for reduction of stamp duty and later being informed by the Sub-Registrar that they accept the value of the consideration for the stamps they approached the 1st defendant requesting to execute sale deeds basing on the agreements and that D1 asked them to come after two days with Non-judicial stamps for execution of sale deeds and accordingly himself, PW1 and other plaintiffs along with PW2 went to D1 taking Non-judicial stamps. It is not the case of the plaintiffs and the evidence of PW1 that D1 asked them to bring stamp papers for execution of the sale deeds and after two days they went to D1 along with stamp papers. PW4 is not at all stating the presence of D2 to D4 when they went to D1 as spoken by to PW1. So, the evidence of PW4 is different from the evidence of PW1 on this aspect. Further PW4 is not at all giving any date of approaching D1.
127) As already stated it is not at all the pleading of the plaintiffs that they made an application to the District Registrar for reduction of the stamp duty and they have not filed any such proof. Further PW4 says that they purchased Non-judicial stamps on the date when they went to Vijayawada to obtain sale deeds. It is the evidence of PW1 that they purchased stamps one month prior to 6.4.1986 when they went to D1 to get the sale deeds executed. PW4 does not know the value of the stamp and in whose name the stamps were purchased.
128) It is the evidence of PW4 that when the vendors asked them to get the sale deeds typed on Non-judicial stamps, he also accompanied PW1 to Vuyyuru and came back to D1 along with typed sale deeds. The presence of PW4 is not spoken to by Pws.1 and 2 at that time.
122 APKR030006662008
129) PW4 stated that PW2 expressed his difficulty to come again after two days and thereupon the vendors asked him to put his signatures on the sale deeds as scribe and accordingly PW2 signed on Ex.A15/sale deed relating to their agreement. It is not the evidence of PW2 that he expressed his inconvenience to come again after two days and then the vendors asked him to sign on the said documents as scribe and then he signed. It is his evidence that both parties asked him to sign and so, he signed.
130) PW4 stated that D2 to D5 and vendees under Ex.A15 accompanied them after the date of transaction preparing draft sale deeds. But as already stated
PW3 completely rules out the presence of D2 to D4 at that time. PW4 gives the date of purchase of stamps as 31.12.1986 on which date he stated that they went to
Vijayawada to get the sale deeds drafted. In this case, it is on on 6.4.1986 the plaintiffs stated to have prepared the typed sale deeds on stamp papers and PW1 says that the stamps were purchased one month prior to it. Now, PW4 says that they went to Vijayawada for the said purpose on 31.12.1986 nearly after more than six months after 6.4.1986 which is not possible. Even the draft sale deeds filed are dated 6.4.1986.
131) The evidence of PW4 that all the plaintiffs purchased the stamps on the same date at about 6.30 or 7.00 am, at Vuyyuru and then they proceeded to
Vijayawada by bus and reached the house of D1 by 8.30 or 9.00 am, is not in accordance with the evidence of PW1 and other witnesses. PW4 says that about four or five persons went back to Vuyyuru along with PW4 for typing the sale deeds and reached there before 1.00 pm, and it took two or three hours for getting the sale deeds typed. This version is also not in accordance with the evidence of PW1, who stated that himself and PW2 only went to Vuyyuru by 11.00 am, and returned by 3.30 pm, to Vijayawada. The evidence of PW4 that two or three days prior to the 123 APKR030006662008 preparation of sale deeds they came to Vijayawada and informed their vendors about the purchase of stamps and the said fact is also mentioned in the plaint, is also different from the evidence of PW1.
132) In this case, Exs.A14, A17 and A23/ carbon copies of typed sale deeds said to have been prepared on 6.4.1986. But PW4 says that he does not know whether any carbon copies were prepared at the time of typing the sale deeds at
Vuyyuru creating doubt about getting the sale deeds typed at Vuyyuru.
133) The 4th plaintiff in OS 625/1991 and 6th plaintiff in OS 100/1992 is examined as PW5 and he speaks of Exs.A1 and A2. He is the son of PW3. As already stated his evidence is that the balance consideration of Rs.100/- was paid after two years when it is the case of the plaintiffs that it was on 30.12.1980 within six months from the date of agreements. So, the evidence of PW5 is discrepant on this aspect. PW5 also says that they approached D1 after six years for execution of sale deeds and D1 asked to come after two days with stamps which is not the case of plaintiffs and PW1. PW5 says that they already purchased Non-judicial stamps but it is the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that they purchased the stamps on the same day when they approached D1 for sale deeds.
134) PW5 says that they filed a petition to the District Registrar for reduction of stamp values fort their sale deeds and he gave direction to value the same as per the agreement value and they purchased the stamps accordingly and accordingly they went to the vendors purchasing stamps. PW5 also has not stated any date of such representation to the District Registrar and direction of the District Registrar and no proof is filed in that regard. As already stated it is not at all the pleading of the plaintiffs.
135) According to PW5, himself, D2, D3, PW1, PW3 and plaintiffs in other suits approached D1 after purchasing Non-judicial stamps and again after two days 124 APKR030006662008 they went to D1 along with PW2 to prepare draft sale deeds which is not the evidence of PW1. It is the evidence of PW5 that he also went to Vuyyuru at the time of typing five (5) sale deeds at Vuyyuru and again going to the house of D1, but his presence is not spoken to by other witnesses.
136) PW5 says that the vendors asked the scribe to put his signatures on the five (5) sale deeds and the scribe raised objection to sign first without the signatures of the vendors. It is not the case of the PW2 or other witnesses. PW2 says that at the request of both parties he subscribed his signature. PW5 says that D2 to D4 were also present at the time of the preparation of the draft sale deeds and delivery of the typed documents to the vendors but PW3 ruled out their presence stating that they were not present at that time.
137) PW5 being a party to the agreements states that nothing is mentioned in the agreements regarding possession of the lands and he is unable to state the terms of the agreements and he is unable to state when the balance consideration was paid. PW5 says that Non-judicial stamps were purchased six months prior to the date of draft sale deeds but PW1 stated that the stamps were purchased one month prior to 6.4.1986. The stamps on Exs.A15 and A16 show that they were purchased on 14.8.1985 more than eight months prior to 6.4.1986.
138) PW5 strangely stated that they got the sale deeds typed two days prior to their going to the house of D1 at Vijayawada which is different from the case of the plaintiffs. Again he resciled from his statement and states that he does not know what conspired at D1’s house as he left the same on some other work at about 10.00 am.
139) On the other side, one of the purchasers under the sale agreements, who is the 8th defendant in OS 626/1991 is examined as DW3. He says that they did not make payment of the balance consideration of Rs.100/- stating that they abandoned their agreements during September, 1980. The name of DW3 is found in 125 APKR030006662008
Exs.A17 and A23/typed sale deeds, but he denies the said transaction. Nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of DW3 in favour of plaintiffs. In fact, as already observed, the evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses is inconsistent with each other and is not in accordance with their pleadings.
140) Nothing is elicited from DW4/Rama Mohana Appa Rao/ GPA holder of both sisters/vendors whose presence was pleaded at the time of transaction on 6.4.1986 regarding preparation of draft sale deeds and he denied the case of the plaintiffs suggested to him. DW5/another purchaser under the agreements also is not supporting the case of the plaintiffs stating that they did not make payment of the balance consideration and says that they abandoned the sale agreements two months after the execution. He denied the case of the plaintiffs suggested to him regarding the draft sale deeds on 6.4.1986.
141) The evidence of DW6 proves that plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 in OS 103/1992 have given up their claim basing on the agreements dated 26.7.1980 and filed memos under Exs.B15 and B17 abandoning the suit claim made therein. So, the said plaintiffs are also not supporting the case of the plaintiffs.
142) In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that on 6.4.1986 they approached the vendors for execution of the registered sale deeds; that they agreed to execute registered sale deeds asking to get the sale deeds typed on stamp papers; that they took three original sale agreements/Exs.B11 to B13 and three typed sale deeds on stamp papers on the guise of showing to their advocate and subsequently failed to keep up their promise.
So, except the execution of the agreements under Exs.A1, A2, B11 to B13 admitted by the defendants, the plaintiffs are unable to establish the subsequent pleadings of the plaintiffs and their readiness or willingness to perform their part of the contract till the defendants filed OS 513/1986 subsequently numbered as OS 88/1988.
126 APKR030006662008
143) It is the case of the 1st defendant that though she entered into the sale agreements on 26.7.1980, the plaintiffs abandoned the land and did not seek registered sale deeds from her and having felt that they entered into an useless transaction as they could not get any income and regretting for the investment made, the plaintiffs approached Putchakayala Gangireddy, who originally arranged the sale and requested her to pay back the money paid by them under the sale agreements and to retain the land to herself. Further she pleaded that on pursuation of the said
Gangireddy, D1 agreed for the same and accordingly the vendors paid back the sale amounts to the plaintiffs through Gangi Reddy and accordingly three original registered agreements executed by the 1st defendant were handed over to her by the purchasers.
144) It is the argument of the counsel for the plaintiffs that in OS 513/1986 defendants failed to plead about the cancellation of the sale agreements, refund of the consideration and return of three original sale agreements and subsequently they have taken the said pleas after amendment. He relied upon a decision in
D.V.Seshaiah Vs. D.Venkaiah [AIR 1974 AP 193], Union of India vs.Ram Peary
Debi [AIR 1984 Calcutta 215] and Dr.T.M.Jayarama Reddy vs. B.Sreeramaiah
Chetty [2000(4) ALT 81] for the proposition that no amount of evidence without pleadings cannot be accepted. There is no dispute about these decisions. It is evident from the record that originally the defendants filed OS 513/1986 for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs and after dismissal of their IA under Ex.A6 and confirmed in appeal under Ex.A7, they changed their relief in the suit making amendment of the plaint for recovery of possession in the year 1988 and they converted OS 513/1986 into OS 88/1988 and at that time only they pleaded against the plaintiffs regarding their agreements of sale. The vendors were not parties to OS 513/1986 (OS 88/1988) and they are parties only the suits for specific performance of 127 APKR030006662008 the sale agreements and at the same time, the 1st defendant and other defendants have taken the plea of the cancellation of the sale agreements, refund of the consideration and return of the three agreements in the suits for specific performance and there was no chance for D1 to take the said plea and for other defendants to plead the same in OS 513/1986 which was filed for permanent injunction only.
Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs cannot stand.
145) To prove their case, the vendos/D1s in specific performance suits examined their GPA holder as DW4. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 1st defendants having special knowledge have to come into witness box to speak their own case and in this case as they were not examined without genuine and valid reasons, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them in view of the decisions in (Pathuri) Subrahmanya Sastry v. (Pathuri)
Lakshminarasamma and others [AIR 1958 AP 22]. There is no dispute about this decision.
146) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Kodelly Chinna Chinnanna vs. Bandari Pedda Bhumanna and others [2004 (1) ALD 241] wherein it was held in para 11 that a power of attorney surrogates a party in all aspects, including giving of evidence and that as contemplated under
Section 18 of the Evidence Act, statements made by an agent constitute a valid admission and there is no completely any bar against the power of attorney being examined on behalf of the party. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is of 1958 rendered by single Judge of Hon’ble High Court where as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is of the year 2004 rendered by Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, there is no force in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
128 APKR030006662008
147) In this case, undisputedly, DW4 is the son of Meka Venkata Sambrajya
Lakshmi and was present throughout the transaction as admitted by the plaintiffs.
Raja Rajeswari Devi is the sister of Venkata Sambrajya Lakshmi. Through Exs.B9 and B10/registered General Power of Attornies executed by Venkata Sambrajya
Lakshmi and Raja Rajeswari Devi, DW4 gave evidence having knowledge about the transactions. Though there is no recital in Exs.B9 and B10 authorizing DW4 to give evidence on behalf of the vendors, since DW4 has personal knowledge about the facts and since his presence is admitted at the time of the transactions, in view of
Exs.B9 and B10, he is a competent witness to speak. So, both the vendors have examined DW4 on their behalf and it cannot be said that they have not entered into the witness box to speak their case and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against them.
148) DW4 admitted about their sale agreements under Exs.A1, A2, A8 to A10 and produced Exs.B11 to B13 as the original sale agreements handed over to them by the vendees repudiating the sale agreements. So, admittedly, the vendors are in possession of three out of five (5) original sale agreements supporting the case of the defendants that they were handed over to the vendors due to repudiation of the agreements. As already held, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the said three original registered agreements for sale were handed over to the vendors on 6.4.1986 along with three draft sale deeds typed on stamp papers.
149) Apart from the above circumstance, DW4 deposed that the vendees abandoned their sale agreements in September, 1980 and that they refunded the amounts to the vendees and accordingly the vendees also returned Exs.B11 to B13 promising to return the other two agreements and that they did not obtain any cancellation endorsements on the agreements as the sale agreements were returned to them. Further he stated that when they demanded the vendees to return the other 129 APKR030006662008 two sale agreements, twice or thrice thereafter they stated that they would return them afterwards.
150) DW4 stated that his mother and her sister have not negotiated or settled the suit transaction with the vendees and that he himself negotiated on their behalf and received the consideration also on their behalf and that the vendors have not received any consideration directing him from the vendees. In fact, he stated that he is the person who got the written statement prepared and then obtained the signatures of the vendors/D1s thereon. It shows that DW4 being the son of Venkata
Sambrajya Lakshmi and sister’s son of Raja Rajeswari has dealt with the matter on their behalf.
151) DW4 stated in the cross-examination that he refunded the consideration amounts to the parties concerned under the sale agreements. Though it was suggested to DW4 that Sambrajya Lakshmi and Raja Rajeswari had no knowledge of the cancellation of the agreements and refund, it is clear from the Registered General
Power of Attornies that they authorized DW4 to deal with their cases having knowledge about the same. The evidence of DW4 is in accordance with the written statement of the vendors and he was admittedly present at the time of the transactions. DW4 stated that he does not remember the date of abandonment of the sale agreements in September, 1980. He stated that PWs 1 and 3 went to their house and informed about their cancellation of the sale agreements in the presence of himself and his mother and her sister and Gangireddy and the entire amount of the agreements was refunded to PWs 1 and 3 on behalf of others also but no receipts were obtained. He says that it is PWs 1 and 3, who handed over Exs.B11 to
B13. According to DW4, Putchakayala Gangi Reddy, who was watchman of their lands negotiated and settled the sale agreements also. DW4 also states that
Gangireddy brought PWs 1 and 3 to their house as he negotiated the matter. Though 130 APKR030006662008 it was suggested to DW4 that Gangireddy indulged in fraudulent transactions, the same is not relevant for consideration in this case and the same is also not established.
152) D2 to D4, admittedly, were parties to the sale agreements and they are supporting the case of the defendants regarding the cancellation of the sale agreements by making refund of the consideration paid thereunder. This is also a circumstance in support of the case of the defendants that in view of the cancellation of the sale agreements and taking back the consideration thereunder, D2 to D4 entered into the transaction of sale in the year 1986 regarding the same property.
153) Admittedly, there is no mention about the sale agreements/Exs.A1, A2,
B11 to B13 in the sale deeds marked as Exs.B1 to B4 executed in favour of the defendants. Since it is the case of the vendors that the sale agreements were cancelled in September, 1980 itself and some of the purchasers/D2 to D4 are parties to the sale deeds, the non-mention of the sale agreements in the sale deeds is not improbable.
154) DW4 is unable to state the specific amount refunded to each vendee under the sale agreements but stated that the entire amount was refunded. He states that he did not maintain any record to show the refunded amount. But on the above grounds it cannot be said that the evidence of DW4 regarding the cancellation of the sale agreements cannot be accepted. The evidence of DW4 remained unimpeached in the cross-examination and is supported by possession of original sale agreements/Exs.B11 to B13 as the plaintiffs failed to establish their contention regarding loosing the original sale agreement from their possession.
155) DWs1 and 2 have no personal knowledge about the cancellation of the sale agreements. DW3 is one of the purchasers under the sale agreements and he states that there was no delivery of possession of the property under the registered 131 APKR030006662008 agreements of sale and that they did not make payment of the balance consideration as agreed on or before 31.12.1980. He affirms the case of the defendants that the sale agreements were abandoned in September, 1980 itself and that Putchakayala
Gangireddy, who arranged the bargain and attested the sale agreements also arranged refund of the advance amount paid under the sale agreements by return of the sale agreements and accordingly they returned three sale agreements and informed that the other two sale agreements were not traced and they would be returned subsequently. He states that they abandoned the agreements as the lands were not worthy and unfit for cultivation. The evidence of DW3 remained unimpeached in the cross-examination and it establishes the contention of the defendants regarding the cancellation of the sale agreements taking refund of the advance sale consideration paid thereunder.
156) DW5 is another purchaser under two sale agreements out of five (5) sale agreements. He states that the transaction was negotiated by Putchakayala
Gangireddy and that subsequently they abandoned their agreements receiving the consideration paid by them two months after the sale agreements. Nothing material is elicited from the cross-examination of DW5 to impeach his evidence.
157) The defendants have raised the issue of limitation for the suits for specific performance. It is their contention that time is the essence of the sale agreements as it is recited therein that the remaining consideration of Rs.100/- under each sale agreements has to be paid on or before 31.12.1980 and the sale deed is to be obtained from the vendors and since the suits have been filed only in the year 1989 they are clearly barred by time.
158) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
T.L.Muddu Krishna and another vs. Lalitha Ramachandra Rao (Smt.) [1997 AIR
SC 772] and submitted that limitation cuts the very root of the case of the plaintiffs
132 APKR030006662008 and when time is fixed for performance whether or not time is the essence of the contract is not of much relevance since the case falls in the first part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act. There is no dispute about this decision.
159) A perusal of Ex.A1, A2, B11 to B13 shows that the vendees have to make payment of balance consideration of Rs.100/- on or before 31.12.1980 and get registered sale deeds executed at their expenses. Further it shows that if the balance consideration is not paid by that date, it has to be paid with interest @ 18% per annum and then registered sale deeds have to be obtained either in the name of the vendees or their nominees. Though time is specified for payment of the remaining consideration as 31.12.1980 but in the subsequent terms it is stated that if the said amount is not paid as stipulated, the vendees have to make payment of the same with 18% interest per annum up till the date of payment and then get registered sale deeds. So, a clause is created for making payment even subsequent to 31.12.1980.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the vendees have to make payment and get registered sale deeds on or before 31.12.1980 only. Accordingly, it cannot be said that time is the essence of the sale agreements.
160) Under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the limitation for specific performance of a contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Since the time is not essence of the sale agreements in this case, the first clause of the Article cannot be applied and it cannot be said that the suit is to be instituted within three years after 31.12.1980 and therefore, the suit cannot be held as barred under this clause.
161) The plaintiffs case come under the second clause. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they made payment of the remaining consideration by 31.12.1980 and took delivery of possession of the lands and that subsequently on 6.4.1986 they 133 APKR030006662008 approached the vendors and got draft sale deeds prepared but since the vendors failed to execute sale deeds and executed sale deeds in favour of the defendants 2 to 11 on 5.6.1986 fraudulently and got filed OS 513/1986 subsequently OS 88/1988 on or about 15.2.1988, the suits are filed on 5.4.1989. So, there is no specific refusal by the vendors to create cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit for specific performance. As already held plaintiffs failed to establish their contention regarding payment of consideration by 31.12.1980 coupled with delivery of possession and subsequent transaction on 6.4.1986. Therefore, they cannot rely upon the same. The plaintiffs have not issued any notice to the vendors demanding performance of their contract and there was no such refusal. Since it is stated that after receipt of the notices in injunction petition in OS 513/1986 they came to know about the registered sale deeds dated 5.6.1986 executed by the vendors in favour of D2 to D11, the knowledge of the plaintiffs about the same is to be taken as the date of refusal to perform their part of the sale agreements and is to be taken as starting point for limitation for filing the suits. As could be seen from the plaint in OS 513/1986 it was presented on 2.6.1986 and filed on the same day ordering summons to the defendants, who were plaintiffs in this suits. These suits for specific performance were presented on 5.4.1989. The date of service of notices in the injunction petition is not available and none of the witnesses stated about the same. Even in the absence of such date, even if the date of filing of OS 513/1986 that is, 2.6.1986 is taken as date of refusal and as the starting point for limitation, all the suits for specific performance being filed on 5.4.1989 are within the period of limitation of three years.
Therefore, the suits for specific performance cannot be held as barred by limitation.
162) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in Kalikiri
Ramanujulamma v. Katakam Ramaiah Chetty[1982 (2) ALT 86] for the proposition that a false plea cannot disentitle the plaintiffs for specific performance and that 134 APKR030006662008 plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs.100/- with interest at 18% per annum as recited in the sale agreements and they filed memo also to that effect on 28.9.2004. There is no dispute about this decision but that is not the only ground on which the plaintiffs can seek for specific performance.
163) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
K.Sambasiva Rao v. P.Bangaru Raju [1985 (1) ALT 441] for the proposition that abnormal delay will not disentitle the plaintiff the relief of specific performance when the defendant has not altered his position to his detriment. Further he submitted that when there is stipulation for payment of interest in the sale agreements it provides extention of time for execution of the sale deeds and shows that no time is fixed for performance.
164) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs.Chinna Papamma and others [2022 SCC
OnLine AP 406] wherein it was held when fraud is pleaded it should be pleaded with certainity and proved and standard of proof in matters for fraud is very high. But in this case the plaintiffs failed to establish the transaction dated 6.4.1986 and that the sale deeds were executed in favour of the defendants 2 to 11 fraudulently and collusively. There is no dispute about this decision and the plaintiffs who pleaded the same could not prove any collusion or fraudulent action in execution of Exs.B1 to B4 as they failed to prove the transaction dated 6.4.1986.
165) It is the argument of the counsel for defendants that there are 23 purchasers under the agreement/Ex.A9 but only 17 are made parties to the suit and similarly there are 15 purchasers under Ex.A1/agreement but only six are shown as plaintiffs and as the all joint promisees are not parties to the suit either as plaintiffs or as defendants the suit cannot be maintained and he relied upon a decision in
G.Jayashree and others vs. Bhagawan Das S.Patel [2009 SCC (3) 141] in support 135 APKR030006662008 of his argument. There is no dispute about this decision. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs on this aspect submitted that non-joinder of some of the agreement holders is not fatal as the suit can be decreed for the share of the plaintiffs on record. It is submitted that under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act even after passing of the decree, the plaintiffs are entitled to have the sale deed executed in favour of the person or persons nominated during execution proceedings and the Court can permit to amend the decree suitably and therefore, non-joinder of the some of the agreement holders is not fatal.
166) A perusal of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act shows that it relates to seeking reliefs in a suit for specific performance but not adding of any parties at execution stage. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the defendants makes it clear that it is essential in a suit for specific performance that all the parties to the contract should be before the Court and when they are joined on one side or the other, the suit can be proceeded. But in this case, as submitted by the counsel for defendants, some of the parties to the agreements are not parties to the suit, either as plaintiffs or defendants and one such party is examined as DW3. Therefore, in view of the decision relied upon by the counsel for the defendants, the present suits for specific performance are bad for non-joinder of all the necessary parties.
167) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
Shankar Chowhan vs. Suneel Kumar Goyal [2011 SCC OnLine Del.52] for the proposition that without original sale agreements, suit for specific performance is not maintainable and submitted that except Exs.A1 and A2, the plaintiffs failed to produce the originals of other sale agreements which are produced by the defendants as Exs.B11 to B13 and therefore, their suits for specific performance cannot be maintained and there is no dispute about this decision and on that ground also the plaintiffs are to be non-suited.
136 APKR030006662008
168) In view of the above discussion regarding evidence produced by both the parties, it is held that the plaintiffs are unable to establish their claim for specific performance of the sale agreements and on the other hand the defendants are able to establish that there was repudiation of the sale agreements receiving the advance consideration paid under the sale agreements in September, 1980 itself. This point is accordingly answered.
169) POINT NO.2:-
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in R.K.
Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors vs Hajee C.Abdul Wahab (D) & Ors [AIR 2000 SC 1658] for the proposition that in case of contradictory evidence, the circumstances have to be kept in view in deciding as to whose version is more acceptable. Further in the same decision, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon to show that execution of the sale deeds in a haste and without any oral agreement is unusual and therefore, the purchasers cannot be held as bona fide purchasers without notice of the original agreement. There is no dispute about this decision.
170) Further the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
Butchiraju v. Sri Ranga Satyanarayana [AIR 1967 AP 69] for the proposition that knowledge of prior sale agreement and subsequent conduct sufficiently falsify the bona fides of the purchaser. There is no dispute about this decision.
171) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Muralidhar Bapuji Valve vs. Yallappa Lalu Chagule [AIR 1994 Bombay 358] for the proposition that actual possession of the suit land remaining with the plaintiffs for many years is constructive notice of the agreement. There is no dispute about this decision.
172) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further relied upon a decision in
Joginder Singh vs. Nidhan Singh [AIR 1996 Punjab & Haryana 120] for the 137 APKR030006662008 proposition that transferee having notice of prior agreement must prove that he had no notice of prior agreement and mere denial is not sufficient. There is no dispute about this decision.
173) In this case, DWs 1 to 3, who are plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 have stated their case about purchase of the plaint schedule properties under Exs.B1 to B4 which are proved. The plaintiffs are contending that the said sale deeds are not binding on them in view of the sale agreements in their favour. So, they are not disputing Exs.B1 to B4. In view of the finding on point No.1, it is held that the sale agreements were repudiated by the purchasers. The defendants 2 to 11, who are purchasers under
Exs.B1 to B4 are having knowledge about the sale agreements in favour of the plaintiffs and in fact D2 to D4 admittedly are some of the purchasers under the sale agreements. But since it is proved that the sale agreements were repudiated, though the defendants 2 to 11 are having knowledge about the sale agreements as they know about the repudiation also, they have to be held as bona fide purchasers of the plaint schedule property under Exs.B1 to B4.
174) Coming to possession of the plaint schedule property, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule properties in part as some of the defendants are in possession of part of the plaint schedule properties.
175) The plaintiffs have raised two legal aspects opposing the claim for recovery of possession made by defendants 2 to 11. The first one is that their possession is protected by Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, as they claimed to be in possession of the property consequent upon the delivery of possession basing on the sale agreements after making payment of the balance consideration on 31.12.1980.The second one is that by continuous possession of the 138 APKR030006662008 plaint schedule property right from 1961, they have perfected their title to the plaint schedule property by adverse possession.
176) It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that if the possession of the plaintiffs is authorized and in furtherance of the sale agreement, the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act even if the Court holds that the suits are barred by limitation and relied upon a decision in United
India Insurance Co.Ltd vs M/S.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal [2004 SAR 451 = AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4794]. He also relied upon a decision in Mahadeva vs.
Tanabai [AIR 2004 SC 3854] for the proposition that non enforcement of agreement of sale is not a ground to deny the benefit of plea of part performance of agreement of sale under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no dispute about this decision.
177) The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted their case along with the evidence and stated that they proved their case for decree of specific performance against the defendants but the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proving their case. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the assertion of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the property from 1961 coupled with the pleadings and evidence that the defendants are not in possession since last 50 years shows that if the possession is unauthorized it amounts to dispossession of the vendors and by virtue of Section 27 and Article 64 of the
Limitation Act, 1973 read with Section 28 and Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the right and title of the vendors as well as the defendants, who are claiming through the vendors must be deemed to have been extinguished.
178) Coming to their possession from 1961 as the plaint schedule properties are adjoining the lands purchased by the plaintiffs under Exs.A3 to A5, except making a claim nothing is placed by the plaintiffs to substantiate their possession 139 APKR030006662008 from 1961 onwards. Further it is against their own case under sale agreements wherein it is clearly recited that possession would be delivered to the plaintiffs at the time of registration of the property. Being parties to the sale agreements, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to say that they were in possession of the plaint schedule property prior to the sale agreements and as on the date of sale agreements.
179) With regard to their contention that they made payment on 31.12.1980 and got delivery of possession of the property, as already held, the plaintiffs failed to establish the payment of balance consideration on 31.12.1980 and delivery of possession on the same date. The plaintiffs produced Exs.A11 to A13, A18, A19, A22 to show that they made payment of cist for part of the plaint schedule property.
180) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
G.Satyanarayana vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2014 (4) ALD 358] for the proposition that the cist receipts cannot be relied upon without production of any record of No.3 adangal as contemplated by Rights in Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and there is no dispute about this decision.
181) Apart from the above decision, Exs.A11 to A13 are dated 7.5.1988 that is, subsequent to OS 513/1986 which is converted as OS 88/1988 for recovery of possession. So, it cannot establish the possession of the plaintiffs from 1.1.1981 onwards. As far as Exs.A18 and A19 they are dated 12.6.1985 and 22.2.1986. They too cannot establish their long prior possession to the said dates. Ex.A22 is dated 22.2.1984 only and the same also cannot establish long prior possession to the said date. So, Exs.A11 to A13, A18, A19 and A22 cannot establish the claim of the plaintiffs for continuous possession right from 31.12.1980. They may establish that they got possession of the property subsequently and in this case there is no dispute about their possession but there is no evidence as to when they came into possession of the property.
140 APKR030006662008
182) Plaintiffs pleaded about OS 664/1981 filed by Harijan Field Labour Co- operate Society, Kallamvaripalem against them for permanent injunction in respect of land in RS No.215 of Kallamvaripalem and about the findings in that suit that they are in possession of the plaint schedule properties. In his evidence,
PW1 has not stated anything about this suit. PW4 stated about the said suit in his evidence and produced Ex.A20/certified copy of the plaint and Ex.A21/certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendants therein in OS 664/1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vijayawada. Further he stated that an advocate commissioner was appointed in that case. There is no much dispute about the same.
Similarly PW5 also stated about OS 664/1981 filed by the Society.
183) The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon a decision in Chandra
Chur Deo vs Bibhuti Bhushan Deva [AIR (32) 1945 Patna 211] for the proposition that plaint, written statement and judgment in the previous case are relevant evidence in subsequent suit. For similar proposition of law he relied upon a decision in Hari Lal vs. Amrik Singh [AIR 1978 Allahabad 292].
184) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
Rangayyan vs. Innasimuthu [AIR 1956 Madras 226] for the proposition that recitals of boundaries of property contained in deeds not inter parties have been held to be admissible to prove the ownership or possession of adjoining property. Further in the same decision it was held that a recital as to boundary in documents between third parties can be looked into if they are relevant and admissible. He also relied upon a decision in Gulab Chand vs. Kudilal (FB) [AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 151] for the proposition that surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration to ascertain the true meaning of documents to know the real intention of the parties.
185) In this case, the plaintiffs produced the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 to prove their contention regarding OS 664/1981. Parise Venkata Ratnam, who acted 141 APKR030006662008 as President, Harijan Field Co-operative Society, Kallamvaripalem is examined as
PW6. It is his evidence that their Society has lease lands of Ac.40.00 in RS No.215/1 of Kallamvaripalem village, Chagantipadu Panchayat and that China Basivi Reddy,
Ramachandra Reddy, Satyanarayana Reddy and Pedda Basivi Reddy (D1 to D4 in
OS 664/1981) have got lands on the Eastern boundary of the lands of the Society
and they were in possession of the said lands 20 years prior to his becoming the
President of the Society. Further he stated that there are some other persons in occupation of the lands in addition to the above named persons and that the said land belongs to Nuzvid Zamindars, that is, D1 and her sister and by that time sale deeds were not executed in their favour for the lands adjoining the lands of the
Society but they obtained registered sale deeds for the lands adjoining the above lands from D1 and her sister.It is the further evidence of PW6 that these lands are being cultivated in part and there are bushes and shrubs in the remaining extent and the above persons encroached upon their Society lands and so, Society filed injunction suit in OS 664/1981 on the file of District Munsif court, Vijayawada and identified Ex.A20 as certified copy of the plaint in that suit. Further he stated that the court appointed a Surveyor for the purpose of inspection, measurement and demarcation and he filed his report along with sketch and as such the boundary between the Society land is demarcated and the above persons undertook not to interfere with the lands of the Society and they are continuing in possession of their lands.
186) It is admitted that the defendants are not parties in OS 664/1981. PW6 worked as President of the Society during 1981-1990 but he speaks of the possession of the plaintiffs long prior to the said suit also. The total extent of the land adjoining their land admittedly belongs to the vendors and it’s total extent is Ac.80.00.
PW6 does not know the land purchased by the said persons and as how much land 142 APKR030006662008 was adjoining the purchased lands. He is unable to give the survey numbers of the land. It is clear from his evidence that ten years prior to his evidence given on 24.7.2001 the suit lands were uncultivated and full of bushes. Then his evidence with regard to possession of the above persons prior to their suit cannot be accepted.
187) A perusal of Ex.A20/plaint in OS 664/1981 shows that it was filed only against four persons claiming that the Society was in possession of the lands in RS
No.217/5, 218/6, 215/15 etc. Ex.A21/written statement in the said suit shows that the suit was relating to RS No.215/15. Defendants claimed therein that they were in possession of the plaint schedule property basing on the sale agreements dated 26.7.1980. The judgment in OS 664/1981 is marked as Ex.A26 which shows that the said suit was not disposed of on contest and that it was dismissed without costs in terms of compromise between the parties. So, it was not a suit disposed of on merits.
Further as contended by the defendants they are not parties to the said decree and it cannot bind them.
188) The plaintiffs examined PW7/V.Surya Narayana Rao,Surveyor, who was appointed as Commissioner by District Munsif Court, Vijayawada to visit the villages
Chagantipadu and Kallamvaripalem and he was entrusted with the work of measurement and fixing of boundaries of the patta lands and lease of the lands of
Harijan Field Labour Society. He stated that after giving notices, with the held of Field
Measurement Book he measured the land and fixed the boundaries and prepared sketch with measurements and filed his report. He produced Ex.A24 as the certified copy of the report filed by him in IA 2118/1981 in OS 664/1981 on the file of District
Munsif Court, Vijayawada; Ex.A25 certified copy of sketch filed along with Ex.A24.
Further he deposed that at the time of his inspection China Basivi Reddy, Peda
Basivi Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy, Satyanarayana Reddy and Karanam of
Chagantipadu village Koteswara Rao and some others were present. He deposed 143 APKR030006662008 that the line J to I in the Ex.A25/sketch is the boundary line between the patta land and the Government land leased out to Kallamvaripalem Harijana Field Labour Co- operative society and also the land leased out to Chagantipadu Harijana Field
Labour Co-operative society. He stated that the patta land shown by him in Ex.A25 is an extent of Ac.60.00 in RS No.215/1B. Further he deposed that he noted in the sketch that the defendants in OS 664/1981 were the persons in possession of the said Ac.60.00 of land and about 20 persons were stated to be in possession of the said land and were present at that time. He stated that as per his report the defendants in OS 664/1981 have not encroached upon the plaint schedule land in
OS 664/1981.
189) As already stated, there are no findings with regard to the commissioner’s report/Ex.A24 and A25 in the judgment under Ex.A26 which ended in dismissal due to compromise. The defendants are not parties to the said report and so, it cannot bind the defendants herein. It is clear from the cross-examination of
PW7 that he did not take any record except FMB, along with him for execution of the warrant. In fact PW7 was entrusted with the work of demarcation of the Government leased out lands but not the private lands of the vendors. He did not issue any notice to the adjoining field owners. He has not shown the ‘G’ line in the sketch and he has not mentioned from which point he started the measurements. He started measurements from the land in RS No.171 but he does not know to whom it belongs and whether he has given any notice to the owners of the said lands, still he measured the land in RS No.171. Knowing pretty well that he has to issue notice to all the neighbouring owners, he has not issued any such notice. He admits that the particulars of the sketch/Ex.A25 regarding RS No.215/1B, Ac.60.00 is not correct. So, the evidence of PW7 cannot establish anything in favour of the plaintiffs, apart from the fact that it is not binding on the defendants.
144 APKR030006662008
190) The plaintiffs examined PW8/Kallam Venkateswara Reddy, resident of
Kallamvaripalem. It is his evidence that the suit land is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants since 40 years but not in possession of the plaintiffs which is against the case of the plaintiffs. He stated that some extent is cultivated with sugarcane, blackgram etc, and there is some big pit in some extent and remaining extent there are shrubs used as pasture land. He says that himself and his sons own 4 ½ cents. So, the evidence of PW8 is not in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the plaintiffs and the case of the plaintiffs regarding OS 664/1981 is of no help to the plaintiffs to prove their long standing possession of the plaint schedule properties.
191) On this aspect, the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Nange Gowda and another vs. Gangamma and others [2011 AIR SC 3774] and submitted that since the agreements of sale do not record delivery of possession stating that it shall be delivered at the time of the registration of the sale deeds Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable. There is no dispute about this decision.
192) In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs are unable to establish their possession right from 1961 and subsequent to the sale agreements on 31.12.1980 and therefore, their possession is to be construed as illegal occupation of the plaint schedule property and that they are encroachers of the plaint schedule property. Having failed to show that they legally entered into the plaint schedule property by virtue of the sale agreements, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
193) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
Bhimavarapu Lakshmareddy vs. Pallothu Aswini Kumar [2015 ALT (6)185] and
Mohan Lal (deceased) through his Ls Kachru and others vs. Mirza Abdul Gafar
145 APKR030006662008 and another [1996 AIR SC 910] for the proposition that the plea of title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the plea of adverse possession does not begin to operate unless the plea of title is renounced. There is no dispute about these decisions.
194) Having claimed that the plaintiffs are agreement holders of the vendors and claimed protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act with animus althrough that they are in possession of the property belonging to the vendors they have to perfect their title by duly executed registered deeds of sale under which the vendors have to pass and convey their title. So, the plaintiffs are admitting the title of the vendors and acquiring title only through registered sale deeds to be executed in their favour. Therefore, there is no question of their possession being adverse to the vendors and therefore, any length of possession cannot confer title on the plaintiffs by the principle of adverse possession. Further, simultaneously they are not entitled to put up the defence of adverse possession.
Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs regarding adverse possession also cannot stand and they cannot be permitted to squat on the plaint schedule property both on the ground of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act or under the principle of adverse possession.
195) The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in
G.Narayana Reddy vs. P.Narayana Reddy [2016 ALT (3) 12] and submitted that the title vested with the purchaser once vested cannot be digested and the plaintiffs in this case admitted the title of the defendants 2 to 11 and therefore, in the suit for recovery of possession filed by the defendants under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, if the plaintiffs establish their title, they need not prove that they are in possession of the property within 12 years from the date of the suit and the title pre-supposes that possession was duly delivered and that they were illegally dispossessed must be 146 APKR030006662008 held to be true. There is no dispute about this decision and in view of the same it shall be presumed that the defendants 2 to 11 or their vendors have been dispossessed by the plaintiffs illegally within 12 years prior to the suit for recovery of possession.
196) In view of the above discussion, defendants 2 to 11, who are bona fide purchasers of the plaint schedule property are entitled for possession from the plaintiffs. This point is accordingly answered.
197) POINT NO.3:-
In view of the findings on points 1 and 2 above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, this point is decided.
198) POINT NO.4:-
In view of the findings on points 1 to 3 above, all the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.
199) In the result, Appeal suit Nos.89/2004, 28/2008, 29/2008, 30/2008, 31/2008 and 33/2008 are dismissed with costs, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 30.9.2004 by the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada in OS
Nos. 88/1988, 627/1991, 625/1991, 103/1992, 100/1992 and 626/1991 respectively.
The plaintiffs/ appellants have been depositing the damages every year to the credit of the suit under appeal AS No.89/2004. The defendants 2 to 11/plaintiffs in OS 88/1988 on the file of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada are permitted to withdraw the same by making proper application before the concerned court.
Dictated to the Stenographer and prepared by her on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of March, 2025.
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
147 APKR030006662008 - Nil –
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA.
1
APKR030034372014
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT
VIJAYAWADA
Present: Sri S. Nageswara Rao, VII Addl. District Judge.
Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025.
O.S.No.559/2014
Between:
1.Pandipati Syamala Bai (Died). 2.Devarapalli Karunanidhi 3.Devarapalli Aruna Nidhi 4.Kukkamalla Gnaneswari 5.Paturi Pratap 6.Paturi Prameela 7.Paturi Pradeep 8.Pandipati Sarvesh Kumar 9.Koneru Elezebeth Rani 10.Bobbili Ester Rani (plaintiffs 8 to 10 were added as per orders in Ia No.420/2023 dated 14.7.2023) … plaintiffs
And
1.Bobbili Jaya Babu (died) 2.Bobbili Joe Babu 3.Bobbili Param Jyothi 4.Dasari Vijaya Rani 5.Malempati Sambasiva Rao 6.Malempati Venkata Seshu 7.Pinnamaneni Ratish 8.Pinnamaneni Babji 9.Bobbili Lakshmi 2 10.Bobbili Vijayababu 11.Songa Suneetha 12.Bobbili Daniel 13.Bobbili Venkateswara Rao (defendants 9 to 13 were added as per orders in
IA No.450/2019 dated 22.11.2019)
… Defendants
This Original Suit, coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs; defendant No.1 died; Sri Vara Prasad PVV, Advocate for the defendants 2 to 8; defendants No.9 to 13 remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1)This is a suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for cancellation of four registered sale deeds document Nos. 900 to 903/2005 are dated 14.3.2005 executed by D1 to D4 in favour of D8 and for costs.
2)Plaint pleadings:-
(a) One Bobbili Subba Rao, during his life time purchased items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties and had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. Bobbili Subba
Rao died on 29.7.2001 intestate leaving his wife Meriyamma, his daughters, namely, plaintiff No.1, defendant No.4, Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam and Paturi
Jhansi and sons, namely, defendants 1 to 3, sons as his legal heirs to his estate under the Hindu Succession Act.
(b) Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam, who died intestate on 28.6.2002. Plaintiffs 5 to 7 are the children of Paturi
Jhansi, who died intestate on 23.9.2012. Meriyamma, wife of Bobbili Subba
Rao died intestate on 6.5.2014 leaving the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 as her legal heirs.
3
(c) Defendants 1 to 3 being male members of the family are managing the plaint schedule properties till date on behalf of all the share holders. The plaintiffs are in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule property along with defendants 1 to 4.
(d) In the first week of November, 2014, the plaintiffs came to know that defendants 1 to 4 were trying to create nominal, fake and spurious documents against the interests of the plaintiffs. Hence, they made an oral demand to defendants 1 to 4 for partition of the plaint schedule properties but they have been postponing the same. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that defendants 1 to 4 sold item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in four parts under four different sale deeds document Nos.900 to 903/2005 in favour of defendants 5 to 8 respectively. The said sale deeds are collusive excluding the other joint sharers and therefore, void and not binding on the plaintiffs and are liable to be cancelled. Plaintiffs came to know that defendants 1 to 4 are also trying to alienate item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to evade the share of the plaintiffs. Hence, they filed this suit.
(e) During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died intestate on 17.3.2019 leaving behind him defendants 9 to13 as his legal heirs. The 1st plaintiff also died intestate on 10.3.2023 leaving plaintiffs 8 to 10 as her legal heirs.
3)Written statement of D1 to D3:-
(a) Relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 is admitted. The remaining averments are denied. Bobbili Subba Rao was absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties. On 6.3.2001, in a sound and disposing state of mind, Bobbili Subba Rao executed a registered Will
dated 7.3.2001 before the Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. Subsequently, he
died on 29.7.2001 and the Will became his final testament. All the children 4 of Bobbili Subba Rao knew about the registered Will executed by Bobbili
Subba Rao.
(b) In March, 2005, Bobbili Meriyamma and defendant No.4 being legatees and beneficiaries under the Will, being in need of funds, to meet their necessities, sold an extent of 1210 sq.yards of the site in RS No.170/2 of Gunadala, Vijayawada (item No.1 of the plaint schedule property) to defendants 5 to 8 under sale deeds dated 14.3.2005 by receiving the consideration and delivered possession to defendants 5 to 8, who are in possession of the said property since then. When defendants 1 to 3 went to the Registrar’s office to assist their mother and sister in the sale transaction, at their request, they also signed under sale deeds along with their mother and defendant No.4. Plaintiff No.1 and the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 7 are aware of the same and never raised any objection or claimed right over the plaint schedule properties.
(c) Bobbili Meriyamma died leaving the 4th defendant as absolute owner of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property being the legatee and beneficiary under the Will and nobody else has any right over the same.
Every one in the family of Bobbili Subba Rao and Meriyamma are aware and have knowledge of the execution of the Will, nobody raised any objection when the beneficiaries under the Will were enjoying the properties after the death of Bobbili Subba Rao in 2001. Item No.1 was sold about a decade back. Since the values of the land increased, with a view to gain wrongfully and with a mala fide intention, this suit is filed.
(d) The plaint schedule properties were never in joint and constructive possession of anybody, except defendant No.4 and Meriyamma right from 2001 and items 1 and 2 were enjoyed by Meriyamma till item No.1 was sold in March, 2005 to defendants 5 to 8 and item No.2 till her death in May, 2014 and thereafter item No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of defendant
No.4 as absolute owner. Valuing the suit under Section 34(2) of the APCF 5 and SV Act is incorrect and they have to pay Court Fee on the 3/4th value of their claim. The plaintiffs and all the members of the family of late Bobbili
Subba Rao are aware of the Will and sale of item No.1 in March, 2005 and hence, the suit for cancellation of the sale deeds is barred by limitation.
There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is false and created. Suit also suffers from suppression and misrepresentation of facts and is frivolous and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.
4)Written statement of D4 is the same as that of D1 to D3
5)Written statement of D5 to D8 :-
The averments made in the plaint are not true and correct and are false.
Defendants 5 to 8 are absolute owners of item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties and are in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of the sale deeds dated 14.3.2005. In 2005, Meriyamma and defendant No.4 offered to sell item No.1 of the plaint schedule property representing that Bobbili Subba Rao bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in their favour under the Will dated 6.3.2001 registered on 7.3.2001 and produced certified copy of the Will executed by Bobbili Subba
Rao dated 6.3.2001 registered on 7.3.2001 stating that the original was not traced and after verifying the same and having been satisfied with the right of Meriyamma and defendant No.4 the defendants 5 to 8 purchased the property. At the time of negotiations, all the sons and daughters of Bobbili
Subba Rao and Meriyamma except Lilli Pushpam were present and supported the right of Meriyamma and D4. D1 to D3 even signed on the sale deeds. Since the date of purchase, D5 to D8 have been cultivating the same raising paddy. Revenue record is a testimony to their possession and enjoyment. Nobody raised objection including the legal heirs of Bobbili
Subba Rao for the purchase and enjoyment of the property since last ten 6 years. Defendants 5 to 8 have been paying requisite revenue tax to the
Government regularly. Suit is filed for wrongful gain. The court fee paid is incorrect. The claim is barred by time. There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged cause of action is created. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.
6)Defendants 9 to 13, who are added as legal representatives of
D1 remained exparte.
7)On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of sale deeds (four in number) dated 14.3.2005 executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendants 5 to 8?
3. Whether the Will dated 6.3.2001 executed by Bobbili Subba Rao in favour of Bobbili Mariyamma and 4th defendant herein is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
4. To what relief?
The following additional issue is framed on 18.11.2014:-
Whether the suit for cancellation of the four sale deeds all dated 14.3.2005 is barred by limitation?
8)Plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A13. The defendants examined DWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.B1 to B12.
9)Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 8. Written arguments are filed by counsel for the plaintiffs as well as defendants.
10)ISSUE NO.3:-
It is an admitted fact that items 1 and 2 are the self acquired properties of Bobbili Subba Rao, who died on 29.7.2001. It is also an 7 admitted fact that Meriyamma is the wife, plaintiff No.1, Devarapalli Lilli
Pushpam (mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4), Paturi Jhansi (mother of plaintiffs 5 to 7), defendant No.4 are the daughters and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of
Bobbili Subba Rao and Meriyamma. Subsequent to the death of Bobbili
Subba Rao, Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam died on 28.6.2002 and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are her legal heirs. Thereafter, Paturi Jhansi died on 23.9.2012 and plaintiffs 5 to 7 are her legal heirs. Meriyamma died on 6.5.2014 and plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 are her legal heirs.
11)The plaintiffs claim that Bobbili Subba Rao died intestate whereas defendants claim that he died testate for executing a registered
Will dated 6.3.2001 in a sound and disposing state of mind and it is the last
Will and testament of Bobbili Subba Rao bequeathing the plaint schedule properties to Meriyamma for life and vested remainder to defendant No.4.
By virtue of the said Will, defendants 1 to 4 claim that Meriyamma and defendant No.4 jointly executed four registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 5 to 8 in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and defendants 5 to 8 claim that they are bonafide purchasers of the plaint item
No.1 schedule property. Now, defendant No.4 claims that she is the absolute owner of the item No.2 of the schedule property. So, the entire case depends upon the Will said to have been executed by Bobbili Subba
Rao. The burden lies on the defendants to prove the registered Will.
12)The plaintiffs examined the 2nd plaintiff as PW1, who stated the plaint averments in the chief-examination and produced Exs.A1 to A13.
Exs.A1 to A4 are the certified copies of registered sale deeds dated 14.3.2005 executed by Meriyamma and defendant No.4 in favour of defendants 5 to 8 respectively. Ex.A5 is the death certificate of Bobbili
Subba Rao showing his date of death as 29.7.2001. Ex.A6 is the death certificate of Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam showing her date of death as 16.6.2002. Ex.A7 is the death certificate of Paturi Jhansi showing her date 8 of death as 23.9.2012. Ex.A8 is the death certificate of Meriyamma showing her date of death as 6.5.2014. Ex.A9 is the General public notice dated 13.4.2016 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily got issued by one Kadiyala
Subrahmanyam through his advocate stating that he was intending to purchase item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from defendant No.4 and calling for any objections. Ex.A10 is the office copy of notice got issued by the plaintiffs in response to Ex.A9. Ex.A11 is the acknowledgment by the advocate for Kadiyala Subrahmanyam. Exs.A12 and A13 are returned postal covers addressed to the 4th defendant and Kadiyala Subrahmanyam by the counsel for the plaintiffs. All the documents produced by the plaintiffs are not disputed.
13)The 8th plaintiff was examined as PW2, prior to becoming a party to the suit but stating the plaint averments in the chief-examination.
The 7th defendant is also examined as PW3 and he also stated the plaint averments in his chief-examination. PWs 1 to 3 were cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants.
14)The 4th defendant examined herself as DW1 and produced
Exs.B1 to B3 on her behalf. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered Will
dated 6.3.2001 registered on 7.3.2001 said to have been executed by
Bobbili Subba Rao. Exs.B2 and B3 are the cist receipts dated 9.5.2007 and 7.3.2014 in the name of the 4th defendant for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant is examined as DW2 and he too stated the written statement averments in the chief-examination.
15)DW3/Uppaluru Anil Kumar is scribe of the registered sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A4, who speaks regarding the absence of mentioning of the Will in the sale deeds. DW4/P.Krishna Rao and DW5/A.Prabhakara Rao are the witnesses for Exs.A1 to A4. DW6 is 5th defendant and DW7 is the 8th defendant to the suit and they also stated their averments in the chief- examination. DW8 is a third party to the proceedings claiming to have 9 attested the Will dated 7.3.2001. Exs.B4 and B5 are certified copies of registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 5 and 6 which were already marked as Exs.A1 and A2. Exs.B6 and B7 are cist receipts in the name of defendants No.5 and 6. Ex.B8 is the adangal relating to item No.1 of the schedule property. Exs.B9 and B10 are the certified copies of registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 7 and 8 which are already marked as
Exs.A3 and A4. Exs.B11 and B12 are the cist receipts in the name of defendants 7 and 8.
16)Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act makes it clear that a will is a compulsorily attestable document and it prescribes the mode of execution of the will and mode of attestation also. Section 68 to 71 of the
Evidence Act (short ‘the Act’) mandates how to prove a will. Section 68 of the Act says that a document which is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
17)Section 69 of the Act says that if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. In this case, there is the original will could not be produced, whatever may be the reason for non- production. The certified copy filed does not contain any signature of the testator and the witnesses to enable the defendants to prove the same.
Therefore, the defendants are unable to satisfy the requirement of proof of signature of the testator and of at least one attesting witness.
18)Section 71 of the Act enables the propounder to prove the Will, if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document stating that its execution may be proved by other evidence.
10
19)The learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them and submitted that the defendants have not filed the original Will dated 6.3.2001 and there is no explanation from them in that regard and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the defendants cannot prove the said Will and any amount of evidence without production of the original Will is of no use and therefore, the defendants failed to prove that Bobbili Subba Rao died testate for executing the Will.
Further he submitted that the revenue records produced by the defendants cannot create any title.
20)The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
Malliga vs. P.Kumaran [2022 SCC ONLINE MAD 1289] wherein the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras discussed the law regarding proof of Will with
the aid of Section 68 and 69 of the Act even when the execution is not specifically denied. There is no dispute about this decision.
21)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that it is the consistent case of the defendants that the original
Will was misplaced and the said fact is stated by DW1 in her cross- examination stating that Ex.B1 certified copy was given to her by plaintiff
No.2 and the same is supported by DWs 4 and 5 and so, there is proper explanation for inability to produce the original Will.
22)A careful reading of the written statement of defendants 1 to 8 show that there is no mention anywhere as to what happened to the original registered Will dated 6.3.2001. Along with the written statement filed by D1 to D3, no documents are filed by them. Defendant No.4, who filed separate written statement with the same pleadings of defendants 1 to 3. Nowhere it is stated as to what happened to the original Will. Defendant No.4 has filed certified copy of the Will and two cist receipts in original along with her written statement. As per Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his 11 possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in
Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement and where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. In this case, the defendants are basing their claim upon the registered Will executed by Bobbili Subba Rao and are relying upon the said document. But they have not entered the registered Will in the list of documents and only entered certified copy of the same without stating as to what happened to the original. So, there is no proper compliance of Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC and the pleadings of the defendants are conspicuously silent as to the original Will. Only in the cross- examination, defendant No.4 as DW1 stated that it is misplaced and that the certified copy was given to her by PW1. There is no mention in the pleadings or evidence in the chief-examination that the original Will was misplaced and it was given to defendant No.4 by plaintiff No.2/PW1. So, the argument for the counsel for the defendants that it is the consistent case of the defendants that the original Will was misplaced is not correct.
23)The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that Section 68 of the Act is to be read along with Section 69, 70 and 71 of the Act and that Section 71 is a safeguard where it is not possible to prove the execution of the Will by calling at least one attesting witness alive stating that it can be proved by other evidence. So, the defendants in this case want to prove the execution of the Will using Section 71 of the Act. It shows the inability to prove the Will as mandated by Section 68 and 69 of the Act.
24)With regard to the contention of the learned counsel that they can take aid of Section 71 of the Act and prove the execution of the Will by other evidence, I am of the considered view that Section 71 of the Act 12 cannot be availed by the defendants as this is not a case where the attesting witness denied his signature or is not recollecting the execution of the Will, when its execution may be proved by other evidence. Even if the aid of S.71 of the Act is taken, the will is to be proved with other evidence which is of same nature of the evidence required under S.69 of the Act which requires proof of handwriting of the one attesting witness and signature of the testator, but not less than that.
25)It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the Will is an old document of 2001 and by the date of it’s marking on 16.8.2023 it is more than 23 years old and as no address particulars of the attestors are available on the document, despite best efforts made by the defendants the whereabouts of the attesting witnesses could not be traced and it is not known whether they are alive or not and therefore, their examination has become next to impossible and so, they can prove the Will under Section 71 of the Act by other evidence. It is his submission that in this case there is direct and circumstantial evidence to prove the Will as all the witnesses speak about existence of Ex.B1. What is required to be proved is not existence of the will but the will itself. Therefore, under the guise of S.71 of the Act, the propounder cannot escape the mandate of proof of will at least to prove the handwriting of the an attestor and signature of the testator by other means, like producing admitted signatures of the testator and attestor for comparison with the signatures of the disputed will.
In this case, no such evidence is produced by the defendants all the witness examined as Dws.1 to 8 cannot prove the signatures of the testator and attestor on the will. In fact, as already stated, there is no will at all which contain the signatures of the testator and attestors as the defendants produced only certified copy of the will, which is an extract of the Registrar about the contents of the document and there are no signatures of the attestors and testator on Ex.B1.
13
26)If we look at the evidence produced by the defendants, one
Sunkara Praveen Kumar is examined as DW8. It is his evidence that he was present at the time of registration of the Will and attested as a witness along with one P.Bhadraiah and that the Will was scribed by one
Chintakayala Ramachandra Rao. He states that Chintakayala
Ramachandra Rao/scribe and P.Bhadraiah are dead. The age of the witness is not mentioned in the chief-examination and it is kept blank. In the cross-examination he gives his date of birth as 2.4.1981. The Will is dated 6.3.2001. So, DW8 must be aged 20 years as on the date of the Will.
27)A perusal of Ex.B1 shows that one AV Anjaneyulu and
K.Mohana Rao are the attestors to the Will and one Chintakayala
Ramachandra Rao was the scribe. So, DW8 is not an attestor to the Will as claimed by him in the chief-examination. A perusal of Ex.B1 shows that one
P.Bhadraiah and one S.Praveen signed as identifying witnesses for the registration of the Will. The identifying witnesses are not attestors to the Will and they cannot prove the Will. Even if, DW8 is considered as identifying witness for the registration, his evidence cannot prove execution of the Will by the testator. Registration of the Will is not proof of the Will as required by
Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Further mere existence of the Will as argued by the counsel is not sufficient proof of the Will.
28)The learned counsel for defendants submitted that the evidence of DW3, who is an independent witness and scribe of Exs.A1 to
A4 clears the objection raised by the plaintiffs and it shows the fairness and anxiety of defendant No.4 and Meriyamma while executing Exs.A1 to A4 and there is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness.
29)If we look at the evidence of DW3, he deposed that he has no close acquaintance with the family of Bobbili Subba Rao. It is his evidence that at the time of purchase by defendants 5 to 8, wife of Bobbili Subba
Rao, his three sons and one daughter/defendant No.4 were present and for 14 preparing the sale deeds he was informed about the Will without showing either original or xerox copy and when he stated that it is not possible to mention in the sale deeds about the Will without any basis, he was informed by Meriyamma that herself, defendants 1 to 4 would sign on the sale deeds and that the remaining daughters were not bequeathed any property under the Will as their marriages were performed prior to NTR Act and believing her words he prepared sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A4 and got them registered.
Further he stated that subsequently after some days Meriyamma and defendant No.4 have shown him the Will dated 7.3.2001 registered document No.74/2001 of SRO, Vijayawada and then he took them to the
Sub-Registrar’s office, has shown the Will to the Sub-Registrar to inform about the genuineness of the Will and that the Registrar after verification of the records confirmed that the Will is a genuine document.
30)This evidence of DW3 goes against the evidence of DWs 4 and 5, who stated that copy of the Will was shown to them at the time of negotiations. DW3 says that the Will or copy of the Will were not shown at the time of the sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A4 and that only after some days
Meriyamma and defendant No.4 have showed him the Will. He is not even clear whether he was shown copy of the Will or the original Will. His evidence shows that the Will was shown to him, meaning thereby that the original Will was shown to him. Simply because of his evidence that he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office and verified the genuineness of the Will with the Sub-Registrar it cannot prove the existence of the original Will and it’s genuineness.
31)Coming to the evidence of DWs 4 and 5, they are examined as witnesses for Exs.A1 to A4. They stated that they were informed by
Meriyamma at the time of negotiations that the property belonged to her husband and that he executed a Will in favour of herself and defendant
No.4 bequeathing the schedule property and has shown copy of the Will.
15
They have not stated as to what happened to the original Will. Any how their evidence is that they were shown only copy of the Will and in this case copy of the Will is marked as EX.B1. It is not the evidence of DWs 4 and 5 that they were informed that the original Will was misplaced. Admittedly, there is no mention in Exs.A1 to A4 regarding execution of Will by Bobbili Subba
Rao at all. If the case of DWs 4 and 5 is considered they were shown copy of the Will. At least the said fact should have been mentioned in Exs.A1 to
A4. It is clear from the recitals of Exs.A1 to A4 that they were executed by defendants 1 to 4 and also Meriyamma as vendors stating that they acquired joint right in the schedule property which was in the possession and enjoyment of Bobbili Subba Rao till his death on 21.7.2001 and that they being the legal heirs acquired rights in the property and accordingly they sold the property to defendants 5 to 7. So, it is clear from Exs.A1 to A4 that as successors to Bobbili Subba Rao defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma sold the property to defendants 5 to 8. It shows that Bobbili Subba Rao died intestate. If really there was reference to the Will and copy of the Will was shown it must have been made part of the sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A4 and there is no need to suppress or disguise or failure to mention about the Will in Exs.A1 to A4. Further there is no necessity for defendants 1 to 4 to execute the sale deeds in respect of the property which was stated to have been bequeathed to Meriyamma and defendant No.4. Their executing the document itself as successors shows that they executed the sale deeds as successors only but not to support Meriyamma and defendant No.4.
32)Strangely, DW5 stated in the cross-examination that in the sale deeds it is mentioned that the property was acquired by Meriyamma and defendant No.4 through Will and knowing the same only he signed as a witness. Again he stated that he was informed about the said fact mentioned in the sale deeds and he does not know whether it is mentioned in the sale deeds or not. This shows the veracity of the evidence of DW5.
16
33)DWs 6 and 7 are speaks of the sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A4. They have no personal knowledge about the Will. It is only their case that they believed the words of Meriyamma regarding the Will and purchased the property. They also say that the certified copy of the Will was shown to them stating that the original was not traced but as already discussed this fact is not mentioned in the sale deeds and the sale deeds show that they were executed by defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma as successors of Bobbili
Subba Rao. Therefore, the defendants are trying to explain the non-mention of the Will in the sale deeds by producing the evidence of DWs 3 to 5.
34)DW1 being the propounder of the Will cannot prove the Will.
DW1 is a Postgraduate. Though she claims that the written statement and her chief-examination were prepared on her instructions, she says that she does not remember her case in the written statement and her chief- examination. Only in cross-examination she says that Ex.B1 was given to her by PW1 which fact was never pleaded anywhere in the pleadings or chief-examination. Even if it is admitted that PW1 has given Ex.B1 certified copy of the Will to DW1, the same cannot prove the execution of the Will as required under law. It may only prove the knowledge of PW1 regarding
Ex.B1 but nothing more.
35)DW1 admitted about her agreement with Kadiyala
Subrahmanyam for sale of item No.2 of the schedule property and about publication by the said Kadiyala Subrahmanyam under Ex.A9 and reply notice given by the plaintiffs under Ex.A10 stating that the Will is forged and fabricated.
36)It was suggested to DW1 that she is in possession of the original Will and she suppressed the same. The same is denied by DW1.
Even if by this suggestion the plaintiffs admit the original of the Will/ Ex.B1, it cannot prove the Will. The Will must be proved by proving that the Will was executed by the testator and that the Will was attested at least by two 17 witnesses and by proving the signatures of the testator and also at least one of the attestors.
37)The 2nd defendant, one of the executants of Exs.A1 to A4 admits that in spite of Exs.A1 to A4, the schedule property is still one contiguous plot and he admits that it is still in the joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants. This shows that the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the plaint schedule properties and payment of Court fee is correct.
38)It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that apart from the suit schedule properties, Bobbili Subba Rao had other house sites which he gave to his sons/defendants 1 to 3 and they constructed houses therein and are residing in the said houses. But this fact will not prove the Will.
39)Similarly, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that the sons and daughters of Bobbili Subba Rao were residing nearby the house of Bobbili Subba Rao and there were cordial terms among the legal heirs but the said fact also cannot establish the Will. It is clear from PW1 that till 2014 they did not press for partition of the schedule property as Meriyamma was alive and they filed the suit in the year 2014 only after the demise of
Meriyamma. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that they came to know about the Will only after filing of the suit through their advocate. There is nothing produced by the defendants except stating that the plaintiffs were aware of the Will and execution of the sale deeds from the inception, to show that the Will was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PWs 2 and 3, also in favour of the defendants case.
40)In his argument, the learned counsel for the defendants discussed the evidence of plaintiffs and tried to show that the existence of the will is true and that the plaintiff failed to show that the will is fabricated.
But in this case, it is for the defendants to prove the will and discharge their 18 burden of proof and then they can throw the burden on the other side to disprove the Will and/or that it is fabricated and forged.
41)The learned counsel for the defendants submitted his arguments basing the contents of the Will, but as the Will itself is not proved, the defendants cannot rely upon the contents of the Will. So, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that the evidence of the defendants proves the Will executed by Bobbili Subba
Rao. An oral discussion made above, makes it clear that the defendants failed to prove the Will executed by Bobbili Subba Rao as required by law.
42)The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in Janaki Devi vs. R.Vasanthi and others [(2005) 1 MLJ 357] wherein it was held that in view of Sections 52 (1)(a), 58 and 60 of the Registration Act the certificate issued by the Registrar would certainly constitutes sufficient evidence to prove the documents, its execution also to some extent. Basing on this decision the learned counsel for the defendants wants to place some reliance on the fact that the Will is registered and to take it as other evidence under Section 71 of the Act.
43)A perusal of the said judgment shows that the registration of the document was taken to prove the document only to some extent but it is not the sole basis to hold the document proved. In this case, the discussion made above shows that the defendants are unable to prove any of the necessary requirements of proof of the Will except producing a certified copy of the Will which does not contain signatures of either executant or the attestors. Therefore, this decision is not of any help to the defendants.
44)In view of the above discussion, it is held that the defendants failed to prove that Bobbili Subbarao died testate executing a will in respect of the plaint schedule properties. This issue is accordingly held against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
45)ADDL.ISSUE DATED 18.11.2014:- 19
It is the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that all the children of Bobbili Subba Rao were aware of the Will and execution of the sale deeds by Meriyamma and defendant No.4 under Exs.A1 to A4 except mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4. He submits that from the evidence of PW1 that there were cordial terms among the legal heirs by the time of death of
Bobbili Subba Rao and that the mothers of the plaintiffs 2 to 7 were residing nearby the house of their father clearly showing that there were good relation, it imposes knowledge on them about the sale deeds. But, I am unable to agree with this argument. Simply because all the children were residing nearby the house of the father it cannot be presumed that they have knowledge about the Will and knowledge about the sale deeds executed under Exs.A1 to A4. If there were cordial terms and there were no disputes nothing prevented them from getting the sale deeds/Exs.A1 to A4 executed by the other legal heirs of Bobbili Subba Rao when they were obtaining the signatures of defendants 1 to 3 who are not beneficiaries under the Will.
46)It is submitted that as per the evidence of DW1, it is PW1 who gave the certified copy of the Will/Ex.B1 and it is strengthened by the admission about PW1 working in the Revenue Offices and Sub-Registrar’s office. May be, PW1 was working in Revenue Office and Registrar office, but that is not suffice to hold that PW1 has given Ex.B1 to DW1. Simply because of the evidence of DW1 in the cross-examination the said fact cannot held to have been proved.
47)The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that on
Ex.B1, the name of the person, who purchased the stamps is noted as
Devarapalli Karunanidhi/PW1 and though PW1 tried to erase it by whitener it can be seen that it is PW1, who purchased the stamps on 23.12.2003 for making application for certified copy of the Will and obtained the same on 27.12.2003. It may be true that a whitener is applied at the place of name of 20 the person, who purchased the stamps. It is also appearing that it is the name of PW2. At the cost of repetition, it is not in the pleadings and chief evidence of DW1 that Ex.B1 was obtained by PW1 and it was handed over to her by PW1 erasing the name with whitner. It is only introduced later.
Further, the said fact cannot be made basis to hold implied knowledge of the plaintiffs about Exs.A1 to A4 as contended by the learned counsel for the defendants.
48)It is the argument of the counsel that as knowledge can be attributed to PW1 from the date of the sale deeds on 14.3.2005, the suit having been filed in 2014 is barred by prescribed period of limitation of three years. But in view of the above discussion, I am unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant to hold that the relief for cancellation of sale deeds is barred by limitation. This issue is accordingly held against the defendants.
49)ISSUE NO.2:-
There is no dispute about Exs.A1 to A4/Exs.B4, B5, B9 and B10 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma in favour of defendants 5 to 8 in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. DWs 6 and 7 filed cist receipts and adangal showing that their names were mutated in the revenue records. The learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
R.Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K.Pattakar [(2023) INSC 1019] for the proposition of law that revenue records which are essentially fiscal in nature they cannot assert the title of the party. There is no dispute about this decision. Therefore, the revenue records produced by the defendants are of no help to them in this case.
50)The question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for cancellation of the sale deeds which were executed by defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma. The plaintiffs or their predecessors in title are not parties
Exs.A1 to A4/Exs.B4, B5,B9 and B10. It is the argument of the counsel for 21 defendants that the relief of cancellation is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not parties to the documents which is a right in rem but not right in personam and they ought to have sought for declaration in respect of the validity of the said documents. It is true that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek cancellation of the sale deeds because they are not parties to the said documents and if they want any relief against the said documents, they have to seek relief against the documents. Further the sale deeds/Exs.A1 to
A4 validly executed by defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma for consideration are binding on Defendants 1 to 4 and Meriamma as far as their shares in item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties are concerned. So, the documents, as a whole, cannot be cancelled. At best, it can be said that they cannot bind the plaintiffs as far as their shares in the property are concerned. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for seeking cancellation of the registered sale deeds. This issue is held accordingly against the plaintiffs.
51)ISSUE NO.1:-
In view of the findings on issue No.3 and additional issue, in the absence of a testamentary dispossession of his self acquired property by
Bobbili Subba Rao, the plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the plaint schedule properties and seek for partition.
52)The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon a decision in
Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw Alias Nand Lal Keshri Alias
Nandu Lal Bayes [2024 INSC 676] wherein in para No.23 it was held as follows:- “A faint effort was made in the end to contend that the plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal had not asked for any relief of cancellation of the sale deed by which the property was purchased by the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand and, therefore, is not entitled to any relief in this suit. The 22 argument has been noted only to be rejected for the simple reason that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 uses the word 'may' for getting declared the instrument as void which is not imperative in every case, more particularly when the person is not a party to such an instrument.”
From this decision, it is clear that though the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants 5 to 8, they are entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property as prayed for.
53)During her lifetime, Meriyamma and defendants 1 to 4 together executed Exs.A1 to A4 in favour of defendants 5 to 8 in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the said sale deeds are binding on Meriyamma and defendants 1 to 4 as far as their undivided share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties, though they cannot have the effect of on the undivided shares of the plaintiffs therein.
So, defendants 5 to 8 who purchased the undivided property of item No.1 from defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma under Exs.A1 to A4 are entitled to the undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma in the item
No.1 of the plaint schedule properties and as purchasers of undivided shares of defendants 1 to 4 and Meriyamma, they are entitled for partition of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties in respect of the said shares along with the plaintiffs. There is no dispute about item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. This issue is held accordingly.
54)ISSUE NO.4:-
In view of the findings on issues 1 to 3 and additional issue above, the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties. But with regard to item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties they only get the shares of plaintiff No.1, Lilli Pushpam and Paturi Jhansi and they have no 23 right in the share of Meriyamma which was sold under Exs.A1 to A4 in favour of defendants 5 to 8. So, the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1, Lilli
Pushpam and Jhansi will get 1/8th share each in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. As far as item No.2 is concerned they are entitled for the share of Meriyamma also under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession
Act and they will get 1/7th share therein. Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled for decree.
55)In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:- (1) It is declared that the plaintiff No.1 (succeeded by plaintiffs 8 to 10), plaintiffs 2 to 4 together (being children of Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam), plaintiffs 5 to 7 together (being children of Paturi Jhansi), defendant No.1 (succeeded by defendants 9 to 13), defendant No. 2, defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 and Meriyamma have 1/8th share each in item No. 1 of the plaint schedule properties.
(2) It is declared that the plaintiff No.1 (succeeded by plaintiffs 8 to 10), plaintiffs 2 to 4 together (being children of Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam), plaintiffs 5 to 7 together (being children of Paturi Jhansi), defendant No.1 (succeeded by defendants 9 to 13), defendant No. 2, defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 have 1/7th share each in item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties.
(3) It is declared that the defendants 5 to 8 are entitled for their proportionate shares as per Exs.A1 to A4, in the undivided each 1/8th share of defendant No.1 (succeeded by defendants 9 to 13), defendant
No. 2, defendant No.3, defendant No.4 and Meriyamma in item No.1 of the plaint schedule property that is, 5/8th share therein and for partition of the same along with the plaintiffs.
(4) A preliminary decree of partition is passed accordingly.
(5) The suit as far as the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds is dismissed.
24 (6) In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer and prepared by her on computer,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of April, 2025.
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
VIJAYAWADA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS
PW.1: Devarapalli Karuna NidhiDW.1: Dasari Vijaya Rani
PW.2: Pandipati Sarvesh KumarDW.2: Bobbili Joe Babu
PW.3: Paturi PradeepDW.3:U.Anil Kumar
DW.4:P.Krishna Rao
DW.5: A.Peabhakara Rao
DW.6: M.Sambasiva Rao
DW.7: P.Babji
DW.8: S.Praveen Kumar
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFFS
Exs.A1 to A4 are the certified copies of registered sale deeds dated 14.3.2005 executed by Meriyamma and defendant No.4 in favour of defendants 5 to 8 respectively. Ex.A5 is the death certificate of Bobbili Subba Rao. Ex.A6 is the death certificate of Devarapalli Lilli Pushpam Ex.A7 is the death certificate of Paturi Jhansi Ex.A8 is the death certificate of Meriyamma 25
Ex.A9 is the General public notice dated 13.4.2016 published in Eenadu Telugu Daily got issued by one Kadiyala Subrahmanyam through his advocate. Ex.A10 is the office copy of notice got issued by the plaintiffs Ex.A11 is the acknowledgment by the advocate for Kadiyala Subrahmanyam. Exs.A12 and A13 are returned postal covers addressed to the 4th defendant and Kadiyala Subrahmanyam by the counsel for the plaintiffs
FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered Will dated 6.3.2001 registered on 7.3.2001 said to have been executed by Bobbili Subba Rao.
Exs.B2 and B3 are the cist receipts dated 9.5.2007 and 7.3.2014
Exs.B4 and B5 are certified copies of registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 5 and 6.
Exs.B6 and B7 are cist receipts in the name of defendants No.5 and 6.
Ex.B8 is the adangal relating to item No.1 of the schedule property.
Exs.B9 and B10 are the certified copies of registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 7 and 8.
Exs.B11 and B12 are the cist receipts in the name of defendants 7 and 8.
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA.
1 APKR030033822015
IN THE COURT OF
THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA
Present: S. Nageswara Rao, VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge.
Wednesday, this the 2nd day of April, 2025.
A.S.No.280/2015
Between:
Sanka Venkata Ranga Rao … Appellant A N D 1.Kantheti Lakshmi
2. Sanka Radha Krishna @ Krishna Rao
3. Sanka Venkata Ratnam
... Respondents
On appeal against the decree and Judgment dated 03.02.2015 passed in
O.S.No.1296/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Vijayawada made in:
Between:
Kantheti Lakshmi … Plaintiff
A N D
1. Sanka Radha Krishna @ Krishna Rao
2. Sanka Venkata Ratnam
3. Sanka Venkata Ranga Rao
... Defendants
2 APKR030033822015
This Appeal, coming on for hearing before me on 29-01-2025 in the presence of Sri A.Nancharaiah, Advocate for the Appellant and of respondent No.2 died; Sri B.Koti Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri I.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3 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)This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant in OS No.1296/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada challenging the decree and judgment dated 3-2-2015 passed therein.
2)For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred by their position in the original suit.
3)The Original suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and allot one share to the plaintiff and for mesne profits from the date of the suit and costs.
4)Plaint pleadings:-
Plaintiff is the daughter and Defendants No.2 and 3 are the sons of the defendant No.1 and they a constitute joint family and Defendant No.1 is the Manager thereof. The plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties inherited by defendant No.1 from his father and they are in joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3. Defendant No.1 is not rendering proper accounts of the income to the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 and 3 are also not responding to the demands of the plaintiff for proper distribution of the profits of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 each has 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property. So, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 23.07.2010 demanding them to co-operate for partition of the plaint schedule property but they did not give any reply though received the same. Hence the suit.
3 APKR030033822015
5)Written statement of Defendant No.1:
Plaint averments are not true and correct. Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and so the court fee paid is not correct.
Defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession, enjoyment and management of the plaint schedule properties. Defendant No.3 is residing in Item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties. The contents of the notice are not true and correct. The 1st defendant asked the plaintiff about the contents of the legal notice and the plaintiff stated the contents of the legal notice are not correct. In the said circumstances, the 1st defendant did not issue any reply. The written statement of the defendant No.3 with regard to partition list dated 20.12.1984 is false and defendant No.1 never signed thereon. The scribe of the said list, Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao, died on 23.07.1983. It shows that the partition list is created. Defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed Document No.14218/2004 dated 09.11.2004 gifting Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has no right to file his suit. There is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.
6)Defendant No.2 remained exparte.
7)Written statement of defendant No.3:
Plaint averments are false. Plaintiff is not a coparcener or co-sharer in the joint family of the defendants and so she has no right to seek partition. Suit is filed to knock away the property under threat of litigation. Only defendants No.1 to 3 constitute joint family and the defendant No.1 is kartha. The joint family was disrupted about 25 years back after marriage of the plaintiff and the defendants have partitioned the plaint schedule properties on 30.05.1984 and since then have been enjoying the properties allotted to them. The said oral partition was reduced into writing on 20.12.1984 into a partition list.
4 APKR030033822015
8)Item No.1 was divided into two parts of 82 ½ cents and 87 ½ cents. The 87 ½ cents was allotted to defendant No.2 and 82 ½ cents was allotted to defendant
No.3, but it was given to the defendant No.1 for his enjoyment throughout his life without right of alienation. Subsequently, it should devolve upon defendants No.2 and 3 with absolute rights as aforesaid. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was divided into three parts. Defendant No.1 was allotted 25 cents with absolute rights and was given the remaining 65 cents for his life enjoyment without right of alienation. The vested remainder was given to defendants No.2 and 3 equally at 32½ cents each with absolute rights. Item No.3 is not 150 square yards as shown in the plaint schedule and it is only 107 square yards. It was allotted to defendant No.3 with absolute rights for his residence and to carry on his business. Items No.4 and 5 are given to Defendant No.1 with life interest without right of alienation for his life and thereafter it was given to Defendant No.3 with absolute rights.
9)The plaintiff is aware of the partition and partition list. It was at the suggestion of the plaintiff, her husband and well wishers the said family partition was effected. So, there is no joint family by the end of 1984 and the plaintiff has no right to claim partition. Defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed dated 09.11.2004 in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the 25 cents of the land given to him with absolute rights under the partition list. It proves oral partition in 1984 to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The oral partition was acted upon and accordingly
Defendant No.3 is residing in the house allotted to him doing his business and paying property tax as absolute owner. Defendant No.1 is paying taxes for other properties as he has got life interest on them. The suit is hopelessly barred by time in view of partition in 1984 to her knowledge. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs and compensatory costs.
5 APKR030033822015
10)On the above pleading following issues were settled by the trial Court.
1. Whether a joint family properties are partitioned orally on 30.05.1984?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?
4. To what relief?
11)During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and produced Exs.A1 to A6. No evidence adduced by Defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 examined DWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B6 and Exs.X1 and X2 on his behalf. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held all the three issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed a preliminary decree of partition directing the plaintiff to file separate application for mesne profits. Challenging the same, the defendant No.3 preferred this Appeal.
12)Initially, the appeal was dismissed for default on 05.05.2022. The respondent No.2/ defendant No.1 remained exparte in the appeal. Subsequently
I.A.294/2022 was filed to re-admit the Appeal. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No.2/ Defendant No.1 was reported dead and it is stated that the plaintiff, Defendants No.2 and 3 are the only legal heirs of Defendant No.1 who died intestate and the same is recorded. Hence, Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.1 is shown as deceased in the cause title of the appeal.
13)Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant
No.3, plaintiff/respondent No.1 and defendant No.2/respondent No.3. Written arguments filed by the Appellant and respondents No.1 and 3. R2 died and the other parties to the suit are the legal heirs of R2.
14)Now the points for determination in this appeal are:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties?
2. To what relief?
6 APKR030033822015
15)POINT No.1:
The plaintiff as PW1 stated the plaint averments in her chief-examination affidavit and was cross-examined by the counsel for D3. She produced Exs.A1 to A6.
Ex.A1 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 3 demanding partition of the plaint schedule properties. Exs.A2 to A4 are the postal acknowledgments of defendants 1 to 3 of having received Ex.A1. In her further examination PW1 stated that the scribe of alleged partition list marked as Ex.B2, namely, Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao died on 23.7.1983 and produced Ex.A5 as the death registration extract issued by Grama Panchayat, Nunna. Further she filed registered sale deed dated 2.9.1955/Ex.A6 executed by Bhimavarapu Ramireddy in favour of D1, containing the signature of Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao as scribe to compare the same with Ex.B2 stating that he worked as Village Karanam of
Pathapadu village and that he was permanent resident of Nunna village having own house wherein his son is presently residing and that there is no other person with the said name either at Nunna or at Pathapadu.
16)The third defendant examined himself as DW1 and in his chief- examination, he reiterated the written statement averments and produced Exs.B1 to
B6. Ex.B1 is certified copy of registered gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff, gifting 25 cents of land out of 90 cents in RS No.619/2 of
Nunna village, part of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. Ex.B2 is the partition list dated 20.12.1984 executed by D1 to D3. A perusal of the trial Court docket proceedings show that the admissibility of Ex.B2 was decided by the trial Court on 28.9.2012 hearing the objections of the counsel for the plaintiff and holding that it is admissible in evidence.
17)Ex.B3 is the death certificate of Desu Mallikharjuna Rao dated 13.9.1993. Ex.B4 is seven house tax receipts standing in the name of the 3rd 7 APKR030033822015 defendant for assessment No.1035 for the years 2011-12; 2011; 2008-09; 2006; 2002 and 1999 and for assessment No.2064 for the year 1991. Ex.B5 is the seven property tax demand notices standing in the name of the 3rd defendant for the assessment No.1035 for the years 2011-12; 2011; 2009; 2001-2002 and 1998-99 and for assessment No.820 for the year 1994-95 and for assessment No.2064 for the year 1991. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of Taluk Audit Register of village establishment,
Pathapadu village for the year 1981.
18)The 3rd defendant examined Guntaka China Venkata Reddy of Nunna village as DW2. It is the evidence of DW2 in chief-examination that the plaintiff and defendants are closely known to him and that the defendants 1 to 3 partitioned their ancestral properties on 30.5.1984 and subsequently reduced the same into writing as partition list/Ex.B2. He stated that himself and Desu Mallikharjuna Rao, father-in-law of D3, attested the said partition list and one Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao scribed the same. Further he deposed that himself, Desu Mallikharjuna Rao and one Thokale
Krishna Rao mediated for partition of the properties and that 25 cents fell to the share of D1 was gifted by him to the plaintiff. He stated that Desu Mallikharjuna Rao/first attestor died after the execution of partition list and that Tadepalli Venkateswara
Rao/scribe died two or three years after the partition list. He says that Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao was resident of Nunna and he was Karanam of Pathapadu village and that he attended the funerals of T.Venkateswara Rao.
19)The wife of the 3rd defendant is examined as DW3. She stated the case of the 3rd defendant in the chief-examination and also stated the evidence of DW2 with regard to Ex.B2. According to her, she attended the house of Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao at Pathapadu to pay her tributes after his demise and that there are about four families in Nunna village with surname of Tadepalli and there are 8 APKR030033822015 persons with name of Venkateswara Rao and therefore, there is no scope to record his death at Nunna Gramapanchayat office as he was resident of Pathapadu village.
20)Nature of the plaint schedule property:
Before proceeding to decide the rights of the parties, it is necessary to look at
the nature of the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff pleaded that the plaint schedule properties were inherited by Defendant No.1 from his father. Nowhere she claimed the properties as coparcenary properties. Simply because it is stated that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 constituted a joint family, the property will not become joint family property, particularly, when it is admitted that the property was inherited by
Defendant No.1 from his father. The property inherited by Defendant No.1 from his father, is under S.8 of the Hindu Succession Act and it becomes the self acquired property of Defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 being the children of Defendant No.1 will not get any right by birth in the said property. Even Defendant
No.3 has not disputed the said fact that the property was inherited by his father but he only claims that the plaintiff is not a joint family member and only defendants 1 to 3 constituted joint family and they got divided the same on 30.5.1984 orally followed by a partition list dated 20.12.1984. When the property is self acquired property of defendant No.1, simply because defendants 2 and 3 are sons of Defendant No.1 and they constituted joint family, the property will not become joint family property. The 1st defendant denied the case of the plaintiff as well as the 3rd defendant claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. He only admitted that the 3rd defendant is in possession of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant has not contested the suit and remained exparte and there is no version of 2nd defendant on this aspect. Thus it is clear that the plaint schedule properties are self acquired properties of the 1st defendant and therefore, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have no right to claim partition of the same during the life time of 9 APKR030033822015 defendant No.1 and they will get right in the properties under S.8 of the Hindu
Succession Act, only in case of intestate death of the 1st defendant.
21)The learned counsel for appellant/D3 argued that there is no presumption of property being joint family property only on account of existence of joint Hindu family and one who asserts has to prove that it is joint family property and then only the onus shifts to the person, who claims it to be the self acquired property.
The learned counsel relied upon a decision in Bhagawat Sharan (dead through
Lrs) vs. Purushotham [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6875 OF 2008] for the said proposition of law and there is no dispute about the same but it is not relevant to this suit.
22)The learned counsel for the appellant/D3 that the property should be four generations old to become a co-parcenary property undivided among the shareholders. There is no dispute about the fact that to become a co-parcenary property, the property has to pass three generations undivided. In this case as already observed the property was inherited by D1 from his father only and so, it is not a co-parcenary property and it is self acquired property of D1.
23)The learned counsel for the appellant/D3 submitted that after the death of father of D1, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the properties were partitioned between the defendants and the 1st defendant gifted the property out of item No.2 which fell to his share and the same was accepted by PW1 as admitted in the cross-examination and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim for partition.
So, in nutshell the entire case of appellant/D3 is that the property is not a co- parcenary property and as it is inherited by D1, as there was division between D1 to
D3 by oral partition followed by partition list/Ex.B2, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the plaint schedule properties.
24)In view of the admitted pleadings of the parties as observed by the
Court, the plaint schedule properties are self-acquired properties of D1. It is the third 10 APKR030033822015 defendant, who claims that there was division of the said properties between D1 to
D3. When once it is self-acquired property of D1 under Section 8 of the Act as pleaded by the appellant/D3, there is no need or right in defendants 2 and 3 to seek for partition of the plaint schedule properties from D1. Hence, even if there was such a division it should be a grant by the first defendant in favour of his two sons. If D1 is creating rights in D2 and D3 in his properties it amounts to transfer of properties and it should be by way of a registered document only as the properties are immovable properties worth more than Rs.100/-. In this case, since the partition/division is claimed as oral and followed by a partition list, it is not valid transfer of property creating any rights in defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, the defendants 2 and 3 will not acquire any rights in any part of the plaint schedule properties by such alleged oral partition and partition list.
25)Now let us see, whether the said case of appellant/D3 about oral partition is proved by him. The case of D3 is that there was oral partition on 30.5.1984 and the same was reduced to writing on 20.12.1984 and produced it as
Ex.B2. Ex.B2 is an unregistered partition list signed by D1 to D3. The plaintiff was not a party to the same. Admittedly, the alleged oral partition on 30.5.1984 was also between D1 to D3.
26)The 1st defendant denied signing on the partition list/Ex.B2. The main contention of the plaintiff is that by the date of Ex.B2, the alleged scribe/Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao died and so, scribing of Ex.B2 by a dead person does not arise and therefore, Ex.B2 is a created document. Admittedly, Tadepalli Venkateswara
Rao is no more. The question is when Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao died. DW1 does not know when Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao died. He has no documents to show that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao is resident of Pathapadu and whether he was having own house there. He produced Ex.B6/ extract of Taluk Audit Register of 11 APKR030033822015
Pathapadu village for 1981. Ex.B6 shows that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao was karanam of Pathapadu village.
27)The plaintiff produced Ex.A5 as death certificate of Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao, son of Seetharamaiah showing the date of death as 23.7.1983 which was issued by Secretary, Birth & Death Registrar, Nunna Gramapanchayat.
She admitted that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao worked as Village Karanam,
Pathapadu village which is also proved by Ex.B6.
28)During the course of cross-examination, she admitted Ex.X1 as the copy of affidavit in IA 1306/2013 in the suit and Ex.X2 as the copy of death certificate of
Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao dated 31.5.2013 as the copy served on D3. It is clear from Ex.X2 that it is dated 31.5.2003. Ex.A5 is dated 5.3.2013. So, though both certificates relate to one person, they were issued on different dates. The format and date of issuance of the certificates is different. Both Ex.A5 and Ex.X2 are death certificates of Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao. All the details mentioned in Ex.A5 are also mentioned in Ex.X2 except the fact that the father’s name is not mentioned in
Ex.X2 as Seetharamaiah which is mentioned in Ex.A5. In view of the fact that both certificates contain the same details except the father’s name, I am of the view that there is no difference in both the certificates which tally with details of death of
Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao and the place of death including registration number of the death as No.7 and date of registration as 27.7.1983. Both were issued by the
Secretary Nunna gram panchayat. So, they establish that Tadepalli Venkateswara
Rao, resident of Nunna died on 23.7.1983.
29)It is the case of D3 that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao was resident of
Pathapadu village and the death certificate refers to Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao of
Nunna and therefore, it is not the death certificate of scribe of Ex.B2 and it is of different person. No document is produced subsequent to the date of Ex.B2 12 APKR030033822015 containing the signature of Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao or showing that he was alive subsequent to the date of Ex.B2. So, except contending that Tadepalli Venkateswara
Rao died two or three years after Ex.B2, nothing is placed by the 3rd defendant to establish the said fact and to show that Ex.A5 is not relating to the scribe of Ex.B2.
30)The 3rd defendant introduced his wife as DW3 to prove that Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao, scribe of Ex.B2 is a different person from Ex.A5 but the self serving interested testimony of DW3 cannot disprove Ex.A5. Further except contending that there are other persons in the same name, no material is placed to substantiate the same. No material is placed to show that the scribe of Ex.B2 resided at Pathapadu village but not Nunna village, to discredit Ex.B6 issued by Nunna
Gramapanchayat. The evidence of DW3 that she does not know the father’s name of the scribe of Ex.B2 shows that the defendant No.3 is not aware of the father’s name of the scribe and they are unable to show that the father’s name shown in Ex.A5 is different from the father’s name of the scribe. She says that she does not know whether in the Gramapanchayat records of Pathapadu village there is any entry regarding the death of the scribe/Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao. In fact when she was questioned that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao resided at Brahmin street, Nunna village died on 23.7.1983 survived by his children, she stated that it may be correct.
So, no material is placed to show that there is another person by name Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao resided at Pathapadu village and he scribed Ex.B2.
31)The evidence of DW2/attestor to Ex.B2 shows that he is resident of
Nunna village. It is clear from DW2 that the scribe of Ex.B2 Tadepalli Venkateswara
Rao was resident of Nunna village but not Pathapadu village. So, the own witness of
D3 says that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao is a resident of Nunna and therefore, the evidence of DW3 and case of D3 that Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao was resident of 13 APKR030033822015
Pathapadu cannot stand. So, Ex.B2 could not have been scribed by a dead person and it is clear that Ex.B2 is created.
32)Apart from that, in his chief-examination DW2 says that the oral partition took place on 30.5.1984 and subsequently it was reduced into writing under Ex.B2.
But in the cross-examination he says that the partition of the property has taken place in his presence and on the said date Ex.B2 was reduced into writing. Ex.B2 is
dated 20.12.1984 and alleged oral partition is on 30.5.1984. So, both took place on
different dates. So, the evidence of DW2 that both took place on one and the same date falsifies the case of the 3rd defendant.
33)It is the case of the 3rd defendant that on 30.5.1984 there was oral partition and since then they have been enjoying the properties allotted to them and then partition list/Ex.B2 was written on 20.12.1984. He also narrated the properties separated as per the oral partition. Coming to the cross-examination he admits that the property was not physically divided by metes and bounds, that means, there was no actual partition of the properties as stated by the 3rd defendant. Even subsequently as per the admission of DW1 no application was submitted for mutation basing on the partition list in the year 1984 till he gave evidence in 2012 nearly for 28 years that means there was no actual division of the properties as contended by the 3rd defendant. He did not even pay any cist to the property fell to his share and has not obtained any revenue record like pattadar pass book or title deed basing on the partition list.
34)One of the attestors to Ex.B2 is none other than father-in-law of D3 and father of DW3. DW2 another attestor is friend of the brother of D3. Except the house in which D3 is residing the remaining properties are in possession of the 1st defendant only. The documents produced by D3 as Exs.B4 and B5 relate to the said house property about which there is no dispute.
14 APKR030033822015
35)The father of plaintiff, D2 and D3, who is D1 categorically denied his signature on the partition list/Ex.B2. The plaintiff produced Ex.A6 as original registered sale deed in the name of D1 relating to some other property, which was scribed by Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao to show that the signature on Ex.B2 was not that of Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao. Admittedly and apparently the writing of Ex.A6 and Ex.B2 are different. Except suggesting that the person, who scribed Ex.A6 is different from person who scribed Ex.B2, no material is placed to show that there are two different persons with same name and worked as Karanam of Pathapadu village.
A comparison of the signature and writing of Ex.A6 with signature and writing of
Ex.B2 makes it clear that they were not written by one and the same person but an effort was made in Ex.B2 to show that it was made by the same person as in Ex.A6.
36)The 3rd defendant examined DW4, who claimed himself as a document writer since 1980. He stated that he knows Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao another document writer, who officiated as village Karanam, Pathapadu group of villages,
Vijayawada Rural mandal and that he took training under the said Venkateswara
Rao. He claims that he is acquainted with handwriting and signature of the said
Venkateswara Rao, who expired in the year 1985 and that he can identify the same.
He identified Ex.B2 being in the handwriting containing the signature of Tadepalli
Venkateswara Rao and he also stated that he is aware of Ex.B2 also.
37)DW4 admittedly belongs to Bhimavaram of West Godavari District. He has no house and properties at Vijayawada or in the suburbs of Vijayawada. He never resided either at Nunna or at Pathapadu. He has no documentary evidence or ration card showing that he resided at Vijayawada or suburbs of Vijayawada. He is not registered voter of Vijayawada Rural during 1982-85. He is not a signatory to
Ex.B2. Admittedly, he does not possess any license as a document writer. During the years 1982-85 admittedly he did not draft any documents or registered documents 15 APKR030033822015 showing that he has scribed any documents as a document writer. He admits that he did not attest any document during the said period and there is nothing to show that he undertook training under Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao. There are no registers or documents jointly drafted by himself and Venkateswara Rao.
38)It is clear from his evidence that wife of D3 approached him two months prior to his evidence and requested him to give evidence. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of DW4 is vague and baseless and cannot establish that there is another person by name Tadepalli Venkateswara Rao and he drafted Ex.B2.
39)To prove that there was oral partition in 1984, the defendant No.3 produced Ex.B1/certified copy of gift deed dated 9.11.2004 executed by D1 in favour of the plaintiff gifting 25 cents out of 90 cents in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. It is recited in Ex.B1 by 1st defendant that himself and his sons got oral partition of joint properties in the year 1984 and out of the share fell to him he gifted the property mentioned therein. The plaintiff as PW1 admitted the gift deed/Ex.B1 and stated that she is paying tax to the said land and obtained pattadar passbooks also for the said property and she is in possession of the original gift deed. In fact, she attended the Registrar’s office and affixed her thumb impression at the time of registration along with her father/D1. So, Ex.B1 is admitted.
40)Now it has to be seen that what is the effect of Ex.B1 on the properties of
D1. As already stated oral transfer of property in respect of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- is not permitted by law and it is no transfer of property. So, the recitals in Ex.B1 regarding the oral partition cannot create any rights in the properties of D1 in favour of his sons unless they were given by him by valid registered documents transferring the property. So, Ex.B1 cannot take away the rights of D1 in the plaint schedule properties except the property conveyed by him under Ex.B1 in 16 APKR030033822015 favour of the plaintiff. The remaining properties stand as properties of D1 and he can deal with the said properties as per his wish and will. Neither the plaintiff nor D2 and
D3 can have any rights to question D1. Therefore, Ex.B1 has no affect on the self- acquired properties of D1 which are plaint schedule properties herein.
41)In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff cannot seek for partition of the plaint schedule properties. But now in the changed circumstances, since it is an admitted fact that D1 died and that plaintiff, D2 and D3 are the only legal heirs of D1 they are entitled for their shares in the properties of their father under Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act which remained with him as on the date of his death. The property covered by Ex.B1 was gifted to plaintiff by D1 and it is from the self-acquired property of D1 and therefore, absolute rights are created in favour of D1 under the said document. She is entitled for equal shares along with D2 and D3 in the remaining properties which remained in the hands of D1 as on the date of his death.
42)In view of the above discussion, though not for the reasons given by the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties except the properties disposed of by D1 during his lifetime. This point is accordingly answered and the judgment of the trial Court be modified accordingly.
43)POINT NO.2:-
In view of the finding on point No.1, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed with modification to the decree passed by the learned trial Court.
44)In the result, the appeal is dismissed, modifying the decree and judgment passed by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in OS
No.1296/2010 dated 03.02.2015 declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties, except 25 cents of land out of item No.2 covered by 17 APKR030033822015
Ex.B2, which is her absolute property & except the properties disposed of by D1, if any, during his lifetime and a preliminary decree of partition be passed accordingly.
No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer and prepared by her on computer, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of April, 2025.
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- Nil –
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
VIJAYAWADA.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDTIONAL DISTRICT JUDGECUM
ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE :: VIJAYAWADA
PRESENT: Sri S.NAGESWARA RAO.,
VIIADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FACXIVADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGECUM
ADDTIONAL FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA
Thursday, this the Nine (9th) day of December, Two Thousand Twenty One
F.C. (A.D.) O.P.No.1641 of 2021
Between: 1The Asst.Project Director, .Dist.Women & Child Development Agency, Rep by its Authorised Signatory at 693, 1st Lane, .. Uma Shankar Nagar, Kanuru, Vijayawada Rural. .Applicant
And
2 Bret Swindell Medlin S/o.Terrymaurice Medlin, Aged about 33 Years, Religion Christian, Occ.Survey CAD Technician, 4712 Secrest Shortcut Road, Monrone, NC 28110, U.S.A.
3 Theryne Mae Medlin, W/o.Bret Swindell Medlin, Aged about 30 Years, Religion:Christian, Occ:Stay at Home mom, 4712 Secrest Shortcut...Prospective Road, Monrone, NC 28110, U.S.A.Adoptive Parents
NIL…Respondents
This case is coming 09.12.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt S.Srigowri., Learned Counsel for the Applicant, and that the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:
O R D E R
Applicant filed petition under Section 59(7) of the Juvenile Justice
Act (2 of 2016) and Regulations 12(2) and 17(1) of Adoption Regulations seeking to grant permission to declare the prospective adoptive parents as parents of the child MIKE (MALE, DOB:15082015) New name as
MICAH OREN MEDLIN, for all purposes allowed by the law and may be allowed to be taken to the country of their residence for upbringing the child as their own child, to direct the Municipal Corporation,
Vijayawada to issue Birth Certificate for the child MIKE (MALE,
DOB:15082015) New name as MICAH OREN MEDLIN, within five working days from the date of application as per the Provision of Sub
Regulations (5) of regulations 18 and regulation 36 and to direct the 2
Regional Passport Office to issue Passport for the said child within ten days from the date of application.
2.Averments, in brief, of the petition are as follows:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh recognised the Specialized
Adoption Agency under Sec.65 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016) for rehabilitation orphan, abandoned and surrendered children through adoption in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Adoption Regulations.
3.The CoApplicant is a registered Child Care Institution, which is having the care and custody of the child: MIKE, New named as MICAH
OREN MEDLIN (MALE, DOB:15082015), intends to give this child in adoption to the above named Prospective Adoption Parents through the applicant Specialised Adoption Agency as per the provision of Section 66 of the Act.
4.The minor child by name MIKE (MALE, DOB:15082015) has been declared legally free of adoption by the Child Welfare Committee,
Krishna District, as per the provisions of Section 38 of the Juvenile
Justice Act and the said Child is registered in the Child Adoption
Resource Information and Guidance System with the Registration
No.AP40SAAO116 for the purpose of adoption as envisaged in Section 56(1) of the Act.
5.The Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) are Foreigners, presently living at R/O.4712, Secrest Shortcut Road, Monrone, NC 28110, U.S.A.
The PAPs have been found eligible and suitable to adopt by the
Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency ie., (AFFA)/Central Authority (CA) ie., Lifeline Children’s Services Foreign Agency Code:ITA091009 based upon their home study report. They are having Biological female child by name CLARA. She is four years old. The proposal of prospective
Adoptive Parents to adopt a child from India has been recommended by the said Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency and has been approved by the Central Authority concerned. The Prospective Adoptive Parents have been registered in the Child Adoption Resource Information and
Guidance System with the Registration No.EUSA201985790 by said 3
Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency. The above named child has been referred to the said prospective adoptive parents online in Child
Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System through the
Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency concerned and has been accepted by the said Prospective Adoptive Parents by signing the Child Study
Report and Medical Examination Report on 18.07.2020 and 18.07.2020. The Central Adoption Resource Authority has issued No objection Certificate No.USA/2019/1264CARA on Dt.06102020 in favour of the proposed adoption.
6.The Prospective Adoptive Parents have undertaken through the
AFFA concerned that they will allow the authorised social worker/ functionary of the AFFA concerned Government Department to visit their home for undertaking post adoption follow up to ascertain the progress and well being of the child in the adoptive family. The
Prospective Adoptive Parents have also undertaken to upbring the said child as their own and to accord the same status/privileges to the child at par with the natural born child. The applicants wants to give the above named child and the said Prospective adoptive parents have given their consent to take the child in adoption. The conditions laid down in Section 61(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act have been complied within in this adoption case. The giver and taker(s) have no interest directly or indirectly adverse to that of the child. The Central Adoption
Resource Authority has issued No Objection Certificate for the proposed adoption as provided in Regulation 16 of the Adoption Regulations. The applicant understood that the adopted child shall become the lawful child of the Prospective Adoptive Parents with all rights, privileges that are attached to a biological child. The applicant has not filed any other application for the adoption of the said child in any other court of Law.
Hence, the petition.
7.On behalf of the applicant, the Assistant Project Director is examined as Pw.1 on behalf of applicant and got exhibited Exs.P1 to
P27. The Prospective Adoptive Parents are examined as Pw.2 and Pw.3.
8.Now the Point for determination is: 4
Whether the Prospective Adoptive Parents are entitled to adopt the minor child by name MIKE, New named as MICAH OREN MEDLIN (MALE, DOB:15082015), as prayed for?
9.POINT:
Undisputedly, the minor child by name MIKE, New named as MICAH OREN MEDLIN (MALE, DOB:15082015), was kept in care and custody of Government of Andhra Pradesh, recognised by
Sisugruha, Project Director, Women and Child Development Agency vide G.O.Ms.No.7 of 2000 Dt.01.03.2000 to provide shelter and also take care of neglected and abandoned children.
10.The evidence of Pw.1, PW.2 and Pw.3 Prospective Adoptive
Parents and the documents ie., Ex.P1 is the Photograph of the
Prospective adoptive parents. Ex.P2 is the Home study report of the Prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.17.04.2020. Ex.P3 is the
Notarized copy of Passport of prospective adoptive parents
Dt.17.04.2020. Ex.P4 is the Notarised copy of Birth certificates of prospective adoptive parents Dt.17.04.2020. Ex.P5 is theNotarized copy of Proof of residence of prospective adoptive parents
Dt.10042020. Ex.P6 is the Notarized copy of Income Tax assessment for the year 20182019 Dt.17042020. Ex.P7 is the
Notarized copies of Medical Practitioner certifying that prospective adoptive parents do not suffer from any chronic contiguous or fatal decease and they are fit to adopt Dt.01052020. Ex.P8 is the
Notarized copy of Crime record search of the prospect adoptive parents Dt.01052020. Ex.P9 is the Notarized copies of two reference letters from acquaintances or relatives in support of adoption Dt.01052020 and 17.04.2020 respectively. Ex.P10 is the Notarized copy of marriage certificate of prospective adoptive parents Dt.30062009. Ex.P11 is the Original Undertaking from the AFAA concerned for furnishing post adoption flow of the court and necessary action in case of the disruption Dt.27032020.
5
Ex.P12 is the Original permission of the receiving country as per 5/17 of the Hague adoption convention Dt.20062020. Ex.P13 is the Notarized Copy of Power of Attorney from the prospective adoptive parents in favour of authorized functionary of specialized adoption agency to file adoption application on their behalf in the country Dt.10032020. Ex.P14 is the Post adoption undertaking letter given by prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.29042020.
Ex.P15 is the Child study report signed by the prospective adoptive parents along with recent photograph of the child
Dt.17042020. Ex.P16 is the Medical report of the child signed by prospective adoptive parents Dt.17042020. Ex.P17 is the
Certificate of child welfare declaring the child legally free for adoption Dt.26042019. Ex.P18 is the Copy of appointment proceedings of petitioner No.1. Ex.P19 is the Affidavit of chief functionary of SAA to the court in support of adoption of child.
Ex.P20 is the NOC issued by CARA in favour of adoption of a child by nonresident Indian/overseas citizen of India/Foreign prospective adoptive parents. In case of overseas citizen of Indian of the foreign prospective adoptive parent living in India, a copy of no objection certificate from their embassy/High commission from the proposal adoption Dt.06102020. Ex.P21 is the Paper advertisement issued by the Women and child Adoption Agency for child Dt.23112016. Ex.P22 is the Approval letter given by biological Children of Prospective Adoptive parents Dt.17042020.
Ex.P23 is the Notarised Copy of Care Plan Letter given by biological Children of Prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.01052020.
Ex.P24 is the Notarized copy of statement of adoption letter given by Bret Medlin Dt.20032020. Ex.P25 is the Notarised copy of
Basic Family details of Prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.0105 2020. Ex.P26 is the Confirmation of Employment of Bret Medlin in
RB Pharr and Associates Dt.02032020. Ex.P27 is the Attested copy of the Proceedings of the Authority of newly appointed 6
Asst.Project Director on 06082021. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P27 also evident that the Prospective Adoptive Parents are eligible to adopt the child and that the child is legally free from adoption. The Prospective Adoptive Parents are already gave undertaking to look after the welfare of child. Thus, the Prospective
Adoptive Parents have complied rules and regulations in giving adoption and taking adoption of minor child.
11. Keeping all these circumstances into mind, I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to permit the Prospective Adoptive Parents to take the minor child MIKE (MALE, DOB:15082015) New name as MICAH
OREN MEDLIN, in adoption on the following conditions:
i) the Prospective Adoptive Parents shall treat the adoptive child as their biological child for all practical purposes, ii) the minor child acquires all rights including right of inheritance succession over the properties of Prospective Adoptive Parents as their natural child.
iii) The Birth Certificate Issuing Authority ie., Municipal Corporation at Vijayawada is directed to issue Birth Certificate for the minor child by name MIKE (MALE, DOB:15082015) New name as MICAH OREN
MEDLIN,, within five working days from the date of application as per the Provisions of Regulations 18 and 36.
iv) The Regional Passport Office, (RPO) is directed to issue Passport for the said child within ten days from the date of application, as per subregulation (4) of regulation 18 and regulation 38.
v) The adoptive child shall not be used as servant or for any sort of commercial purposes.
vi) The office is directed to issue a Certified Copy of the Court Order to the applicant on payment of requisite fee under Sec.4 of Section 58 of the Act for sending immediately to the Prospective Adoptive Parents with a direction to the applicant to pursue a followup action and to ascertain as per the rules about the progress and well being of the child in the 7 adoptive family as mandated under SubSection 5 of Section 58 of the
Act and file a report before this court to that effect for every one year for a period of three years.
vii) The Prospective Adoptive Parents shall also produce the minor child before this court whenever ordered by this court for the purpose of verification, failing which the Prospective Adoptive Parents are liable for legal and penal actions.
12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III of this court on computer, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 9th day of December, 2021. Sd/S.Nageswara Rao VIIADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE FACXIV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE CUMJUDGE.ADDL.FAMILY COURT,
VIJAYAWADA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Applicant and Prospective Adoptive Parents:
Pw.1/08.12.2021: Sunkara Jayalakshmi.
Pw.2/08.12.2021: Bret Swindell Medlin
Pw.3/08.12.2021: Theryne Mae Medlin
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Applicant/PW.1:
Ex.P1Photograph of the Prospective adoptive parents. Ex.P2Home study report of the Prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.17.04.2020. Ex.P3Notarized copy of Passport of prospective adoptive parents Dt.17.04.2020. Ex.P4Notarised copy of Birth certificates of prospective adoptive parents Dt.17.04.2020. Ex.P5Notarized copy of Proof of resident of prospective adoptive parents Dt.10042020. Ex.P6Notarized copy of Income Tax assessment for the year 20182019 Dt.17042020. Ex.P7Notarized copies of Medical Practitioner certifying that prospective adoptive parents do not suffer from any chronic contiguous or fatal decease and they are fit to adopt Dt.01052020.
8
Ex.P8Notarized copy of Crime record search of the prospect adoptive parents Dt.01052020. Ex.P9Notarized copies of two reference letters from acquaintances or relatives in support of adoption Dt.01052020 and 17.04.2020 respectively. Ex.P10Notarized copy of marriage certificate of prospective adoptive parents Dt.30062009. Ex.P11Original Undertaking from the AFAA concerned for furnishing post adoption flow of the court and necessary action in case of the disruption Dt.2703 2020. Ex.P12Original permission of the receiving country as per 5/17 of the Hague adoption convention Dt.20062020. Ex.P13Notarized Copy of Power of Attorney from the prospective adoptive parents in favour of authorized functionary of specialized adoption agency to file adoption application on their behalf in the country Dt.10032020. Ex.P14Post adoption undertaking letter given by prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.29042020. Ex.P15Child study report signed by the prospective adoptive parents along with recent photograph of the child Dt.17042020. Ex.P16Medical report of the child signed by prospective adoptive parents Dt.17042020. Ex.P17Certificate of child welfare declaring the child legally free for adoption Dt.26042019. Ex.P18Copy of appointment proceedings of petitioner No.1. Ex.P19Affidavit of chief functionary of SAA to the court in support of adoption of child. Ex.P20NOC issued by CARA in favour of adoption of a child by non resident Indian/ overseas citizen of India/ Foreign prospective adoptive parents. In case of overseas citizen of Indian of the foreign prospective adoptive parent living in India, a copy of no objection certificate from their embassy/High commission from the proposal adoption Dt.06102020. Ex.P21Paper advertisement issued by the Women and child Adoption Agency for child Dt.23112016. Ex.P22Approval letter given by biological Children of Prospective Adoptive parents Dt.17042020. Ex.P23Notarised Copy of Care Plan Letter given by biological Children of Prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.0105 2020. Ex.P24Notarized copy of statement of adoption letter given by Bret Medlin Dt.20032020. Ex.P25Notarised copy of Basic Family details of Prospective Adoptive Parents Dt.01052020.
9
Ex.P26Confirmation of Employment of Bret Medlin in RB Pharr and Associates Dt.02032020. Ex.P27Attested copy of the Proceedings of the Authority of newly appointed Asst.Project Director on 06082021.
Sd/S.N VIIA.D.J. FACXIV A.D.JCUM
J.A.F.C. VJA
Order Record 1,779 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.R.B.E.P/499/2021 | M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,Vijayawada vs Srinu Challapalli | 11 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1107/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. vs AP Reddy | 11 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1111/2024 | M/s. SBI Cards and Payments Services Ltd., Vijayawada. vs S.Durga Prasad Rao Singampalli | 11 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1304/2024 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Limited, Vijayawada vs Pulla Rao Gareti | 11 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/165/2022 | Kukkala Nagamani vs Gummadi Srinivasa Rao | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/371/2022 | Ponduru Saraswathi vs Atchaboyina Nagesh | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/208/2025 | A.4 Ramavath Shankar Nayak vs The State SHO, Machavaram rep by SPl. P.P. | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/210/2025 | Ramavath Baba Nayak vs The Station House Officer Machavaram PS | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/120/2022 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Bhavanipuram Branch vs Shaik Gouse | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/991/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd vs Murali Avula | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/996/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd vs Shaik Hussain | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1012/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. vs A Anil Kumar | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1013/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. vs Subhani Shaik | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1151/2023 | M/s. Indus Bank Limited, Vijayawada. vs Rayapureddy Ramana Rao | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1704/2024 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Cherukunedi Srimannarayana | 10 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.O.P/88/2022 | Mohammad Habibullah vs M/S Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Vijayawada | 09 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/214/2025 | Moses Kurma vs The Station House Officer Gunadala PS | 08 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/29/2019 | M/s Capital Hill Infra Tech vs Mekala Ramachandra Rao | 07 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/195/2025 | Koduri Rajesh vs The Inspector of Police, CCPS CID, | 07 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/199/2025 | Katla alias Katta Venu Gopal alias Khal Nayak vs Station House Officer Satyanarayanapuram Police Staion | 07 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/559/2014 | Pandipati Syamala Bai vs Bobbili jaya Babu | 04 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/537/2023 | SBI Cards and Payments Service Ltd., Vijayawada vs Bathina Lavanya | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/619/2023 | S.B.I Cards and Payments Services Limited, Vijayawada vs Dasari Anantha Koteswara Rao | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/828/2024 | M/s. Shriram transport Finance Company Ltd. vs Janardhana Rao Nukala | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/836/2024 | Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Rep. vs Muthyala Srinivasa Rao Naidu | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/869/2022 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada vs Rompicharla Sonia | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/913/2023 | M/s. SBI Cards and Payments Services Ltd. vs Ramani Narolia | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/941/2022 | Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Sr.Managr M.Kasi Veeranjaneyulu vs Arja Madhan Mohan | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1025/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited vs Venkateswara Rao Chintakayala | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1031/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. Regd. Office 401 and 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium vs Harish (Narisetti) | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1039/2024 | M/s.Shriram Finance Limited, Vijayawada vs Vinay Devineni | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1167/2023 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, Vijayawada. vs Gedela Raj Kumar | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1303/2024 | M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Limited, Vijayawada. vs Singaluri Lakshmitulasi | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1308/2024 | M/s. Shriram transport Finance Company Ltd. vs Prasad Bala | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1579/2024 | Shriram Transport finance Company Limited vs Bhagyeswara Rao Jonna | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1582/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited vs Kondula Siva Shankar Rao | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1700/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Company Limited vs Baditha Venkata Nagu | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1703/2024 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Shesker Tangavelu | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1705/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited vs Islavath Ramesh Nayak | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1709/2024 | M/S. Shriram Finance Limited vs Shaik Kalam | 04 Apr 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/280/2015 | Sanka Venkata Ranga Rao vs Kanteti Lakshm i | 02 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| MVOP/24/2022 | Royyuru Kamala vs Pallagani Sai Prudhvi | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/27/2016 | Goriparthi Vajramma vs Kudupa praneeth | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/537/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited vs Suri Babu Gaddamuri | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/562/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited vs Ibrajhim Shaik | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/28/2008 | k annapuranmma vs Vsm r rajeswari | 27 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| AS/29/2008 | k b reddy vs Vsm v s laxmamma | 27 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| AS/30/2008 | k r c reddy vs Vsm rarajeswarai devi | 27 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| AS/31/2008 | k r reddy vs Vsm v s laxmi | 27 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| AS/33/2008 | A K S SARMA vs V S LAXMMAMMA | 27 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| AS/89/2004 | ADIDAM KAMESANJANEYA SARMA and 21 others vs KALLAM JAGAN MOHAN REDDY and 10 others | 27 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/234/2015 | Ms Zorin Infrastructures LLP vs Ms.Brothers Engineering and Erectors Limited | 26 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/173/2025 | Katla alias Katta Venu Gopal alias Khal Nayak vs Station House Officer Satyanarayanapuram Police Staion | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/927/2022 | Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Sr.Managr M.Kasi Veeranjaneyulu vs Kalidas Venkta Ramana Rao | 24 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/169/2025 | Pilla Subba Rao alias Swami vs The Station House Officer Krishnalanka PS | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/119/2024 | M/s SBI Cards and Payments Services Limited, New Delhi vs Logisetty S, @ (Subramanya Sai Babu) | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/131/2022 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Bhavanipuram Branch vs Jayasri Reddipalli | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/201/2024 | Shriram Finance Limited, Vijayawada. vs Udaya Kumari Mamidi | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/342/2020 | Indusind Bank Limited vs Shaik Nagul and another | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/396/2022 | Shriram Transport Finance Co.,Ltd, Rep.by its Collection Manager, Power of attorney holder Srinu.K vs Kolli Niranjan | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/593/2022 | Shriram Transport Finance Co.,Ltd, Rep.by its Collection Manager, Power of attorney holder Srinu.K vs Thuraka Yesu Babu | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/598/2024 | M/s. SBI Cards and Payments Services Ltd., Vijayawada. vs Mallikarjuna Rao Laveti | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/637/2024 | M/s. SBI Cards and Payments Services Ltd., Vijayawada. vs S.A.S.P.Kumar Sulaga | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/653/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. vs M. Srinivasa Rao Musunuru | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/654/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. vs M.Mohan Rao | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/678/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd vs B P V Chiranjeevi B Peedi | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/679/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd. vs Nagarjuna Y Yalamanchili | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/706/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd vs Sadanandakar Rapaka | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/707/2024 | M/s. SBI cards and Payments services Ltd vs D. Rahul Dasari | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1072/2022 | M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada vs Ramesh Vaddi | 21 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/229/2015 | Tadepalli Rama Sastry vs Tadepalli Venkata Datta Prasada Sarma | 20 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| MVOP/503/2019 | Mandavalli Chandrarao vs Veerubhatla Praveen | 20 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLRP/36/2023 | Unnam Kiran vs KBC Food Products | 20 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/283/2024 | M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs Nagarakanti Gopal | 20 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/817/2021 | M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited., Ibrahimpatnam Branch vs Miriyala Vijay Bhargav | 20 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/599/2024 | M/s.Shriram Finance Limited, Vijayawada vs Karumuri Krishna Mohan Reddy | 18 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/1091/2024 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited (Formerly known as M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited), Nuzvid Bra vs J.Bharath Kumar | 18 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/566/2020 | M/s.Aruna Finance Ltd.Vijayawada vs Vskandula Naga Venkata Purna Chandra | 17 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/329/2019 | Shaik Rahamtunnisa vs T.Adinarayana | 13 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/132/2015 | Vadlamudi Malati Devi vs Sri Sitarama Granite Metal Industries | 12 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| CRLMP.BAIL/137/2025 | Venna Charan Sai vs Station House Officer Patamata Police Station | 11 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/141/2019 | Pilli Simhachalam vs Pagadala Venkateswara Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Other | — |
| MVOP/179/2024 | Vaddi Pramila @ Prameela vs Potu Sankar Rao | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/191/2024 | Simhadri Karthik vs Shaik Mastan | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/226/2024 | Yerramsetty Ganga Koteswar Vara Prasad vs Tanneru Murali | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/334/2024 | Vemulakonda Rambabu vs Kondari Narendra Babu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/351/2019 | Suddapalli Prasad vs Shaik Usman | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/393/2022 | Shaik Saleem vs Vallepu Srinu | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/421/2022 | Daramalla Madhan vs Ch.Nagarjuna | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/427/2022 | Jarripothula Mary vs Ch.Nagarjuna | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| MVOP/428/2022 | Jerripothula Benjiman vs Ch. Nagarajuna | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/97/2025 | Katuri Anji Babu vs Illa Rajesh | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/146/2022 | Rayapati Uma vs Bonu Parvathi | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/148/2022 | Rayapati Uma vs Bonu Parvathi | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| CRLA/149/2022 | Rayapati Uma vs Bonu Parvathi | 08 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| EP/709/2018 | Sakthi Finance Ltd., rep by Senior Manager S. Raghavan vs Arumakula Kumar | 07 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/332/2021 | M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Vijayawada IV Branch vs M. Karamchand | 07 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/376/2024 | M/s Shriram Finance Limited, Vijayawada vs Abdul Subhani | 07 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/473/2023 | Shriram Transport Finance Co.,Ltd.Vijayawada Branch Rep.by its Authorized Signatory A.Rajesh Babu vs Alathuri Shanmugam | 07 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| A.R.B.E.P/536/2024 | M/s. Shriram Finance Limited. (Formerly Known as M/s Shriram Transport Finance company Limited), Ib vs Madhusudhana Rao Cherukupalli | 07 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Apr 2025 | 41 | |
| Mar 2025 | 69 | |
| Feb 2025 | 35 | |
| Jan 2025 | 32 | |
| Dec 2024 | 63 | |
| Nov 2024 | 70 | |
| Oct 2024 | 30 | |
| Sep 2024 | 34 | |
| Aug 2024 | 71 | |
| Jul 2024 | 63 | |
| Jun 2024 | 67 | |
| May 2024 | 77 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri. S. Nageswar Rao handled?
Sri. S. Nageswar Rao has handled 1895 court orders since 2021 at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada. The average disposal rate is 544 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri. S. Nageswar Rao hear?
Based on available records, Sri. S. Nageswar Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.
Where is Sri. S. Nageswar Rao currently posted?
Sri. S. Nageswar Rao is posted as XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Sri. S. Nageswar Rao available online?
Yes. 11 judgments by Sri. S. Nageswar Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri. S. Nageswar Rao dispose cases?
Sri. S. Nageswar Rao disposes approximately 544 cases per month, based on 1895 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.
Since when is Sri. S. Nageswar Rao serving?
Sri. S. Nageswar Rao has been serving at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada since 2021.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Dec 2021 — Jan 2022XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada · 9 orders
-
Dec 2021 — Jan 2022XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayawada · 1 orders
-
Oct 2021 — Apr 2025VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Vijayawada · 1,885 orders
Other Judges at this Court