Yedla Vasudeva Rao vs P Sridevi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2676 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2676 AP
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yedla Vasudeva Rao vs P Sridevi on 1 May, 2023

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                             &

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

                      I.A.No.1 of 2023
                            in
                Appeal Suit No.100 of 2023

ORDER: (per Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)

     Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri

M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks an order of

stay for execution. It is admitted that E.P has already been

filed and therefore both the learned counsels advanced

arguments.

Learned counsel for the appellant points out that the

appellant who came to Court with a specific plea of

cancellation of sale deed has abandoned the said plea during

the course of arguments after the evidence is introduced and

sought only the alternative relief for recovery of the unpaid

purchase price. According to him, the issue of unpaid

purchase price is an issue which had to be decided in main

appeal, since the present appellant/defendant states that he

has paid the amount by cash. Apart from that he submits

that the plaintiff had come to Court with specific plea of

cancellation of registered sale deed on certain ground, but

the said specific plea was abandoned and sought relief of

refund of money. However, a charge was also created on the

property as per Section 55 (4) (b) of the Transfer of Property

Act (for short 'the T.P.Act'). In these circumstances, learned

counsel submits that there are debatable issues that have to

be decided during the course of the appeal and that the

interest of the plaintiff is secured since there is a charge on

the property.

In reply to this, Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy argues the

matter at length. He relies upon the Judgment in

Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao1 and the provisions of Section 55

(4) (b) of the T.P.Act and also argues that for the unpaid

purchase price, the seller can demand the Court for award of

the same with interest even if the sale deed is registered.

(1999) 3 SCC 573

According to him, no proof is forthcoming from the defendant

in the Suit that the sale price was in fact paid. He points out

that the cheques which were mentioned in the plaint were

also admitted to have been issued by the defendant. In these

circumstances, he submits that this is not a case in which a

stay should be granted at all. He states that the respondent

should enjoy the fruits of the hard fought litigation.

In normal case of the money decree, the usual order

that is being passed is to deposit 50% of the amount

awarded, but in the present case the Bench notices that

there are certain peculiar features. Primary feature is that

the plaintiff has come to Court with a very specific plea

seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed and seeking

an alternative relief as follows:

"If for any reason the Hon'ble Court comes to conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of cancellation of the said sale deed, direct the defendant to pay Rs.46,50,500/- with subsequent interest at 24% per annum". This is not a case of the plaintiffs simply seeking for

unpaid purchase price and seeking a charge on the property

under 55 (4) (b) of the Act. It is very clearly averred that the

defendant induced the plaintiff and her husband and

obtained sale deed by playing fraud.

It is mentioned that the plaintiff stated to the defendant

that she rescinded the sale deed by an oral notice and also

stated that she would approach the competent Court of Law

for its cancellation. Even in the cause of action para in the

plaint, it is mentioned that the plaintiff by oral notice stated

to the defendant that she rescinded the sale deed, the

plaintiff has come to Court with a specific plea and sought

for certain reliefs, the issue that is troubling the Court in