Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Subba Lakshmamma vs Tambi Sreenivasulu on 1 May, 2024
APHC010517072013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 692/2013
Between:
P.Subba Lakshmamma ...APPELLANT
AND
Tambi Sreenivasulu ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. M RADHAKRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.692 of 2013
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
APPEAL SUIT No.692 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
This is defendant's appeal under Section 96 of Code of
Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugning the judgment dated
20.02.2013 of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at
Nandyal in O.S.No.2 of 2012. During the pendency of the appeal,
the sole appellant died and her legal representatives were
brought on record as appellant No.2 and appellant No.3. The
sole respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
2. Parties to the litigation are closely related. Father of the
plaintiff is the elder brother of the defendant. The appellant-
defendant owns the plaint schedule property. On 22.09.2010 the
owner allegedly agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a
total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and at the time of the
bargain she received Rs.15,00,000/- towards part of the sale
consideration and agreed to get O.S.No.83 of 2005 resolved and
then receive the balance sale consideration and register the
regular registered sale deed. It is also allegedly agreed that if
she could not get the suit resolved within six months from the
date of agreement for sale, she would refund Rs.15,00,000/- that
she had received along with 24% interest per annum. To this
effect, an unregistered Ex.A.1-agreement for sale was entered
into between the parties. It is this bargain that resulted in dispute
between parties. Alleging that the deceased first appellant owner
Dr. VRKS, J
despite the civil suit being resolved and despite being demanded
failed to receive the balance sale consideration and failed to
register the regular sale deed, the purchaser filed O.S.No.2 of
2012 with a prayer for specific performance and he also made an
alternative prayer for refund of advance sale consideration along
with 24% interest per annum and for costs and such other reliefs.
3. The defendant filed a written statement and denied the
execution of agreement for sale and denied about receiving of
Rs.15,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration and stated
that the alleged agreement for sale is a fabricated and
manipulated document pressed into service for knocking away
the property of her which is worth Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Written
statement makes a reference to her reply notice dated
17.11.2011 concerning a debt transaction between the parties.
Finally, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal
framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance
of agreement of sale dated 22.09.2010?
2. Whether the agreement of sale dated 22.09.2010 is a
forged document?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of amount with
interest?
4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
Dr. VRKS, J
5. At the trial, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and one of the
attesting witnesses of Ex.A.1-agreement for sale testified as
PW.2 and the scribe of the said document testified as PW.3 and
Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. Defendant testified as DW.1 and
two elders testified as DW.2 and DW.3. Her own son testified as
DW.4 and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked.
6. After considering the material on record and after
considering the arguments advanced on both sides, learned trial
Court recorded that it found truth in the case of the plaintiff and
that by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, Ex.A.1-agreement for sale
was proved and the fact that plaintiff paid and defendant received
Rs.15,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration was proved.
It disbelieved the defence of the defendant that amounts received
by her were only towards a debt and that she did not receive
Rs.15,00,000/- but she received only Rs.9,00,000/-. However,
the learned trial Court stated that in view of the fact that the
dispute is between relatives, the primary relief of specific
performance could not be granted and accordingly, it refused to
grant the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale.
However, it ordered for refund of advance sale consideration of
Rs.15,00,000/- and granted 24% interest per annum over the said
amount from the date of agreement for sale till the date of
realization. It granted three months time to the defendant to pay
the decreed amounts to the plaintiff.
7. It is that judgment which is challenged in this appeal.
Dr. VRKS, J
8. Sri M.Radhakrishna, the learned counsel for appellants and
Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for
respondent, submitted arguments.
9. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the suit ought to
have been dismissed since the respondent/plaintiff suppressed
real facts and did not come to Court with clean hands. That the
evidence on record including the admissions made by PW.1 are
to the effect that Ex.A.1 was not true, valid and binding, but the
trial Court erred in holding otherwise. The evidence led by
plaintiff was discrepant and inconsistent. Material on evidence
would indicate mala fides on part of plaintiff and the learned trial
Court missed to give attention to it. That the defence raised by
the appellants about the debt transaction between parties was
substantiated by virtue of Exs.B.2 and B.3 and the evidence of
DWs.1 to 4 and Ex.B-series documents would show the
genuineness of the defence raised before the trial Court. It is
further urged that forgery was not pleaded but the trial Court
considered the case as one of forgery of Ex.A.1 and that is
material irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court. It is also
argued that Rs.1,85,000/- towards interest was paid and the
same is evidenced by Ex.B.5 and the learned trial Court failed to
give proper credit to it. For all these reasons, the learned counsel
seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
10. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff
argued that by virtue of evidence of PWs.1 to 3, Ex.A.1-
agreement for sale was proved. The very son of the deceased
Dr. VRKS, J
first appellant who deposed as DW.4 also attested this document.
That to avoid her obligation arising out of Ex.A.1, all false
defences were taken up and the learned trial Court rightly
analysed the evidence and reached to appropriate conclusions
and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned
judgment and seeks dismissal of the appeal.
11. The point that falls for consideration is:
"Whether the evidence on record was incorrectly
appreciated by the learned trial Court leading to
erroneous conclusions and thereby it is perverse
and is liable to be interfered with?"
POINT:
12. On refusal to grant the primary relief of specific
performance of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff-respondent
did not prefer cross-objections or cross-appeal. What is at
dispute is the decree granting refund of money along with
interest. The primary as well as alternative reliefs are based on
Ex.A.1-agreement for sale. The relationship between parties is
not in dispute. Existence of a civil suit between the deceased first
appellant and a third party by the time of Ex.A.1 is also
undisputed. The contents of Ex.A.5/Ex.B.1-reply notice dated
17.11.2011 of deceased first appellant does indicate the financial
difficulties of her. The evidence of deceased first appellant as
DW.1 and her Ex.B.6 would further show the financial needs of
her as she was raising some more loans from financial
Dr. VRKS, J
institutions. Ex.A.1-agreement for sale bears the purported
signature of this deceased first appellant. The signature on it is
not disputed by her. Her son deposing as DW.4 verified Ex.A.1
and stated that it bears the signature of his mother and he further
stated that he himself signed on it as one of the attesting
witnesses. It is in the light of these facts, the evidence of PWs.1
to 3 is seen and the unanimous version of these witnesses is that
the owner of the property/deceased first appellant agreed to sell
her property and signed Ex.A.1 and in evidence of it her son also
signed as attestor. Their evidence also shows that the plaintiff
paid and she received Rs.15,00,000/- towards part of the agreed
sale consideration. All that evidence proved the due execution of
Ex.A.1 by deceased first appellant/defendant. The contention of
the appellants is that the deceased first appellant was in need of
money and borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- from the plaintiff and at that
time signature of her and her son were obtained on blank stamp
papers and blank promissory notes and Ex.A.1 is got fabricated
on such blank documents. This contention was analysed by the
trial Court and it stated that the evidence of DW.2 and DW.3
before whom this dispute was raised and Ex.B.4 dated
19.08.2011 contains the settlement arrived at between the parties
and all that would go to show the falsity of the defence raised by
the defendant-deceased first appellant and therefore it negatived
the contentions of the deceased first appellant. Since that aspect
of the matter is challenged here, this Court has scrutinized
Ex.B.4. In the presence of DW.2 and DW.3, between the parties
to this litigation, a settlement was arrived at. In Ex.B.4 it is
Dr. VRKS, J
mentioned that the deceased first appellant-defendant agreed to
pay Rs.14,70,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff on or before
15.09.2011 and on receipt of such money, the respondent-plaintiff
had to return the agreement as well as two blank promissory
notes. Thus, the existence of Ex.A.1-agreement for sale is a
matter of record even as per Ex.B.4. It may be true that there are
certain negotiable instruments exchanged between the parties,
but existence of such negotiable instruments by themselves
cannot allow one to conclude that this agreement for sale is a
spurious document. While in the reply notice in Ex.B.1, the
deceased first appellant stated that she owed Rs.9,00,000/- from
her brother's son, the fact that she had agreed before elders and
signed Ex.B.4 that she would refund Rs.14,70,000/- would go a
long way in showing the changing contentions of the appellants
from stage to stage. It is undisputed that by 15.09.2011 the
deceased first appellant did not pay the agreed amount to the
respondent/plaintiff. Thus, she herself resiled from what was
there in Ex.B.4. She had not explained the effect of Ex.B.4
anywhere in her written statement. She did not even refer to
Ex.B.4 in her written statement. It is in the light of these facts and
circumstances that are available on record, this Court finds that
the approach adopted by the learned trial Court and the manner
in which it assessed the rival contentions and the evidence is
correct and is in accordance with law. Learned trial Court is right
in granting the refund of sale consideration.
Dr. VRKS, J
13. As per Ex.A.1, the deceased first appellant agreed to
refund Rs.15,00,000/- along with 24% interest per annum.
Learned trial Court took that into consideration and granted 24%
interest per annum from the date of Ex.A.1 which is 22.09.2010,
and directed the deceased first appellant-defendant to pay 24%
interest per annum till realization. Learned counsel on both sides
submitted their arguments concerning this rate of interest.
Learned counsel for appellants argued that the impugned
transaction being personal between parties and not a commercial
transaction the rate of interest granted by the trial Court shall be
held excessive. Learned counsel for respondent contends that
what was granted by the trial Court is only what was agreed
between the parties and therefore, it cannot be found fault with.
14. Learned counsel on both sides submit that during the
pendency of this appeal, by virtue of the orders of this Court
dated 13.09.2013 in A.S.M.P.No.1975 of 2013, the deceased first
appellant had deposited Rs.9,00,000/- before the learned trial
Court and that shall be given due credit. On hearing both sides,
the said payment is considered as payment towards the amount
due.
15. Having considered the rival submissions on the component
of rate of interest, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of
justice would be met in the following terms:
On the principal sum of Rs.15,00,000/- appellant Nos.2 and
3 shall pay 24% interest per annum from 22.09.2010 (date of
Dr. VRKS, J
Ex.A.1) to till 02.01.2012 which is the date of institution of the suit.
Pendente lite interest from 02.01.2012 till 20.02.2013 shall be at
12% per annum. Subsequent interest from the date of decree of
the trial Court till the date of realization shall carry 6% interest per
annum.
From To Duration Principal Interest Total amount
Amount of interest
22.09.2010 02.01.2012 15 Rs.15,00,000/- 24% Rs.4,61,000/-
months
11 days
02.01.2012 20.02.2013 13 Rs.15,00,000/- 12% Rs.2,04,000/-
months
18 days
20.02.2013 24.04.2014 14 Rs.15,00,000/- 6% Rs.1,06,000/-
months 4
days
24.04.2014 01.05.2024 119 Rs.6,00,000/- 6% Rs.3,60,624/-
months
24 days
The total Principal amount : Rs.15,00,000/-
The amount that was already deposited : Rs. 9,00,000/-
Remaining Principal Amount: Rs.6,00,000/-
Total Amount of interest: Rs.11,31,624/-
Total amount payable as on 01.05.2024: Rs.17,31,624/-
Dr. VRKS, J
Appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall pay the amount of Rs.17,31,624/- to
the respondent/plaintiff within a period of two (2) months from the
date of this judgment. It is made clear that the principal sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum till the actual
and full payment is made.
16. In the above referred terms, this Appeal is allowed in part.
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2013 of
learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in
O.S.No.2 of 2012 shall stand modified. 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: 01.05.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
Date: 01.05.2024
Ivd
