Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Varra Trimurthulu vs Buddaraju Venkata Rama Krishna Satya ... on 20 June, 2024
APHC010535192012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 620/2012
Between:
Varra Trimurthulu ...APPELLANT
AND
Buddaraju Venkata Rama Krishna Satya Surya ...RESPONDENT
Subba Raju
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. VENKAT CHALLA
2. CH DHANAMJAYA
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.620 of 2012
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
APPEAL SUIT No.620 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This is defendant's appeal. The appellant owns Ac.10.00
cents of land. He and the respondent have been friends since the
time of their childhood. The respondent owns Ac.30.00 cents of
land. He also does business in prawn and fish feeds. The
appellant has been a customer for purchase of the said feed for
the use of the same in his own fish tanks. Controversy between
them arose with reference to an agreement for sale said to have
been executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent
concerning the plaint schedule mentioned immovable properties.
Ex.A.2 is the registered sale deed dated 22.03.1995 under which
the appellant had come to own the plaint schedule properties. It
is stated that the appellant executed Ex.A.1-registered agreement
for sale dated 08.08.2002 in favour of respondent. In the context
of the above facts, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.56 of 2004
before learned III Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court),
Bhimavaram praying for specific performance of the said
agreement for sale and for delivery of possession of the property
and in the alternative, he prayed for refund of advance sale
consideration he had paid along with interest thereon and for
costs and such other relies. Contesting the claim, the appellant
as defendant filed his written statement wherein he denied the
plaint levelled allegations and mentioned that he never intended
to sell the property. As he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the
Dr. VRKS, J
plaintiff, the plaintiff exercising undue influence obtained the
alleged agreement for sale towards security for repayment of the
debt. That this agreement for sale was never intended to be
acted upon. That the said agreement is a fabricated document.
He sought dismissal of the suit with costs.
2. Learned trial Court settled the following issues for its
consideration:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dt: 08.08.2002 for
Rs.3,21,000/- is true, valid and supported by
consideration?
2. Whether the plaintiff obtained signatures of defendant
on blank stamped promissory note and made use of it
and filed the suit by manipulating it as stated in the
written statement?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance
of agreement dt: 08.08.2002 as prayed for in the plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief and
refund of Rs.3,57,720/- with subsequent interest as
prayed for?
5. To what relief?
3. At the trial, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and the defendant
testified as DW.1. The disputed agreement for sale was marked
as Ex.A.1. The sale deed showing the ownership of the property
by the defendant is marked as Ex.A.2. The brother of the plaintiff
who was one of the attestors to the document testified as PW.2
and the scribe of the disputed document testified as PW.3. Prior
Dr. VRKS, J
to the institution of the suit, plaintiff got issued a notice dated
06.08.2003 to the defendant calling upon him to receive the
balance sale consideration and come forward and execute the
registered conveyance as stipulated in Ex.A.1. The said notice is
Ex.A.3. It was received by the defendant as evidenced by
Ex.A.4-postal acknowledgment. During the trial proceedings,
defendant admitted that he had received Ex.A.3-notice but did not
give reply notice but he took elders as mediators to the plaintiff
and the elders questioned the plaintiff about Ex.A.3-notice and in
their presence plaintiff stated to them that he would not file any
suit. However, he filed the suit. It is to prove such mediation
through elders, the defendant got examined DWs.2 to 6. In the
written statement he stated that he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from
the plaintiff and as a security plaintiff obtained Ex.A.1 from him.
During the course of trial, he put forwarded a contention stating
that he has been purchasing fish and prawn feed on credit basis
and towards security of repayment of those amounts the plaintiff
obtained Ex.A.1. To sustain such a contention of purchase of
feed by him from the plaintiff, the defendant exhibited Exs.B.1 to
B.51. Learned trial Court considered the rival contentions and in
detail scrutinized the oral evidence on both sides and held that
Ex.A.1-agreement for sale was true, valid and supported by
consideration and it was not a document brought into existence
by fabrication and the theory of the defendant that his signatures
were obtained on blank stamp papers was incorrect. It
categorically recorded a finding that the plaintiff has always been
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the fault
Dr. VRKS, J
lies with the defendant. In such circumstances, in the opinion of
the trial Court, the plaintiff was entitled for the primary relief of
specific performance of the agreement for sale and accordingly it
granted the same directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale
consideration of Rs.21,000/- within one month and the defendant
to execute the registered sale deed and it prescribed a period of
three months for completing this task. Since the primary relief
was granted, the alternative relief of refund of money could not be
granted and therefore was not granted. The defendant in the suit
was not satisfied with this judgment and decree and he appealed
to this Court under Section 96 C.P.C.
4. Sri M.Sri Atchuth, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant
argued raising two significant contentions. Learned counsel
contended that the evidence on record was not properly
appreciated by the Court below and Ex.A.1 was never intended to
be acted upon and the respondent/plaintiff was also a money
lender and that for the money owed by the appellant/defendant to
respondent/plaintiff, it was as a measure of security Ex.A.1-
agreement for sale was obtained. In such circumstances, the
Courts holding the discretion to grant the relief ought to have
considered the same in proper perspective and ought to have
negatived the primary relief and it is that failure which requires
rectification at the hands of this Court. He contends that in cases
where an agreement to sell is really a security for a loan granting
compensation is more appropriate and placed reliance on
Dr. VRKS, J
Jayakantham v. Abaykumar1.That was a case where an
agreement for sale came up for consideration. All the Courts
below granted the decree of specific performance in favour of the
purchaser. The property consists of a small plot of land with a
residential house situate therein. That was the only property
available for the vendors. The agreement for sale indicated that
this house was agreed to be sold for a sale consideration of
Rs.1,60,000/- and the purchaser paid Rs.60,000/- towards
advance sale consideration. The purchaser was a money lender
and the evidence on record, in the appreciation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, convinced their Lordships that it was a
document that had come up as a security. The submission
before their Lordships on behalf of the owners was that since they
had no other properties except this property, they were prepared
to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the purchaser. Considering all these
facts and circumstances, their Lordships, on facts available
before their Lordships, concluded that payment of Rs.15,00,000/-
in lieu of specific performance would meet the ends of justice and
accordingly directed for the same.
5. The learned counsel for appellant also contended that there
has been a steep rise in the prices of immovable properties and
that the Courts have to take judicial notice of the same and
accordingly render justice and that the appellant/defendant is
prepared to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff and this
Court may consider the same and substitute the impugned
(2017) 5 SCC 178
Dr. VRKS, J
judgment with a direction for such payment. To sustain the
argument about Courts to take judicial notice of steep rise in
immovable properties and as to how grapple with such situations,
the learned counsel took support from a ruling of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in U.N.Krishnamurthy v.
A.M.Krishnamurthy2.
6. Learned counsel for appellant also argued that readiness
and willingness are the prerequisites for a plaintiff suing for
specific performance as mandated by Section 16 of the Specific
Relief Act. That the signature on Ex.A.1-agreement for sale
alone was admitted by the appellant/defendant and he did not
admit the contents of the document and the evidence on record
did not establish the truth of the contents of the document and
seeks reversal of the impugned judgment.
7. Sri Venkat Challa, the learned counsel for respondent
submitted in his arguments that the impugned judgment rightly
dealt with the evidence and appropriately appreciated it and it
took note of the changing stands of the defendant/appellant from
stage to stage and the contradictory statements of defence
witnesses and finally came to right conclusions and a perusal of
the evidence by this Court would sure lead to the same
conclusions. Learned counsel, responding to the offer of
payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the appellant, submitted that
respondent/plaintiff is not willing to accept the money in lieu of
specific performance and submits that for no reason the
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588
Dr. VRKS, J
respondent/plaintiff was brought to litigation while the entire fault
lies with the defendant/appellant and therefore in the given facts
and circumstances the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court has to be sustained. Learned counsel submits that a clear
intention to sell the property is evidenced by Ex.A.1 and there is
absolutely no material to smell any transactions of debt and
making Ex.A.1 as a measure of security. According to learned
counsel, this is a frivolous contention to drag the litigation further
and it has to be negatived. He requests this Court to dismiss the
appeal.
8. From the rival contentions and the material on record, the
following points fall for consideration:
1. Whether the vendor agreed to sell and the vendee
agreed to purchase and whether the agreement for
sale in Ex.A.1 is intended to carry on the obligations
and materialise the same in the form of registered
sale deed or whether Ex.A.1 was a measure of
security obtained by the creditor from the debtor as
contended by the appellant/defendant?
2. Whether the facts on record indicate that the trial
Court ought to have denied the relief of specific
performance and it failed to consider the facts and
circumstances and thereby requiring interference of
this Court?
Dr. VRKS, J
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9. The agreement for sale is Ex.A.1. An agreement for sale
comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the
purchaser agrees to purchase for an agreed consideration on
agreed terms. Ex.A.1 is dated 08.08.2002 which was registered
at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Undi. It bears the signatures of the
appellant/defendant and his photograph, thumb impression and
signature and the endorsements of the Sub-Registrar
authenticating the truth of all this. It is attested by two witnesses
and it also bears the signature of the scribe. There are two
identifying witnesses also. As per this document, vendor agreed
to sell the property for Rs.3,21,000/-. Vendor acknowledged that
he received Rs.3,00,000/- towards part of the sale consideration.
It was agreed between parties that the balance sale consideration
of Rs.21,000/- was to be paid by the purchaser to the vendor on
or before 08.08.2003. On receipt of that Rs.21,000/- vendor
agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the
purchaser. It also mentions that if the vendor failed to pay the
balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, he should
pay it with 18% interest per annum. It is also agreed between
parties that the property has to be sold and purchased in terms of
the extent mentioned in the link document (Ex.A.2). It is a non-
possessory agreement for sale. In the document it is mentioned
that the vendor was selling out this property for the needs of his
family and for discharge of his debts. Ac.2.97 cents is the land
that is agreed to be sold, which is covered by Ex.A.2 disclosing
Dr. VRKS, J
the ownership of the vendor for that property. Thus, this is a case
where the vendor who owned Ac.10.00 cents of land wanted to
sell Ac.2.97 cents only. One of the attestors testified as PW.2
and the scribe of the document testified as PW.3. Both the
witnesses coherently said the truth of the contents of this
document and the vendor receiving money of Rs.3,00,000/- as
advance sale consideration and signing this document. The
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is to the effect that Ex.A.1 is a true
document whereunder the vendor agreed to sell and the
purchaser agreed to purchase the property. According to these
witnesses, this is not a document obtained as a security for any
loan. They also said that the vendor signed the document only
after appraising himself of all its contents. In this appeal this is
questioned by the appellant. One of the contentions is that the
vendor's signatures were obtained on blank stamped papers and
blank promissory notes. The contentions have to be scrutinized.
DW.6 is a person from the neighbourhood of the parties and he
stated that he knows both parties to this agreement and he knows
the entire transactions between them. He said that he saw the
plaintiff obtaining from the defendant signatures on empty stamp
papers and empty promissory notes. Thus, he supports the
version of vendor. His credibility was tested during cross-
examination. In his cross-examination he had stated that he saw
the vendor signing on blank Rs.100/- stamp papers. Thus, he
wanted to convince the Court with such details. When one looks
at Ex.A.1, one would see six stamp papers are used for making
this document. The first three stamps are of a value of Rs.5,000/-.
Dr. VRKS, J
Then there are two stamps in the value of Rs.500/- and then
there is one stamp in the value of Rs.100/-. All the stamps are
shown to have been sold on 07.08.2002. Be it noted, on
08.08.2002 the agreement for sale was executed. When the
evidence of DW.6 is examined as against this document, it is at
once clear that what he was speaking is not truth. His version of
blank signature on Rs.100/- value stamp paper does not match
with the value of the stamps and the date on which they were
sold for consumption. Evidence of DW.6 indicates that the
signatures on empty papers were obtained during the year 1998
or 1999. As one could see the stamp papers used in Ex.A.1 were
sold on 07.08.2002 but the debt was borrowed long prior to that.
10. In the written statement, it was mentioned by the
defendant/appellant that he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the
plaintiff in the year 2002. In examination-in-chief he further states
that he repaid that amount in the year 1999. He further said that
he demanded the plaintiff for return of his empty stamp papers
and empty promissory notes way back in the year 1999 itself.
One could not really understand that a debt he allegedly
borrowed in the year 2002 was discharged by him in the year
1999 itself. Thus, it was discharged first and borrowed later. It is
against anyone's comprehension. He then stated in his evidence,
he opened a khata with the plaintiff about purchase of prawn feed
and it occurred in the year 1999. Then he also said that he is not
at all indebted to the plaintiff under the said khata as he has
always been paying the money for each bill. He said that Ex.B-
Dr. VRKS, J
series documents are credit bills under which defendant used to
purchase the aqua feed from plaintiff. On perusing these
documents, it is seen that they start from the period 26.07.2003
and the last bill pertain to Ex.B.51 dated 22.10.2003. Thus,
Ex.B.1 dated 26.07.2003 itself is subsequent to Ex.A.1 dated
08.08.2002. Ex.A.3-notice is dated 06.08.2003. Even thereafter
defendant was purchasing the aqua feed from the plaintiff
evidenced by Exs.B.4 to B.15. According to DW.1, he purchases
aqua feed on credit basis under one bill and when he goes for
next purchase, he pays the earlier credit bill and then only
purchases feed under a new credit bill. If that is so considered,
he must have paid all the money due under all these credit bills.
DW.1 states that he voluntarily executed Ex.A.1. To come out of
the above equations, he started telling in his evidence he was
going to put investments in prawn tanks in future and for that the
plaintiff obtained security from him. This is appropriately
considered by the learned trial Court. The above piece of
evidence makes it crystal clear that the appellant is not honest,
and his dishonesty is apparent from his jumping stances from one
page of his evidence to another page of his evidence. While it
seems that right thinking people oblige the promises they make,
the defendant/appellant is one who seems to make promises only
to be broken.
11. The Registration Act, 1908 was enacted with the intention
of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to
transactions relating to immovable property and protection from
Dr. VRKS, J
fraud and forgery of document of transfer. It gives solemnity of
form and perpetuates documents which are of legal importance.
Registration of a document ensures that every person dealing
with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the
statements contained in the registered document as a full and
complete account of the transactions mentioned in it. Ex.A.1 is
the registered document. The appellant/defendant is not a small
man and he owns Ac.10.00 cents of land and he cultivates fish
and prawn and has been in business dealings in his trade.
Though he claims to be an illiterate, it is crystal clear that he is
man of wealth and man of various transactions. His contention of
ignorance of contents of Ex.A.1 is an apparent pretention on his
part. The material brought by him in the form of other evidence
including that of DW.6 and the evidence of himself demonstrated
the falsity of his contentions. The evidence led by him is against
his written contentions. The clearly seen facts and circumstances
could not convince a reasonable prudent man to accept his
contentions. The trial Court rightly held that Ex.A.1 is an outcome
of true representation of intentions between parties and it is not a
document obtained for security. This Court on fresh assessment
of the evidence on record categorically records that the
appellant/defendant is not indebted to respondent/plaintiff either
by way of borrowal money or by way of purchase of prawn and
fish feed on credit basis. Be it noted that he received Ex.A.3-
notice and did not respond by a reply notice. His contention of
indebtedness is not borne out by any document on his part. As
per their evidence, DWs.2 to 6 have not witnessed any
Dr. VRKS, J
indebtedness. Their evidence in cross-examination shows it was
their assumption out of which they were speaking. Ex.A.1 is a
registered document and if, in the opinion of the vendor/appellant,
it does not reflect the true intention of him, he ought to have
issued a notice for its cancellation and he ought to have sued for
cancellation of the document. He did nothing. He said in his
evidence that he took no steps concerning Ex.A.1 against the
purchaser/plaintiff.
12. The only effort of appellant is that he allegedly took
mediators and the respondent/plaintiff admitted before them that
he would not file the suit. These witnesses are unable to say
when the mediation was held and what were the discussions,
what was the total outcome and what was the resolution reached
on that day. The so-called DWs.2 to 6 did not obtain a written
acknowledgment from plaintiff in that regard. Their evidence is
totally broad, general and vague, lacking in all necessary details.
Discerning person discard their evidence. Trial Court rightly did it.
In this appeal, learned counsel for appellant failed to show any
infirmity in the approach of the trial Court in appreciating all this
evidence.
13. This is a case where the total sale consideration is
Rs.3,21,000/- and under Ex.A.1 Rs.3,00,000/- was already paid.
It happened in the year 2002. The outer date for payment was
08.08.2003. Well before it on 06.08.2003 itself plaintiff got issued
Ex.A.3-notice and that indicates his readiness and willingness to
perform his part of the contract. As the defendant did not execute
Dr. VRKS, J
the requisite sale deed, the purchaser had to sue him in the year
2004. It is never the case of appellant/defendant that the
purchaser was not ready or willing or that the purchaser had no
money to pay. Be it noted, by the time of agreement for sale in
the year 2002 vendor-appellant was in possession of the plaint
schedule property. Till today he is in possession of the plaint
schedule property. Thus, the appellant is not only in possession
of his own property and doing his own aqua culture and earning
profits out of it, he also retained advance sale consideration of
Rs.3,00,000/- received from plaintiff for all these years. It is in
this context of facts one has to notice the claim of the
appellant/vendor that he would pay some money to the purchaser
and the Court should therefore deny specific performance to the
purchaser. Rise in prices is the argument laid by the learned
counsel for appellant and he requests the Court to take a judicial
notice of it. How much is the rise in prices is a matter of fact
which has to be shown by the parties. While DW.1 stated that
Ac.1.00 cents of land would cost Rs.10,00,000/-, he admitted in
his cross-examination that he did not file a document showing the
value of the property. One would notice that under Ex.A.2 this
appellant became owner of this property in the year 1995. He
purchased this property for Rs.1,18,800/-. Seven years thereafter
in the year 2002 he agreed to sell it to the respondent/plaintiff for
Rs.3,21,000/-. In the form of evidence no document was shown
about the exact prices of this land when the suit was filed in the
year 2004. Mere subsequent rise in the prices will not be treated
as a hardship entailing refusal of the decree of specific
Dr. VRKS, J
performance. Rise in prices is a normal change of circumstance
and therefore on that ground a decree for specific performance
cannot be reversed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in K.Prakash v. B.R.Sampath Kumar3. In
U.N.Krishnamurthy's case (supra 2) relied on by the learned
counsel for appellant, their Lordships only say that in those cases
where insignificant part of sale consideration is paid by the
purchaser the Court has to consider the relative hardship in
granting specific performance and it is in that context Courts have
to evaluate the facts and circumstances and then consider the
steep raise in the prices of immovable properties. When so
considered by this Court, it is clear to it, the rise in prices for a
vendor who has been in occupation of the property for about 22
years depriving the intending purchaser from the fruits of enjoying
the property shall weigh. Therefore, plainly the decision shall go
in favour of the purchaser and not in favour of the vendor. A true
and valid Ex.A.1 should have in the normal course materialized
into a regular registered sale deed between these close friends.
However, for all the invalid reasons the agreement was put to
trial.
14. In summation, it is recorded that the true intention between
the parties was to sell and purchase the immovable property and
accordingly Ex.A.1-registerd agreement for sale was executed.
Ex.A.1 was not executed as a measure of security for repayment
of any debt, past or present or future. The impugned judgment is
(2015) 1 SCC 597
Dr. VRKS, J
correct and effective in every respect and this Court finds no
defect in it to effect any change in it. Both the points are
answered against the appellant.
15. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the
impugned judgment dated 12.04.2012 of learned III Additional
District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram in O.S.No.56 of
2004 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 20.06.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
Date: 20.06.2024
Ivd
