1
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MULUGU.
PRESENT: T.MADHAVI,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MULUGU.
Friday, this the 22nd day of March 2024
O.S.No.41 of 2022 (Old OS No.273 of 2013).
AND
O.S.No.45 of 2022 (Old OS No.623 of 2018)
O.S No. 41 OF 2022:
Between:
Dasari Rammurthy, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Government
Teacher, R/o: Mulugu village and Mandal.
And
1.Sri Manjunadha Real Estates, Mulugu branch, represented by its managing partner Sri B. Mohan kumar R/o Main Road Mulugu Warangal District. 2.Porika Kishan, S/o. Shokla, Age: 46 years, Occ: Pvt Job. R/O Kamalapur village Mangapet Mandal of Warangal District.
…Defendants.
CLAIM: Suit for specific performance of contract.
O.S No. 45 OF 2022
Between:
Dasari Rammurthy, S/o Late Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: government
Teacher, R/o:Mulugu village and Mandal.
And
1.Sakinala Shobhan S/o Narayana Age 52 years Occu. Business R/o Bandarupally of Mulugu Mandal Warangal District now Bhupalapally District.
2
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
2. Kadaboina Kumaraswamy, S/o.Mallaiah Age:43 years, Occ:Business, R/O Atmakur village and Mandal of Warangal District.
…Defendants.
CLAIM: Suit for cancellation of the registered document.
These suits are coming before me on 26.02.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Sathysagar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 was set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: C O M M O N J U D G M E N T ::
O.S No. 41 of 2022:
This is a suit for specific performance of contract by directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of this suit schedule property or else alternative relief of refund of double the paid amount and damages on failure of defendant in executing registered sale deed of suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff with cost in the circumstances of the case.
2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2.1Defendant No.1 used to do real estate business on the name and style of “Sri Manjunadha Real Estates” and started a venture on the name of “Ranganadapuram Venture” at Mulugu by introducing a scheme with lucky draw system and invited the members to invest on the basis of monthly installments. Defendant No.2 became member in the above scheme and he was allotted membership so also allotted plot vide plot No.
138 in survey No.1163 admeasuring 100.00 sq yards. Defendant no.2 paid sum installments that is upto Rs.42,010/-, thereafter he was unable to pay 3
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
further installment and offered to sell his membership with plot for which he agreed to purchase. Accordingly he purchased the membership of defendant no.2 with plot no.138 by paying Rs.50,000/- to him on 13.03.2012. with an agreement to pay further installment to defendant no.1 and got executed a written agreement for the same with terms and conditions. The said agreement was informed to defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 accepted for transfer of membership, confirmed his membership, received further installments from him and issued receipts.
Accordingly as per the agreement he is entitled for all the benefits which defendant no.2 was entitled. As per the terms and conditions after the payment of total installments the suit plot will be registered in favour of the plaintiff.
2.2 In the month of September 2012 he got the price of plot no.138 in the lucky draw, as per the conditions the only last installment of Rs.10,150/- will be paid and remaining further installments will be exempted.
Accordingly he paid Rs.10,150/- towards last installment and all the formalities was complied. He got the plot in lucky draw and paid installments by complying formalities, hence defendant no.1 has executed registered sale deed for suit plot in his name. He several times approached the office of defendant no.1 and asked to execute registered sale deed of the plot on his name, but, defendant no.1 postponed the same time and again and doged the matter by showing one or other reasons. Defendant
No.1 failed to perform his part of contract by violating the terms and conditions of the agreement and not coming forward to execute the registered sale deed of the suit plot in his favour.
2.3 He vexed with the attitude of defendant no.1 and got issued legal notice to both the defendants on 28.03.2013 by demanding to execute registered sale deed for plot no. 138 and also demanded defendant no.2 to 4
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
take responsibility. Though it was served there was no reply or response from them. Hence he filed this suit.
3. Defendant no.1 filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint with the following pleadings:
3.1 There is no previty of contract in between plaintiff and themselves the defendant no.1 is not a party to the alleged agreement dated 13.03.2012 and the same is not with in the knowledge of defendant no.1.
3.2 In fact plaintiff offered to sell the suit plot to one Kadabiona
Kumaraswamy, expressing his family and financial requirements for valuable sale consideration of Rs.1600 for Sq yard, accordingly he received an amount Rs.1,00,000/-, besides advance sale consideration amount
Rs,20,000/- from Kumarswamy by executing an agreement of sale deed in his favour on Rs.20/- Non Judicial stamp paper in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently on 20.03.2013 plaintiff received second installment amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from Kumaraswamy. Later plaintiff along with purchaser Kumaraswamy personally approached the partner of defendant no.1 Sakinala Shobhan and another partner along with drafted document and requested him to execute registered sale deed in favour his purchaser Kadabiona Kumaraswamy. Accordingly as per the instructions of plaintiff only Sakinala Shobhan executed registered sale deed in favour of purchaser of plaintiff, Kadaboina Kumaraswamy on 22.03.2013 vide document no.501/2013. Hence the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and it is liable to dismissed. The claim of plaintiff is speculative in nature. There is no cause of action to file this suit.
4. On 02.12.2013 defendant no.2 was set exparte.
5
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
5. Basing on the material on record the following issues were settled for trial.
1). Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performances of contract as prayed for ?
2). Whether registered sale deed was executed on the name of K.
Kumaraswamy as per the instructions of plaintiff as pleaded by the defendant ?
3). To what relief.
6. As per docket dated 23.06.2020 I.A No. 597/19 was allowed and O.S
No.273/13(O.S no. 41 of 2022) and O.S No.623/18(O.S no. 45 of 2022) were clubbed and the evidence shall be recorded in O.S No.273/13(O.S no. 41 of 2022). Hence common trial proceeded.
7. O.S. No.45/2022(Old O.S no.s 87 of 2016/623 of 2018):
This is a suit filed for cancellation of document no. 201 of 2013 dated 22.03.2013 with cost of the suit.
8..The brief averments of plaint are as follows:
8.1 He is resident of Mulugu village, defendant no.1 is the Managing
Partner of Sri Manjunadha Real Estate and doing business of venture on the name of Ranganadhapuram venture at Mulugu area by introducing a lucky draw system. The business affairs of the above venture have been looked after by one Mohan Kumar. As such he purchased the membership, for house plot vide plot no.138 from one existing member by name Porika
Kishan and paid installments till winning the plot in lucky draw. In the month of September 2012 he won lucky draw and got prize of the plot.
Knowing the same, the defendant no.2 came forward to purchase the same 6
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
and got agreement by the plaintiff on 17.02.2013 by paying Rs.20,000/-.
But subsequently failed to perform his part of contract. Hence he got issued legal notice dated 28.03.2013 for cancellation of said agreement.
Meanwhile he asked the defendant no.1 to execute registered sale deed of said property on his name, but, defendant no.1 colluded with defendant no.2 and refused to execute registered sale deed on his name. On that he got issued legal notice to the venture and also filed suit for specific performance of the contract vide O.S No.273/13 and same is pending.
8.2 Defendant no.2 filed a suit on 03.01.2014 for return of paid advance amount against the plaintiff vide O.S NO.11/14 on the file of I Additional
Senior Civil Judge at Warangal and the same is pending. It came into light
that the above mentioned property was illegally transferred by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 in the way of registered sale deed vide document no 501/13 dated 22.03.2013. On that in O.S No. 273/13 he filed a petition for impleading defendant no.2, but, the same was dismissed, on the ground that defendant no.1 has already sold the property to defendant no.2 on personal capacity but not through venture and he was not made as a party by person in the earlier suit. As defendant no.1 business was being looked after by one Mohan Kumar at Mulugu area hence defendant no.1 was not made as a party in person in the earlier suit. The said fact was clearly admitted in their written statement in O.S No. 273/13. Though the registration of the property is on the name of defendant no.1, it belongs to the venture and it was presented to the plaintiff in lucky draw. Defendant no.1 colluded with defendant no.2, taking advantage of the property on his name, created a false registered sale deed on the name of defendant no.2 hence it is liable to cancelled.
8.3 The defendant no.1 is having no right to sell the said property and the defendant no.2 will not get any rights over the property by that sale.
7
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
Defendants 1 and 2 colluded with each other and created false sale deed registered with an intention to cheat and defeat the plaintiff. Hence that documents is liable to cancelled. With out the aid of the court he cannot be able to get cancellation of said registered sale deed with out the aid and assistance of the court hence we filed the this suit.
9. Defendant no.1 was set exparte on 18.01.2017
10. Defendant no.2 filed his written statement with the following pleadings:
10.1. He is unaware about the alleged Ranganadapuram Venture or any other ventures in the vicinity and process adopted by the alleged ventures and the persons conducted the same. The plaintiff is unable to locate the alleged plot no.138 allegedly purchased by him in the lucky draw allotment of said plot, payment of amount and discrepancy between the plaintiff and the alleged venture by filing of suit to which he is not a party.
10.2. He purchased open land to on extent of 101.00 sq yards in survey no.
1163, from its pattedar, owner and possessor that is first defendant for valid sale consideration under registered sale deed document no.501/13
dated 23.03.2013, due to certain difference of terms and conditions
between himself and his vendor and an account of illegal claim and interference of the plaintiff he filed O.S No.11/24 for return of amount received by his vendor as such, this suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed by awarding exemplary cost.
10.2 Only for the purpose of creation of cause of action with created dates and alleged incidents with after thought this suit was filed. There are no merits in this suit and it is liable to dismissed with exemplary cost.
8
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
13. While preparing judgment, this court observed that though common trail was conducted in these suits, no issues were settled for trial in this suit hence the same is informed to both the plaintiff and defendant no.2 and their respective advocates on 13.02.2024 and following issues were settled for trial on that day, as per provision of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC the
Court may at any stage before passing of judgment can amendment OR frame issues.
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed no 501/13 dated 22.03.2013 as prayed for?
2) To what relief?
14. In support of case of the plaintiff of these suits plaintiff entered into the witness box as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A20. A part from that he got examined one Balguri Sanjeevaiah as PW.2, one Kusuma Ramu as
PW.3 and one Palathiya Balu as PW.4.
15. Reported no defence evidence by the defendant no.2 of O.S No. 45 of 2022 and defendant no.1 of O.S No.41 of 2022.
16. Heard both the counsel. Written arguments were also filed by the counsel for the plaintiff by reiterating the contents of both the plaints, chief examination affidavits of himself and his supporting witnesses etc.
17. The counsel for the defendant of both these suits argued that the plaintiff filed two different suits that is O.S 41/22 praying for the relief of specific performance of contract by defendant no.1 for executing registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and O.S No. 45/22 for cancillation of registered document vide document no.501/13 dated 22.03.2013. But 9
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
the reliefs of both these suits are different as O.S No. 41/22 the defendant are Munjunada Real Estates and one Porika Kishan, whereas, O.S No. 45/22 the defendants are Sakinala Shobhan and Kumaraswamy. The plaintiff has to prove the case under section 16C of Specific Performance of Contract .
Duty of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract is that he has to prove the existence of contract between himself and the defendants, that he was ready and willing at all material dates. According to this section the existence of contract between the parties has to be proved by the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed several documents before this Court which was marked as Ex.s A1 to A20, in all these documents no documents was specifically made any agreement with defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 and plaintiff are directly not having any such document to prove the privity of contract. It is the main ingredient in this case. Without there being any document of contract either in writing or in oral no suit is liable to be filed for specific performance. Plaintiff failed to disclose that there is
Manjunada Real Estates established and located in Mulugu and represented by its managing director Bandari Mohan as he is claiming suit schedule property, but it is not at all connected to Bandari Mohan. As per the entire evidence brought before this Court not at all disclosing the connecting to Manjunada Real Estates and Bandari Mohan. The cross examination of Pw.1 that there is no previty of contract between himself and defendant no.1 itself is sufficient to dismiss these suits.
18. About O.S 45 of 2022:
Plaintiff failed to take steps for the death of deceased by bringing his Lrs on record. The contract between Sakinala Shobhan and Kadaboina
Kumraswamy and those two persons are no away concerned with
Manjunada Real Estates. Plaintiff failed to establish that sakinala Shobhan is connected to Manjunada Real Estates. As per the avernments of written statements of defendant no.2 Kadaboina Kumaraswamy is a third party to 10
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
the suit. Hence he is no way connected with this suit pleadings and reliefs.
The plaintiff failed to prove the provisions U/s 16 C of Specific
Performance. He relied on judgment in civil appeal no.4453/2009 between
Kamali Kumar vs Premalatha Joshi and others at para no.10, which is as follows:
First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or in will cause any kind of hard ship to the defendants and if so , how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely refund of earnest money etc. And if so, on what grounds?
In our opinion, the aforementioned questions are part of the statutory requirements (See sections 16(C), 20,21,22,23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the forms 47/48 of appendix A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure). These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts.
19. The counsel for the plaintiffs put forth his reply arguments which are as follows:
11
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
19.1. The suit is filed basing on the agreement. It is not directly for purchasing the property and it is of defendant no.2 as defendant no.1 sold his membership in the venture of the defendant no.1 that is Manjunada
Real Estates. As the membership soled by him to the plaintiff by agreement of defendant no.1 hence it was concluded contract. Section 16
C of Specific Performance of Contract is not applicable to this case.
According to the Evidence Act admitted facts need not to be proved.
Defendant no.1 written statement is speaking about the argument. Finally argued that as defendant no.1 admitted his membership hence it is their duty to execute registered document in his favour.
19.2. The counsel for the defendant no.2 further gave reply that Specific performance of contract generally ends in favour of the plaintiff for compensation of the purchase. Here in this case there is no such relationship existing between the parties no such relief would be entertained for plaintiff. Under section 17 for a contract or sale who has no title not specifically enforcible has no right to sell the property. In this case defendant no.1 is not having ownership. In O.S No. 45/22 also who is the owner of the property is now known. Finally prayed to dismiss these two suits.
20. The evidence of the plaintiff for these suits is as follows:
20.1. In his chief examination, he got marked Ex.s A1 to A20 that Ex.A1 is the agreement executed on the Rs.10/- Non Judicial stamp paper on 21.03.2011, later stamp duty and penalty was collected by the District
Registrar Warangal on 11.02.2019. Ex.A2 is the document said to have been executed by Porika Kishan in favour of Dasair Rammurty on Rs.10/- Non
Judicial stamp paper dated 13.03.2012 (it was marked subject to objection with regard to admissibility, relevancy and proof). Ex.A3, dated 14.07.2010 receipt No. 145 for Rs. 5,500/- issued By Sri Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A.4, 12
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
dated 14.07.2010 receipt No. 73 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by Sri Manjunada
Real Estates. Ex.A5, dated 21.03.2011 receipt No.423 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A6, dated 21.03.2011 receipt no.
559 for Rs. 2,170/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A7, dated 31.08.2011 receipt no. 314 for Rs.4,340/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real
Estates. Ex.A8, dated 13.03.2012 receipt No. 1349 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by
Sri Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A9, dated 22.03.2012, receipt No. 3199 for
Rs. 7,88/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A10, dated 14.08.2012 receipt no. 1781 for Rs. 5,000/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A11, dated 13.09.2012 receipt no. 2007 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A12, dated 02.11.2012 receipt no. 2086 for Rs.
5,000/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates. EX.A13, dated 11.01.2013 receipt no. 2278 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A14 dated 16.01.2013 receipt no. 2297 for Rs. 5,500/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates. Ex.A15, dated 20.03.2013 receipt no. 2540 for Rs.
1,600/- issued by Sri Manjunada Real Estates. Ex. A16 is the original Pass
Book vide membership no. 145 of Dasari Rammurthy of Sri Manjunada Real
Estate, for plot no. 138. Ex.A17 is the broucher of advertisement of selling plots by Sri Manjunada Real Estates, Head Office, Hanamkonda, branches at Mulugu and Mallampally. Ex.A18 dated 28.03.2013 office copy of Legal notice to defendant No.1 and 2. Ex.A19 Dated 30.03.2013 Postal receipts(2 in number). Ex.A20 dated 22.03.2013 certified copy of Regd Sale deed vide
Doc. No. 501/2013 filed in O.S. No. 45/20222.
21. In cross examination he deposed as follows:
21.1. He has been working as Teacher and completed his services of approximately 22 years by the day of giving evidence. He has not filed any documents in this suit to show that defendant no.1 is in existence with the proceedings of the concerned Government. He has not filed any document 13
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
to show that one Bandari Mohan Kumar is Managing Partner of defendant no.1 Real Estates, but in general he came to know and filed. He has not filed any such document showing the original owner of defendant and the list of its partners, but he knows that Sakinala Shobhan and Bandari Mohan kumar are managing partners of defendant no.1. He further admitted that there is no direct document executed between himself and defendant no.1 there is no previty of contract between himself and defendant no1. Here
Pw1 volunteered that they only what document in my favour in their presence. He filed broucher of ventures and agreement. Ex.A17 is not showing the name of B. Mohan Kumar as managing partner of defendant no.1. He is not having any direct access to the contents of Ex.A1. He volunteered here that by seeing the signature of one Bandari Mohan in
Ex.A1 he accepted the transaction. He further admitted that there is no direct access to one Bandari Mohan with the contents of Ex.A2 documents, he volunteered here that with the directions of B. Mohan that document was executed. He further admitted that Ex.A2 is not having the signatures of either Bandari Mohan or any other authorized persons on behalf of Sri
Manjunada Real Estates. Here he volunteered that on the date of Ex.A2, pass book was handed over to him and he paid remaining amount of
Rs.25,000/-, then membership was allotted to him by issuing receipt saying that his signatures is not necessary on the documents. He volunteered here that pass book and receipts were issued to him on his name. He further admitted that signatures of executor of Ex.A1 and witnesses of Ex.A1 are not appearing in Ex.A2 either as witnesses or as executors of Ex.A2. He volunteered here that their signature was not there but they were present at the time of executing Ex.A2. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to show that in lucky draw he got prize as plot no.38 with defendant no.1. Here he volunteered that there is an entry in the day register of defendant no.1 that he got plot no.138 in lucky draw. On confronting Ex.A1 to A20 a suggestion was given to him that whether any 14
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
of the documents filed by him is showing that he got lucky draw of plot no.138 for which he answered that no such documents filed to that effect.
He has not mentioned the names of persons who were present at the alleged lucky draw of plot no.138 on his name. There is no such document to show that defendant no.1 company proposed to him that defendant no.2 paid some amounts to them and they asked him to pay the remaining amounts for plot no.138 or else he has not filed any document before defendant no.1 proposing that he purchased plot no.138 from defendant no.2 hence he was ready to pay the balance amount to defendant no.1. No document was issued by defendant no.1 by promising to him that they will execute registered document in his favour for plot no.138. He has not mentioned names of persons in his chief examination affidavit that from
September 2012 to 28.03.2013 in whose presence he insisted defendant no.1 to execute registered document in his favour for plot no.138. He further admitted that neither defendant no.1 and 2 nor Bandari Mohan or parties to Ex.A20. Sakinala Shobhan and Kadaboina Kumaraswamy are not parties to O.S No. 41/2022. He filed I.A. no. 500/13 in O.S No. 273/13 for adding kadaboina Kumaraswamy as one of the defendant. But the same was dismissed vide separate order on 08.11.2016. He has not filed any document to show that Sakinala Shobhan is having any access or relationship with Sri Manjunada Real Estates, but ,in the written statement
Bandari Mohan admitted his relationship. He is not party to Ex.A20 but as the property of Ex.A20 belongs to him he has right to question. He has not filed any authenticated document issued by the concerned Government departments to show that defendant no.1 or Bandari Mohan are having property in suit schedule survey no.1163. So also he has not filed any document issued by Revenue Department or any registered document in respect of these two suit schedule properties to show that defendant no.1 is the owner of plot no.138 in survey no.1163 of Ranganadapuram venture .
He has not filed any document issued by Gram Panchayat concerned for 15
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
defendant no.1 of O.S No.41/22 showing that there is venture in the name of Sri Manjunada Real Estates of Mulugu branch. Till today he has not filed any complaint before any authorities stating that defendant no.1 of O.S
No.41/22 has not allotted plot to him and cheated him but filed cheating case vide CC No. 228/2018 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu. But he has not field any document to show that on his complaint case was registered vide CC.No. 228/18.
22. One Balguri Sanjeevaiah entered into witness box as PW2 and deposed in chief examination affidavit that he knows the plaintiff and defendants of the suit, plaintiff is Government Teacher in the near by locality and the defendant no.1 used to do real estate business on the name and style of Sri
Manjunada Real Estate and started a venture on the name of
Ranganadapuram Venture at Mulugu and introduced his scheme with lucky draw system and invited its members to invest on the basis of monthly installments. Defendant no.2 became a member in the said scheme, membership was allotted to him and also plot no.138 in survey no.1163 admeasuring 100-00 sq. yards were also allotted to him. Defendant no.2 paid some installments amounting to Rs.42,010/- thereafter unable to pay further installments, offered to sell his membership with the plot for which plaintiff agreed to purchase and paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to him on 13.03.2012 with an agreement to pay further installments to the defendant no.1 and got executed a written agreement for the same with terms and conditions in the presence of defendant no.1 in its office for which defendant no.1 also accepted for transfer of membership and confirmed the membership by issuing pass book on his name. He is scribe of said document between plaintiff and defendant no.2 dated 13.03.2012.
Hence plaintiff is entitled for all the benefits. He came to know that plaintiff further paid installments and in the month of September 2012 he got prize of plot no.138 in lucky draw. Instead f executing registered sale 16
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
deed for said plot in favour of the plaintiff the matter was dodged by showing one and other reasons and caused problems.
23. In his cross examination he deposed as follows:
23.1. He is not working as veterinary Doctor, but his occupation was wrongly shown in his chief affidavit as veterinary Doctor and he his working as veterinary assistant. He his resident of Mallampally but it was wrongly shown as Madanapally. He has not shown his working address in his chief affidavit. He verified the documents of Sri Manjunada Real Estates by visiting their office i.e. himself Porika Kishan, Narsimha(home guard).
Palthiya Balu visited said office. As per their verification of documents in the Manjunada Real Estates office, one Porika Kishan is the owner of property in survey no.1163 on verifying his membership he came to know that he is owner of survey no.1163 that is Bandari Mohan is owner of property in survey no.1163 to which Porika Kishan is having membership.
He has seen membership of Porika kishan only for plot no.138. But the receipt or membership does not confirm ownership of such person. He do not now the details of the lucky draw conducted by Sri Manjunada real estates among its members. But in 2012 when lucky draw was conducted by Manjunada real estates he was present while conducting lucky draw.
Through younger brother of defendant no.2 he came to know that plaintiff only got plot in lucky of 2012. Ex.A2 is not having any signatures of any authorized person of defendant no.2. But while scribing Ex.A2 Mohan Rao was present there.
24. One Kusuma Ramu entered into witness box as PW3, and he is chief examination affidavit is replica of the chief examination affidavit Pw2 hence the same is not reproduced here to avoid repetition.
17
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
25. In his cross examination, PW3, deposed that he is not having any properties at Mulugu. He knows that plaintiff is a Government teacher and residing at Shayampet and Mulugu but he does not know the descriptive particulars of houses at Shayampet and Mulugu. He knows both defendants of this suit but he is not having business transactions with defendant no.1. He even does not know the details of partners/permissions pertaining to defendant no1. He also do know the details of total ventures said to have been made by defendant.1 He do not know who is the owner and pattedar of land in survey no.1163 of Mulugu so also he do know the boundaries, neighbouring survey nos. to survey no.1163. But he can say boundaries of plot no.138 that is North plot no.137, South plot no.139 is the land of others and West road. He does not know owners and details of plot no.137 and 139. Prior to March 2021, he do not know defendant no.2. He also do not know whether defendant no.1 executed any document in favour of defendant no.2 by assigning suit plot in his favour. He has not seen any document which is showing Sakinala
Shobhan was related with D1.
26. One Plathiya Balu entered into witness box as PW4 by reiterating the contents of chief affidavits of PWs 1 to 3 hence they are not reproduced here.
27. In his cross examination by the counsel for defendant no.1 he deposed as follows:
28. He has been working as Teacher on contract basis since 2004. He has not verified any documents of defendant no.1 including its ownership and details of its managing director and other partners. He is a member of defendant no.1 and took plot under defendant no1. He got registered his plot through one Bandari Mohan but he was no idea about the number of 18
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
documents of his registration. He do no know who is pattedar of survey no.1163, may be Bandari Mohan, he has not at seen any document with regard to owner and pattedar of land in survey no.1163 and he do know the total memberships of defendant no.1. He can say the boundaries of plot no.138 they are East plot of 137, West plot of 139 and he do not know its owners, North road and South land of one Ramnarsaiah. He knows defendant no2.
29. Now coming to the documents filed and marked under Ex.s A1 to A20.
Ex.A1 is a document executed on Rs.10/- Non Judicial stamp paper by the managing partner of Sri Manjunada Real Estates Mulugu of Warangal district on 21.03.2011 in favour of Porika Kishan agreed that in the land of their purchased land in the outskirts of Mulugu in survey no 1163 of
Ranganadapuram venture vide plot no.138 to an extent of 100-00 sq yards.
Per total value of Rs.1,54,000/- was decided. For membership and registration of plot was decided for Rs. 35,500/- and the remaining amount shall be paid in the method of scheme on 21.04.2011 as Rs.2,170/-, on 25.01.2011 Rs.2170/- on 21.06.2011 Rs.5,870/- shall be paid and after the stipulated period of the scheme they have to get register the property.
Stamp duty and penalty was collected on this document on 11.02.2019.
29.1. Ex.A2 is a document executed on Rs.10/- Non Judicial stamp paper
dated 13.03.2012 by one Porika kishan in favour of one Dasari Rammurthy
as land selling agreement that he is having membership in
Ranganadapuram (Manjunada Real Estates) in survey no.1163, plot no.138 of 100-00 sq.yards in scheme system as Rs.1540/- per Sq yard and total plot value was Rs.1,54,000/- for which he already paid Rs.42,010/- for which he is having receipts and he sold out the same to Dasari Rammurthy for
Rs. 50,000/- and the said amount was received by him and he also paid the due amount of Rs.32,000/- to Munjunada Real estates hence from that day 19
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
onwards himself and his legal hairs are not having any right. If after that any gifts were alloted in draw they will be of Dasari Rammurthy and from that day onwards Dasari Rammurthy is having total rights on said property hence this land sale agreement. Stamp duty and penalty on said document was collected on 08.02.2023 and it was marked subject to objection raised by the counsel for defendant no.1 with regard to admissibility and proof as it is neither termed as an agreement of sale nor any contract and not by ending on them in any angle. Exs. A3 to A15 are receipts said have to been issued by the Managing Partner of Sri Manjunada Real Estates Head office
Hanamkond Branch Mulugu, Mallampaaly Aditya Nagar, Ranganadapuram for different amounts on different dates which are as follows.
Ex.No. Receipt No. Amount Date For A31455500/- (cash)14.07.2010Plot no.138 A47310,000/-(cash)17.07.2010Plot no.138 A542320,000/-(cash)21.03.2011Plot no.138 A65592170/-(cash)21.03.2011Plot no.138 A73144340/-(cash)31.08.2011Plot no.138,148 A8134925,000/-(cash)13.03.2012Plot no.138 A931997800/-(cash)22.03.2012Plot no.138 A1017815000/-(cash)14.08.2012Plot no.138 A11200710,000/-(cash)13.09.2012Plot no.138 A1220865000/-(cash)02.11.2012Plot no.138 A1322785000/-(cash)11.01.2013Plot no.138 A1422975500/-(cash)16.01.2013Plot no.138 A1525401600/-(cash)20.03.2013Plot no.138 28.2. Ex.A16 pass book of Sri. Manjundada real Estates for membership no,145 in the name of Dasari Rammurthy for plot no,138 in which there are three entries which are as follows:
20
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
1) Rs,5500/- dated 14.07.2010 for receipt no,145
2) Rs.2170/- dated 21.03.2011 for receipt no.559
3) Rs,4340/- dated 31.05.2011 for receipt no.314
But the entries for serial no. 2 and 3 are showing that whitener was applied on the columns of date receipt number and installment amount. Ex.A17 is pamphlet of Sri Manjunada Real Estates about selling of plots and getting gifts. There are such details of managing partners/members or Managing directors of Sri Manjunada Real Estates in it.
28.3. Ex.A18 is legal notice dated 28.03.2013 issued by plaintiff to the defendant no.1 and 2 of O.S No. 45/22 . As per it contents he purchased the membership of defendant no.2 with defendant no1 for plot no,138 and in the month of September 2012 he got prize of the plot in the lucky draw and as per the conditions the further installments were exempted to pay and last installment of Rs.10150/- was paid and all the formalities were completed. Hence defendant no,1 has to registered the plot. Though requested several times the defendant no,1 is postponing the same.
28.4. Ex.A19 is postal receipts 2 in number and Ex.A20 is certified copy of registered sale deed vide document no,501/13 executed by Sakinala
Shobhan in favour of Kadabiona Kumaraswamy on 22.03.2013 for plot no.138 in survey no.1163 of 101-00 sq.yards. As per the contents of the said documents the executor that is Sakinala Shobhan got said property vide registered sale deed document no.52/2001 dated 28.01.2011 and the same was in his possession and enjoyment and title hence he sold the same to Sakinala Shobhan.
29. Issue no.s 1 to 3 of O.S No.41/22 21
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract has prayed for ?
2) Whether registered sale deed was executed on the name of K.
Kumaraswamy on the instructions of plaintiff as prayed for by defendant no.1 ?
3)To what relief ?
Issues of O.S No.45/22
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancillation registered sale deed vide document no.501/13 dated: 22.03.2013 as prayed for
2) To what relief?
30. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract h a s prayed for ?
30.1. With regard to this issue the burden of providing its on the plaintiff only by relying on his oral and documentary evidence. This suit is filed basing on the documents under EXA1 and A2 dated 21.03.2011 and 13.03.2012. Therefore, the evidence has to the appreciated as per the un amended provision of Specific Relief Act, 1963. In said background the observation the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamal Kumar vs
Premlatha joshi in Civil Appeal No 4453 of 2009 dated 07.01.2019 are relevant.
“It is settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equatable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance are 22
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property;
Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract;
Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;
Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will case any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund or earnest money etc and, if so , on what grounds,:
30.2. In the above said backdrop we have to discuss and decide whether there exists a valid and concluded contract?
As the present suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale basing on Ex.A1 dated 21.03.2011 and ExA2 dt 13.03.2012 hence the plaintiff must prove that there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties to the suit i.e. there must be meeting of minds to conclude a valid a contract = consensus ad edem = which literally means in contract law that there has been meeting of the minds of all 23
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
parties involved and every one accepted, the offered contractual obligations. Pleadings of the parties and evidence should make it clear that in terms of contents of ExA1 and A2, the plaintiff has to prove that, defendant No1 is a real estate company under the name and style as Sri
Manjunada Real Estates Mulugu branch is having one Bandari Mohan as its
Managing Director, defendant no 2 is the registered member of defendant no1 and paid some amount of installments in respect of plot no.138, he entered into contract either with defendant no.1 or with defendant no.2 in respect of purchase of plot no.138 of survey no.1163 of defendant no1 in a scheme of lucky draw, paid some installments to defendant no.1, hence there is concluded contract among himself, defendants no.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule plot no.138.
31. Whether there is any contract between the defendant nos 1 and 2?
31.1 As per the contents of ExA1 the managing partner of defendant no1 as Bandari Mohan Kumar executed said document on 21.03.2011 in favour pf defendant no.2 of os 41/22 in respect of plot no,138 of survey no,1163 of Ranganadapuram venture of 100-00 sq yards was decided in scheme method for Rs.1540/- per sq yard and the total plot value was Rs. 154000/- for which Rs 35500/- was received towards membership and registration charges and remaining amount will be paid in scheme method and Rs.
2170/- dated 21.04.2011, Rs.2170/- dated 21.05.2011 and Rs. 5870/- dated 21.06.2011 and after the scheme period they have to get it registered. The nomenclature of said document is shown as an agreement. It is silent about the appointment of the Managing Partner of Sri Manjunada Real
Estates as Bandari Mohan Kumar. There is no such details in it for Bandari
Mohan Kumar whether it is Bandari Mohan Kumar or B. Mohan Krishan or
Murali Krishan etc. No steps were taken by the plaintiff to file any peace of document to show that Bandari Mohan Kumar is only the Managing Partner 24
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
of Sri Manjunadfa Real Estates and he only executed Ex.A1 in favour of
Porika Kishan. If at all, if we believe the version of the plaintiff about ExA1 for a moment for discussion purpose the commencement of lucky draw by the defendant no1 for selling of its plots is no where brought on record by the plaintiff. If we relied on Ex A1, for the commencement of said scheme, might have started on the day of its execution that on 23.11.2011 then when defendant no 2 paid Rs.35500/- towards membership and reservation charges of plot no,138. As per the entries in Ex.A5 and A6 on 21.03.2011 defendant no2 paid Rs,20000/- and Rs. 2170/-. Whereas Ex.A3 and A4 were showing payment of 5,500/- and 10,000/- accordingly defendant no.2 on 14.10.2010. “When the scheme was started on 21.03.2011, only how he paid amount on 14.07.2010 is nowhere explained by the plaintiff”. There is no such wording in Ex.A1 towards the scheme of lucky draw. Except the words, land scheme no other lucky draw was expressed in it. Though the said document under Ex A1 is termed as an agreement, the averments of it are not concluding it as an agreement of any certain thing between defendant no1 and 2. Hence there is no valid contract even as per the contents of ExA1 between defendant no1 and 2.
32. Whether there is any contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.1?
32.1. As per the entire material on record the plaintiff has been heavily and strongly relied on ExA2 documents executed on Rs.10/- Non Judicial stamp paper on 13.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff by the defendant no.2. From the averments of third line of said document itself it is clear that they termed it as an agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that under said document defendant no.2 sold out his entire rights with possession and future benefits on plot no. 138 in survey no.1163 for Rs.50000/-. If said plot or any gifts are allotted on said plot it will go to plaintiff only. He entrusted all 25
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
the rights of said plot to plaintiff only from that day. Here it is an unanswered point before the Court that by the date of execution of ExA2 itself the possession and ownership of plot no138 in survey 1163 was not at assigned by the defendant no1, then how he will get legal right to sell away his membership as well as ownership of plot no.138 ?
32.2. From the cross examination of PW1, it is crystal clear that “there is no previty of contract between himself and defendant no1. He also admitted that he has not filed any document with regard to the ownership of defendant no1 with land in survey no. 1163. So also there is no direct document executed between himself and defendant no.1, but he volunteered that document was executed in his favour in their presence.
He further admitted that he is not having any direct access to the contents of ExA1 but he volunteered that by seeing signature of Bandari Mohan in
ExA1 he accepted the transaction. It is also admitted by him that there is no direct access to Bandari Mohan with the contents of ExA2. But he volunteered that with the directions of Bandari Mohan that documents was executed. Here he also volunteered that on the date of EXA2 passbook was handed over to him and he paid remaining amount of Rs.25000/- then membership was allotted to him by issuing receipt saying that his signatures are not necessary on the documents. If we go through the pass bookunderEXA16itishavingentriesofdates 14.7.2010,31.03.02011,31.05.2011 but serial no,2 and 3 entries have been strike off by applying whitener. At the same time it is relevant here to note down that ExA2 was executed on 13.03.2012, then how ExA16 which was handed over on that day itself i.e., 13.03.2012 is having entry of serial no,1
dated 14.07.2010 vide receipt no 145 for RS,5500/- for the plaintiff. That is
one year nine months prior to the date of execution of EXA2 itself plaintiff paid an amount Rs 5500/- to the defendanno1 with membership no.145.
Surprisingly by the date of 14.07.2010 Ex.A1 itself was not executed in 26
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
favour of defendant no2 by the defendant no1 then how this Ex.A16 was issued in favour planitiff by the defendant no.1 is best known to the plaintiff only.
32.3. It is the further version of plaintiff that though signatures of executors of Ex.A1 and witness of Ex.A1 are not appearing in Ex.A2 either as witnesses or as executors of Ex.A2 but they were present at the time of execution of Ex.A2. Here also it is the burden of plaintiff to prove that there was consensous ad-idem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement for sale of immovable property. Whether there was such a concluded oral contract or not would be a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each individual cases.
33.3 In support of the opinion of this court relied on the judgment reported in 1990 (2LS0)SC9 between Brijemohan and others vs, Subra
Begum and others "wherein it was held that "It has to be established by the plaintiff, that vital and fundamental terms for sale of immovable property were concluded between the parties orally and a written agreement if any to be executed subsequently would only be a formal agreement incorporating such terms which had already been settled and concluded in the oral agreement" 32.4 1998(ALD 682 between Abdul Rasheed vs Abdul Hakeem wherein it was held that “the burden of prove naturally lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove the alleged agreement by reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The law no doubt, recognizes an oral agreement of sale and there is no requirement of law that an agreement or contract of sale of immovable property should only be in writing. However, in a case where the plaintiff comes forward to seek a decree for specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property on the basis of an oral agreement alone, heavy 27
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
burden lies on the plaintiff to p[rove that there was consensous ad edem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement fro sale of immovable property.
32.5 Apart from all the above, it is also clear from the contents of Ex.A1 and A2 that there is no stipulated time to fulfill the transaction of respective documents. It means that the time is not essence of said document. As parties never intended time as essence of said documents.
At the same time there is no other covenent in Ex.A1 and A2 by specifying the consequences of non compliance within a particular time frame that is for future of amounts already paid and so on, had it there were such condition, then it would be consider that the time is essence of contract. In the case in had it is clear that parties never intended time as an essence of contract. In support of opinion of this Court I am relying upon judgment reported in Chandrani vs Kamalrani reported AIR 1993 SC 1742 where in
The Hounourable constitution bench held as:
“It is a well-accepted principle at in the case of sale of immovable property, time is never regarded as the essence of the the contract. This principle is not in any way different from the that obtainable in England. Under the law of equity which governs the rights of the parties in the case of specific performance of contract to sell real estate, law looks not at the letter but at the substance of the agreement. It has to be ascertained whether under the terms of the contract the parties named a specific time within which completion was to take place, really and in substance it was intended that it should be completed within a reasonable time. An intention to make time the essence of the contract must be expressed in unequivocal language”.
33. From the above discussions and by relying on above judgment, this court came to conclusion that there is no previty of contract between the 28
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
plaintiff and defendant no.1, as well as the time is not essence of Ex.A1 and A2, there is no readiness and willingness of the parties and the plaintiff failed to prove that there is no necessity to file the as per the ingredients sec.16 C Specific Relief Act and subsequently it is found that plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed by him against the defendants. The issue no,1 is answered accordingly.
34. Issue no.2 of O.S No.41/22.
Whether the registered sale deed was executed on the name of
Kumaraswamy on the instruction of plaintiff as prayed by defendant? And issued no.1 of os 45/22 whether plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed 501/13 dated 22.03.2013 as prayed for?
35. The main contention of the plaintiff in his written and oral arguments is that the defendant no1 implidely admitted in his written statement that plaintiff has become the member and got the plot in lucky draw, as he stated that “in fact the plaintiff as offered and agreed to sell the suit plot one kadabiona Kumarswamy expressing his family and financial requirements for a valuable sale consideration @ Rs. 1600/- per Sq. Yards and accordingly he had received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the the said purchaser Kadabiona Kumaraswamy by executing and agreement of sale in his favour on Rs.20/- non judicial stamp paper in presence of witnesses and subsequently on 20.03.2013 the plaintiff has received second installment amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the said Kadaboina kumaraswamy. The defendant no.1, further stated that, the plaintiff along with his purchaser Kadaboina Kumaraswamy has personally approached the partner of this defendant no.1 Sakinala shobhan along with the drafted document and requested him to execute the registered sale deed in favour of his purchaser Kadaboina Kumaraswamy and accordingly as per the instructions of the plaintiff only one Sakinala Shobhan has executed the 29
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
registered sale deed in favour of the purchaser of the plaintiff Kadaboina
Kumaraswamy on 22.03.2013 through a registered sale deed dc. No.
501/2013 and the same is very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff”.
36. It is settled law that the party who knock the doors of the Court shall prove his/her case on the strength of his/her oral and documentary evidence and not on the weaknesses of the opposite party in support of the opinion of this court I am relying upon a judgment reported in "2005(3)ALD 545(DB) between Syed Fahim Arif and another
Vs.Rahmatunnisa Begum and another., Wherein the Honourable High Court of A.P. held that "plaintiff cannot succeed on weakness of case put-forth by defendant. The plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength, not on the weakness of the defendant" 37 . As per the content of written statement of defendant no1 of OS 41/22 the plaintiff has agreed to sell the suit plot to one Kadaboina
Kumaraswamy. But no where he has implidely admitted that plaintiff has became their member and got the plot in lucky draw has stated by the plaintiff in written arguments. On clear reading of the contents of EX.A20 it was executed on 22.03.2013 by Sakinal Shobhan in favour of Kadaboina kumaraswamy in which it was clearly mentioned that Sakinala Shobhan got that property as per the registered document no 52/2011 dated 28.01.2011 that means prior to the alleged execution of ExA1 itself (EXA1 was executed on 21.03.2011) he purchased the property of ExA20 vide document no,52/11 dated 28.01.2011. It all shows that prior to the cause of action as shown by plaintiff itself Sakinal shobhan purchased this suit schedule property. Hence the burden is heavily leis on the shoulders of the 30
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
plaintiff to prove that without having any legal rights Sakindal Shobhan executed EXA20 in favour of Kadaboina Kumaraswamy.
38. In the fore going paragraphs itself this Court came to conclusion that the plaintiff has no right, title and possession of plot no.138 in survey no.1163. It is also noted here that Ex.A20 was executed on 22.03.2013 but
OS 45/22 was filed on 17.12.2016. If really plaintiff is having any legal right
and possession over the property of Ex.A20 why he kept quite for more than three years with out filing any suit against Sakinala Shobhan and
Kadaboina Kumaraswamy. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material of both these suits, it is crystal clear that even prior to filing of os 41/22 9273/13) itself EXA20 was executed on 22.03.2013. It all shows that after a thought or with developed versions the plaintiff has been filing chain of cases one after other against the defendant no1 and 2 and keeping the litigation in existence for years together by moving around plot no.138 of survey no.1163 without having any right, possession and title. Therefore, this court came to conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of cancellation doc. No.501/2013 dated 22.03.2013 as prayed for in os 41/2022. Issue no.2 of os 45/22 and issue no.1 of os 41/22 are answered accordingly.
39. issue no.3 of os 41/22 and issue no.2 of 45/22 are, to what relief?
39.1 In view of the findings of this court on issue numbers 1 and 2 of os 41/22 and issue no1 of 45/22, this court answered these issues also against the plaintiff. Therefore these suits are liable to be dismissed. Issue no.3 is answered accordingly.
31
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
40 In the result these two suits are dismissed without any cost to avoid further multiplicity of issues between the parties as since 2013 the lis has been pending between the parties.
(Typed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22ndday of March, 2024).
Sd/--
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MULUGU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW1: Dasari Ram Murthy
PW2: Balguri Sanjeevaiah
PW3: Kusuma Ramu
PW4: Plathiya Balu
FOR DEFENDANTS: None
EXHIBITS MARKED.
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 is the agreement executed on the Rs.10/- Non Judicial stamp paper on 21.03.2011.
Ex.A2 is the document executed by Porika Kishan in favour of Dasair
Rammurty on Rs.10/- Non Judicial stamp paper dated 13.03.2012.
Ex.A3 dated 14.07.2010 receipt No. 145 for Rs. 5,500/- issued By Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A.4 dated 14.07.2010 receipt No. 73 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A5, dated 21.03.2011 receipt No.423 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A6, dated 21.03.2011 receipt no. 559 for Rs. 2,170/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
32
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
Ex.A7, dated 31.08.2011 receipt no. 314 for Rs.4,340/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A8, dated 13.03.2012 receipt No. 1349 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A9, dated 22.03.2012, receipt No. 3199 for Rs. 7,88/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A10, dated 14.08.2012 receipt no. 1781 for Rs. 5,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A11, dated 13.09.2012 receipt no. 2007 for Rs. 10,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A12, dated 02.11.2012 receipt no. 2086 for Rs. 5,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
EX.A13, dated 11.01.2013 receipt no. 2278 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A14 dated 16.01.2013 receipt no. 2297 for Rs. 5,500/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex.A15, dated 20.03.2013 receipt no. 2540 for Rs. 1,600/- issued by Sri
Manjunada Real Estates.
Ex. A16 is the original Pass Book vide membership no. 145 of Dasari
Rammurthy of Sri Manjunada Real Estate, for plot no. 138.
Ex.A17 is the broucher of advertisement of selling plots by Sri Manjunada
Real Estates, Head Office, Hanamkonda, branches at Mulugu and
Mallampally.
Ex.A18 dated 28.03.2013 office copy of Legal notice to defendant No.1 and 2.
Ex.A19 Dated 30.03.2013 Postal receipts(2 in number).
33
O.S.NO. 41/2022 and 45 of 2022
Ex.A20 dated 22.03.2013 certified copy of Regd Sale deed vide Doc. No.
501/2013 filed in O.S. No. 45/20222.
FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL
Sd/--
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MULUGU.