Smt.V.A.L.Sathyavathi

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. V.A.L. SATYAVATHI,

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated, this the 31st day of December, 2014

O.S. No. 688 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

M/s. State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), 2nd Floor, Latha Complex, Opp : Intermediate Board, MJJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad,

Represented by its Manager, ...Plaintiff

AND

Sri. Gopishetty Chandra Mouli, S/o Sri. Venkaiah, Aged : 55 years, Occ : Workingas School Assistant, Zilla Parishad High School, Narayanapur, Choutuppal, Nalgonda District, R/o Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, 5th Floor, Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. Prabhakar Sarma, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. Sasidhar

Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record 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 a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount against defendant.

2)The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint in brief is as follows:

V I I A S J

2

Plaintiff-bank is a corporate body (incorporated under State Bank of

India Act, 1955) having its Central Office at Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Offices and Zonal Offices at Hyderabad and one of its

Branches at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), 2nd Floor, Latha

Complex, Opp : Intermediate Board, MJJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad,

Represented by its Manager.

3)Plaintiff contends that the defendant approached the State Bank of India,

Retail Assets Central Processing (RACPC), Hyderabad and requested for sanction of car loan for purchase of Maruthi Wagon R Car. Accordingly

State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing (RACPC), Hyderabad sanctioned term loan of Rs. 3,69,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Nine

Thousand Only ), which was availed by the defendant, as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said Sanction Letter dated : 25-02-2008 and the Loan Application dated : 15-2-2008 and executed Arrangement letter cum Hypothecation Agreement dated : 25-02-2008. The loan amount is repayable in equated monthly installments at the rate of 6,416/- (Rupees

Six Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen Only) each commencing from the next month of disbursement till the entire loan with interest is fully repaid, together with interest at the rate of 1.25 below the State Bank Advance

Rate (SBAR) effective rate being 11.5 percent per annum with monthly rests, subject however, to the variance in such rate of interest on account of change in rates of interest pursuant to the instructions / directions that may be issued by the Reserve Bank of India / State Bank Advance Rate from time to time.

V I I A S J

3

4)Plaintiff further contends that defendant availed the said laon amount of

Rs. 3,69,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Only ) from the

State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre (RACPC),

Hyderabad through its Home Branch i.e. Aliabad Branch, Hyderabad vide loan Account No. 30335590664 and utilized the loan amount for purchase of Maruthi Wagon R Car. The defendant through the letter dated : 24-4- 2008 furnished the particulars of said car fully described in the Schedule of property and the said car was hypothicated in favour of Bank as security for due repayment of the above said loan amount together with interest and the Bank reserves its right to seize and sell the same in public auction and file necessary memo / application in that regard after sale of the said hypothecated car. Plaintiff contends that in spite of personal repeated request, reminders, defendant has not come forward in remitting the outstanding borrowed amount . Plaintiff Bank sent a letter dated : 12-10- 2011 demanding the defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount together with interest and same was returned. Therefore Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants dated: 29-02-2012. Plaintiff Bank prays this Court to pass Judgment and decree in its favour and against the defendants

a) to pay a sum of Rs.5,43,988/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand

Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) together with furture interest at the rate of 13-75 percent per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization

b) For sale of the Hypothecated Car fully described in the Plaint Schedule of Property and to pay the Sale Proceeds to the Plaintiff Bank for realisation

V I I A S J

4 of suit claim amount

c) Costs of the suit and grant such other relief or reliefs.

5)Against this, Defendant filed written statement with the following averments.

Defendant denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint specifically and contends that all the documents filed by the plaintiff are left blank and they are prepared irregularly only to create problems to him.

Documents filed by plaintiff do not contain official stamp. Plaintiff approached this court with unclean hands and suppressed all real facts.

There is no cause of action to file this suit. Plaintiff issued legal notice by mentioning wrong address of him. This Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

6)Therefore defendant prays this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

7)Considering the rival pleadings on both the parties the following issues are settled for trial :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount as prayed for ?

ii) Whether this Court has Jurisdiction to try this suit ?

iii) To what relief ?

8)To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined PW-1 and

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendants.

9)ISSUES 1 AND 2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount as prayed for ? Whether this Court has Jurisdiction to try this suit ?

V I I A S J

5

The Assistant Manager on behalf of plaintiff-bank is testified as PW-1. He reiterated all the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit about availing of loan by defendant and entire documentation. To prove the case of plaintiff,

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 documents were marked. Ex.A1 – is the Car Loan

Application, Ex.A2 – is the Sanction Letter dated: 25-2-2008,

Ex.A3 – is the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, Ex.A4 – is the Letter given by Defendant furnishing the particulars of Car dated: 24-4-2008,

Ex.A5 – is the Office Copy of Notice dated: 12-10-2011 given by Plaintiff

Bank to defendant, Ex.A6 – is the Returned Notice, Ex.A7 – is the Office

Copy of Notice dated: 29-2-2012 got issued by Plaintiff Bank to the defendant, Ex.A8 – is the Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.A9 – is the Returned

Legal Notice and Ex.A10 – is the Statement of Account along with

Certification. PW.1 deposed as to truth of contents of all documents.

10)All this evidence of P.W-1 remained unchallenged. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. All the documents filed by plaintiff and evidence of PW1 revealed that this court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

Defendant did not show anything contrary to that. Defendant did not come to the witness box and did not depose anything in support of his case. The above evidence proves that defendant availed loan amount but failed to pay the amount due and defendant is in due of suit claimed amount. Hence the plaintiff proved its case. Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of plaintiff. PW.1 deposed as to truth of contents of all documents.

9) IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed for an amount of Rs.5,43,988/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight

Only). Principle sum adjudged is Rs. 3,69,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty

V I I A S J

6

Nine Thousand Only ) and plaintiff is also entitled for interest at the rate of twelve percent over the principle sum adjudged from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter six percent interest till realization over the amount due thereon. Plaintiff is also entitled for costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2014.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:-

PW-1: G. Rajendar - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED :-

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 – is the Car Loan Application, Ex.A2 – is the Sanction Letter dated: 25-2-2008, Ex.A3 – is the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, Ex.A4 – is the Letter given by Defendant furnishing the particulars of Car

dated: 24-4-2008,

Ex.A5 – is the Office Copy of Notice dated: 12-10-2011 given by Plaintiff Bank to defendant, Ex.A6 – is the Returned Notice, Ex.A7 – is the Office Copy of Notice dated: 29-2-2012 got issued by Plaintiff Bank to the defendant, Ex.A8 – is the Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.A9 – is the Returned Legal Notice Ex.A10 – is the Statement of Account along with Certification.

FOR DEFENDANTS:- -NIL-

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

V I I A S J

7

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

V I I A S J

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SMT. V.A.L. SATHYAVATHI,

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2014

O.S. No. 1174 of 2012

BETWEEN:-

M/s. State Bank of Hyderabad, A Government of India undertaking and An Assosiate Bank of State Bank of India, carrying on Banking business all over India having its Head Office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and one of its branches amongst others at Medchal, MSME, I.E. represented by its Manager Shri. R. Sandeep Nambiar S/o N.R. Nambiar Aged : 42 years, R/o Hyderabad being authorized to sign, verify and pursue legal matters vide Gazette Notification No. OPD/90-91/6 dated : 5-7-1990 published under Gazette of India Part III Section – 4 pages 1748 and 1749 Read with regulation 55 and 56 of Subsidiary General Act 1959 … Plaintiff

AND

1.Mr. Garepally Satish S/o Laxminarasaiah, Aged : 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 5-14, Sutariguda, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Mr. Konyala Dharpal Reddy S/o Sri. K. Chenna Reddy, Occ : Business, R/o M/s Reddy Pan Shop, Check Post, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. … Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Y. Venkata Ramana, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants were called absent and set exparte and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record 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 a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount against

V I I A S J

2 defendants.

2)The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint in is as follows:

Plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 requested Housing Loan for purchase of a semi-finished flat at Uma Nagar, Medchal. The plaintiff bank considered the request of the defendant No.1 granted housing loan for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to Defendant No.1.

The said loan is repayable with interest at the rate of 10.75 percent per annum with monthly rests in 180 equated monthly instalments of

Rs. 5,450/- ( Rupees Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Only ). The defendant have agreed to pay the varying rate of interest from time to time. The defendant No.1 executed Application Form for housing loan

dated: 17-01-2007. The defendant No.2 stood as guarantor and

executed Deed of Guarantee for Housing Loan availed by defendant No.1 and Letter of Deposit of Title deeds dated: 9-5-2003 as security with the plaintiff bank with intention to create equitable mortgage of the same and thereby created equitable mortgage of his house property with plaintiff bank. After availing the house loan defendant No.1 failed to repay the amount. Plaintiff contends that defendant No.1 executed Debt Revival

Letter dated : 15-12-2009. In spite of personal repeated request, reminders, defendants have not come forward in remitting the outstanding borrowed amount. Therefore plaintiff bank in exercise of its powers conferred under the provisions of Secularization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI

Act, 2002) had taken steps for sale of the Mortgaged property plaint schedule property under demand notice dated : 28-6-2011 for repayment of amount due. Therefore the plaintiff filed this suit and prays this Court

V I I A S J

3 to pass preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff bank and against defendant to pay the amount as per the decree with costs and on his failure to do so, pass a final decree directing the sale of the mortgaged house property described in the suit schedule and also for

a) the suit amount of Rs. 7,75,548/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Five

Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eight Only)

b) Subsequent interest at the rate of 10.75 percent per annum with monthly rests from the date of suit to till realization

c) costs of the suit and any other relief 3)The Defendant No.1 and 2 were called absent and set exparte.

4)To substantiate the case of plaintiff, PW-1 Examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendant.

5)Point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff-bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for”?

6)POINT: The Employee on behalf of plaintiff-bank is testified as

PW-1. She reiterated all the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit about availing of loan by defendant No.1 and entire documentation. To prove the case of plaintiff, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 documents were marked. Ex.A1 – is the Housing Loan Application dated: 17-1-2007, Ex.A2 – is the

Arrangement Letter dated : 12-2-2007, Ex.A3 – is the Housing Loan

Agreement dated : 12-2-2007 executed by defendant No.1, Ex.A4 – is the

Letter Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds dated : 12-2-2007, Ex.A5 – is the

Office Copy of Notice under SARFAESI Act dated : 28-6-2011, Ex.A6 – is the Revival Letter dated : 15-12-2009 executed by Defendant No.1, Ex.A7

V I I A S J

4 – is the Registered Sale Deed dated : 24-1-2007 document No.1560 of 2007, Ex.A8 – is the Statement of Account along with certification and

Ex.A9 - is the Deed of Guarantee dated : 22-1-2007 executed by defendant

No.2. PW-1 deposed as to truth of contents of all documents.

7)All this evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. The above evidence proves that defendant availed chit amount but failed to pay the amount due and defendants are in due of suit claimed amount. Hence the plaintiff proved its case. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8)In the result, this suit is decreed for an amount of Rs. 7,75,548/- (Rupees

Seven Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Eight Only).

Principle sum adjudged is Rs.5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs Only ).

Plaintiff is also entitled for interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum over the principle sum adjudged from the date of suit till the date of decree and there after at the rate of six percent interest from the date of decree till realization over the amount due thereon. Plaintiff is also entitled for costs. A preliminary decree also shall be passed accordingly. Four months time is given for redemption.

Dictated to the STENOGRAPHER GRADE-III, Typed

by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of December, 2014.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

V I I A S J

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: Smt. Janga Jyothi - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 – is the Housing Loan Application dated: 17-1-2007,

Ex.A2 – is the Arrangement Letter dated : 12-2-2007,

Ex.A3 – is the Housing Loan Agreement dated : 12-2-2007 executed by defendant No.1,

Ex.A4 – is the Letter Confirming Deposit of Title Deeds dated : 12-2-2007,

Ex.A5 – is the Office Copy of Notice under SARFAESI Act

dated : 28-6-2011,

Ex.A6 – is the Revival Letter date:15-12-2009 executed by Defendant No.1

Ex.A7 – is the Registered Sale Deed dated : 24-1-2007 document No.1560 of 2007,

Ex.A8 – is the Statement of Account along with certification

Ex.A9 - is the Deed of Guarantee dt:22-1-07 executed by defendant No.2

FOR DEFENDANTS:- -NIL-

V I I A S J

6

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

V I I A S J

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri. HUZAIB AHMED KHAN, B.Com, LLM

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 2nd Day of November, 2015

O.S. No. 1644 of 2014

BETWEEN:-

Sri. Meduri Natrajeshwar Rao S/o Chengal Rayudu, Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business, R/o Flat No. 303, Laxmi Madhava Apartments, Anandnagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. … Plaintiff

AND

1.Sri. B. Shankaraiah S/o B. Rajaiah, Aged : 58 years, Occ : Central Government Employee, R/o Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.B. Praveen Kumar S/o Shankaraiah, Aged : 32 years, Occ : Not Known, R/o Annojiguda Village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ... Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. N. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants were called absent and set exparte and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and upon perusal of the record 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 a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property.

2.Plaintiff says that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed bearing document

No. 3460 of 2003 dated : 04-04-2003 in his favour as the purchase of the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration from defendant No.2.

OS 1644 of 2014 VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2

Plaintiff traces the title of his vendor and how his vendor acquired the suit schedule property and sold to him and he got regularized the suit schedule property. That the defendants are having resources and influential and trying to interfere his possession over the suit schedule property as such this suit for perpetual injunction.

3.The defendants were served and called absent and thereafter set exparte and matter posted for plaintiff evidence.

4.On behalf of Plaintiff, he herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. The plaintiff in order to support his case. There is no evidence filed defendants as they were exparte to this suit.

5.Heard counsel for plaintiffs. He says that the plaintiff is able to establish his title that is needed for grant of the relief of perpetual injunction and the possession of the plaintiff is also clearly established before this court and prays to decree the suit.

6.Point for Consideration is : Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for

grant of perpetual injunction in respect to the suit schedule property

as prayed in the plaint ?

7.Point : PW1 is the plaintiff and he says under Ex.A1 he purchased the suit schedule property from his vendor who in turn was gifted the suit schedule property under Ex.A2 by his grandfather. According to PW1 he is in possession of the suit schedule property even as on the date and Ex.A8 shows the photograph of the open land of the suit schedule property.ExA3 is the encumbrance certificate showing the entries of only ExA1 and ExA2 and there are no other entries. According to PW1 he gave Ex.A7 complaint to the police when the defendants tried to interfere in the suit schedule property. The defendants were served and did not appear before this court and were set exparte. In the light of the Ex.A1 PW1 is in possession and the original EXaA2 is with the plaintiff and since the defendants did not counter the case of PW1 as such there are merits in favour of PW1 to grant the relief of perpetual injunction to be only in personnel.

OS 1644 of 2014 VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

3

8.On appreciation of the evidence oral and documentary led by the plaintiff it is clear and apparent that the fact scenario as presented by the plaintiff merited a decree of perpetual decree as contemplated u/s 37 of the

Specific relief Act at this stage. The same is sounded with a caveat that it is settled law that if plaintiff has acted fraudulently or hidden any facts it is open to anyone with better merits and fact position to question the said relief being granted to plaintiff and in that event plaintiff just cannot take shelter behind this exparte decree and has to be prepared and ready to project and present the case as the situation demands and warrants.

Suffice it to say that at this stage there are merits in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property.

9.Therefore this court holds that PW1 has made out a case for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed in the plaint. This point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs against the defendant No.1 and 2.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, Transcribed

by him,added corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the2 nd day of November, 2015.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:-

OS 1644 of 2014 VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

4

PW-1 : Sri. Meduri Natrajeshwar Rao- NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 – is the Original Sale Deed Bearing Document No. 3460 of 2003

dated: 4-4-2003

Ex.A2 – is the Original Gift Settlement Deed Document No. 5276 of 2002

dated: 18-7-2002

Ex.A3 – is the Encumbrance Certificate from 1-5-1995 to 20-10-2014

Ex.A4 – is the Encumbrance Certificate from 28-6-1982 to 30-4-1995

Ex.A5 – is the Encumbrance Certificate from 1-5-1995 to 28-8-2007

Ex.A6 – is the Encumbrance Certificate from 1-5-1995 to 3-1-2008

Ex.A7 – is the Office Copy of Complaint Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station

Ex.A8 – is the Photographs (3 in Number)

FOR DEFENDANT :- -NIL-

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

OS 1644 of 2014 VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. V. A. L. SATHYAVATHI, B.A, B.L.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 29th Day of December, 2014

O.S. No. 670 of 2013

BETWEEN :-

Smt. Kambampati Jayasudha W/o Kambampati Seshagiri Rao, Aged : 35 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o H.No. 1-54, Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District. … Plaintiff

AND

1.Sri. K. Laxminarayana S/o Late K. Sreeramulu, Aged : 50 years, Occ : Business,

2. Sri. K. Seshagiri Rao, S/o Late K. Sreeramulu, Aged : 50 years, Occ : Business,

3.Smt. K. Sita Ratnam W/o Late K. Sreeramulu, Aged : 71 years, Occ : Housewife, ( All the above R/o H.No. 5-12-133/1, Mangapuram Colony, Meerpet, H.B. Colony, Moulali, Hyderabad ) ( Represented by its General Power of Attorney Holder ) … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s C. Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 were called absent and they were set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

VII ASJ

2 1)This is a suit filed by Plaintiff for Specific Performance of an

Agreement for Sale.

2)Defendant No.1 to 3 received summons but did not choose to appear and set exparte on 12-7-2013. even thereafter they did not participate in trial.

3)Plaintiff testified as PW1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. Defendants did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. Learned Counsel for plaintiff submitted oral arguments.

4)Point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement for sale ?

5) POINT ANSWERED :

As per the averments in the plaint and evidence of PW1 defendant No.1 and 2 own plaint schedule property and defendant

No.3 is registered General Power of Attorney Holder of them. At the trial indicating such ownership of defendant No.1 and 2 no document is filed. However, certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated : 30- 4-2011 is Ex.A1. As per which defendant No.1 and 2 empowered defendant No.3 to execute sale deeds pertaining to that property.

VII ASJ

3 6)Plaintiff as PW1 deposed that the defendants agreed to sell the plaint schedule property and executed an agreement for sale. Ex.A2 is the unregistered agreement for sale dated : 30-1-2013. the present plaint was prepared on 6-3-2012 as appearing under the prayer of plaint. Plaint was presented before Court on 12-4-2013. As per

Ex.A2 agreed sale consideration is Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs

Only ). It shows Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Only ) was paid an advance Ex.A3 is the receipt passed by all the defendants for that Rs.

1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Only ). According to plaintiff she agreed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- ( Rupees

Four Lakhs Only ) within ten days. A perusal of Ex.A2 does not contain any time stipulation. PW1 said that ten days after agreement for sale she asked defendants to execute registered sale deed, but the defendants were avoiding her. It is to be seen that though but the date of Ex.A2 and this suit there was a time gap of three months.

Plaintiff did not issue any notice demanding defendants to receive Rs.

4,00,000/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Only ) and executed registered sale deed. Plaintiff has not explained about her failure to give notice. She has not indicated how and when she was ready with Rs. 4,00,000/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs Only ) and when did she call up the defendants.

These aspects have a clear bearing in specific performance suit.

VII ASJ

4 7)Verification of record bring to notice certain facts. Name of plaintiff is Kambampati Jayasudha. Name of her husband is Kambampati

Seshagiri Rao. Defendant No.2 is Mr. Kambampati Seshagiri Rao S/o

K. Sri Ramulu. Defendant No.1 appears to be own brother of defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 is their mother. A reading of Ex.A1,

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 and cause title of plaint make this relationships clear.

However no where in the plaint and evidence ths relationship is mentioned Ex.A1 General Power of Attorney Holder wa sattested by tis very plaintiff. Thus the whole of Ex.A2 is a family affair and the plaint and evidence have for same reason concealed these facts and nothing justifying such concealment is explained by plaintiff. Thus they disentitle themselves for an equitable relief of specific performance.

8)However interms of Ex.A3 as defendants received money they shall refund it to plaintiff with twelve percent interest. For all these reasons this point is answered accordingly.

9)IN THE RESULT, this suit is partly decreed in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Only ) with interest at the rate of twelve percent from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of six percent interest from date of decree till realization. Plaintiff is also entitled for costs. Specific Performance of

Agreement for Sale is denied.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this

VII ASJ

5 the 29 th day December, 2014.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

FOR PLAINTIFF :-FOR DEFENDANT :-

PW-1: Smt. Kambampati Jayasudha - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED :-

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 – is the Certified Copy of General Power of Attorney

dated: 30-4-2011

Ex.A2 – is the Unregistered Agreement of Sale dated : 30-1-2013

Ex.A3 – is the Receipt dated : 30-12-2013

FOR DEFENDANT :- -NIL-

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

VII ASJ

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. V. A. L. SATHYAVATHI, B.A, B.L.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 23rd Day of December, 2014

O.S. No. 1006 of 2013

BETWEEN :-

1.Sri. Padakal Nanda Kishore S/o Padakal Ramesh, Aged : 33 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 18-7-706/C, Chatrinaka, Outside Gowlipura, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

2.Mr. Naresh S/o Lingappa, Aged : 58 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 12-2-581, Murad Nagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. … Plaintiffs

AND

1.Sri. Kaipe Shiva Kumar S/o Kaipe Naga Bhushana Shastry, Aged : 42 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 16-2-836/G1, Madhav Nagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

2.Smt. Madhavi Latha W/o Mokkapati Bala Laxmi Narsimha Shastry, Aged : 52 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 16- 2-836/G1, Madhav Nagar, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s N. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 were called absent and set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

VII ASJ

2 1)This is a suit filed by Plaintiff for Specific Performance of an agreement for sale dated : 29-4-2010 concerning two plots of land owned by defendant No. 1 and 2 respectively. Though plaintiff completed their part of the work defendants are not coming forward despite notices. Thus this suit is filed.

2)Despite summons and substituted services defendant No.1 and 2 did not choose to appear and contest and were thus set exparte on 26-6- 2014.

3)Out of two plaintiffs it is the plaintiff No.1 who testified as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 to sustain the claim.

4)Learned Counsel for plaintiff submitted oral and written arguments.

5)The Point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiffs established their claim for specific performance of agreement for sale ?

6) POINT ANSWERED :

Ex.A9 is unregistered agreement for sale dated : 29-4-2010.

Ex.A7 certified copy of registered sale deed dated : 19-1-1989. Ex.A8 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated : 19-1-1989. PW1 deposed that defendant NO. 1 and 2 own plot No. 28 and 29 of plaint schedule by virtue of Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 sale deed. They together executed Ex.A9 agreement in favour of both plaintiffs where under

VII ASJ

3 agreed sale consideration was fixed as Rs.4,00,000/- ( Rupees Four

Lakhs Only ) for both the plots together. As per its terms defendants received Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs Only ) on the date of this agreement which is further evidenced by Ex.A1 stamped receipt dated : 29-4-2010. PW1 said that the remaining sale consideration was paid in three spells as evidence by Ex.A2, Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 stamped receipts. Thus by 14-4-2012 as per Ex.A4 plaintiffs paid and defendants received total sale consideration.

7)PW1 stated that despite demands defendants were not coming forward to execute regular registered sale deed. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are notices allegedly sent by plaintiff. However no postal receipts showing their despatch nor postal acknowledgments indicating delivery of it on defendants are filed. However as the evidence remained unchallenged tis court shall believe the evidence of PW1 about serving notices.

8)As per the evidence of PW1 and as per the terms contained in Ex.A9

Agreement for Sale plaintiffs discharged all their obligations.

Defendants having received full sale consideration are obliged to execute registered sale deed. Since they failed plaintiff shall be granted relief of specific performance. Hence this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

9)IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant No.1 and 2 to execute registered sale deed in favour of

VII ASJ

4 both plaintiffs concerning Plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule Properties on or

before 1-2-2015 and possession of the property to plaintiffs shall bear

the expenses for stamps and registeration, if the defendants fail to do so plaintiffs are entitled to have it done through process of Law.

No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day December, 2014.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

FOR PLAINTIFFS :-FOR DEFENDANTS :-

PW-1: Md. Shabbir Ali Khan - NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED :-

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 – is the Receipt dated: 29-4-2010 for Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Laks Only )

Ex.A2 – is the Receipt dated: 15-01-2011 for Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh Only )

Ex.A3 – is the Receipt dated: 20-11-2011 for Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only )

Ex.A4 – is the Receipt dated: 14-4-2012 for Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only )

Ex.A5 – is the Office Copy of Legal Notice dated: 5-3-2013 got issued by me to the both defendants

VII ASJ

5

Ex.A6 – is the Office Copy of Legal Notice dated: 21-9-2011 got issued by me to the both defendants

Ex.A7 – is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated : 19-1-1989 Document No. 913 of 1989

Ex.A8 – is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed dated : 19-1-1989 Document No. 914 of 1989

Ex.A9 – is the Agreement of Sale Dated : 29-4-2010

FOR DEFENDANTS :- -NIL-

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

VII ASJ