Telangana High Court
Pilli Bala Mallesh vs Sri Sai Swetha Realtors And Promoters ... on 3 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.602 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Challenging the judgment and decree dated
07.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.1637 of 2006 by the learned I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.
Nagar, the present Appeal Suit is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, a real
estate company, filed a suit for specific performance based
on an agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005, wherein the
defendants (three brothers) agreed to sell five acres of land
for ₹49 lakhs. The plaintiff made an advance payment of ₹10
lakhs, with the remaining amount to be paid in four
installments before 30.06.2006. Over time, the plaintiff paid
₹44,64,000, leaving a balance of ₹4,38,000. While the
defendants executed registered sale deeds for four acres,
Defendant No.1 refused to execute the sale deed for the
remaining one acre and later issued a legal notice on
02.07.2006, canceling the agreement, citing the plaintiff's
alleged default. The defendants claimed that there was an
SKS,J
understanding to restrict the sale to four acres and that the
plaintiff was compensated with 16 guntas of land in another
survey number. However, the court found no evidence
supporting this claim and determined that the plaintiff had
fulfilled its obligations under the contract and was always
ready and willing to complete the transaction.
3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed
three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2
were examined and Ex.A1 to A30 are marked. DWs.1 and 2
are examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of
the defendants.
4. After considering the evidence, the trial Court, vide
order dated 07.02.2008, decreed the suit holding that the
defendant could not unilaterally cancel the agreement and
ordered the execution of the sale deed for the remaining one
acre upon payment of the balance amount of ₹4,38,000.
Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present
appeal suit is filed.
SKS,J
5. Heard Sri B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants as well as Sri N.A. Jairaj, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary
to law and facts of the case. The trial Court erred in
decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff,
despite the appellants/defendants having specifically
pleaded and proved that they had executed and registered
sale deeds in respect of their agricultural lands, as agreed
upon in the agreement of sale dated 30.06.2005. He further
submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence
on record, including Ex.A2, Ex.A23, and Ex.A24 to Ex.A28,
which clearly established that the appellants/defendants
have performed their part of the contract.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
trial Court misdirected itself by wrongly fixing the burden of
proof on the appellants/defendants and ignoring the
pleadings and evidence on record. The trial Court also failed
to frame a specific issue regarding the oral settlement
arrived at between the parties, which resulted in the
SKS,J
appellants/defendants executing and registering a sale deed
in respect of their own land, thereby abandoning the claim
of the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of the
agreement of sale. He further contended that the suit laid
by the respondent/plaintiff is bad in law due to misjoinder
of parties and the trial court's failure to address and decide
the rights of the appellants/defendants. The trial Court also
erred in decreeing the suit, despite the respondent/plaintiff
being indefinite in seeking specific performance of the
agreement of sale. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008 by
allowing this appeal suit.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
filed counter denying the allegations leveled against the
appellants stating that the application of the appellants
seeking leave to urge additional grounds is devoid of merit
and liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have failed to
demonstrate any valid reason for seeking to urge additional
grounds at this belated stage, nearly 16 years after filing the
appeal. He further submitted that attempt by the appellants
to seek leave to urge additional grounds are a mere dilatory
SKS,J
tactic aimed at delaying the inevitable. The respondent has
already obtained a decree in his favor and has deposited the
amount as per the directions of the trial Court. The actions
of the appellants are causing undue harassment to the
respondent. He contended that the appellants' grounds are
already on record, and the proposed additional grounds are
nothing but a repetition of the earlier grounds in different
wording and context. This is impermissible, and no
prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the additional
grounds are not permitted to be received.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended
that the appellants are not entitled to seek leave to urge
additional grounds, as the first appellate Court has the
power to scan the entire material on record and decide the
appeal on all aspects. The appellants' application is a
blatant attempt to delay and harass the respondent, and the
Court should not come to their aid. He further contended
that the trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and
decree and there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial
Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal
suit.
SKS,J
10. Now the points for consideration are:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of
agreement of sale as prayed for?
ii. Whether Ex.B3 document is executed for 16 guntas of land in
lieu of one acre of remaining land in Ex.A2?
iii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court requires interference ?
Point Nos. i and ii:
11. In light of the submissions made by both learned
counsel and after perusing the material available on record,
it appears that the suit was originally filed by the plaintiff
for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated
30.06.2005, under which the appellants had entered into an
agreement to sell 5 acres of land for a sum of Rs.49 lakhs at
the rate of Rs.9,80,000/- per acre. The appellants received
a total amount of Rs.44,62,000/-, leaving a balance of
Rs.4,38,000/- in respect of the land situated in
Sy.Nos.254/A and 236. According to the plaintiff, a sale
deed was executed for 4 acres of land out of the 5 acres as
agreed. However, there was a dispute concerning
Sy.No.236, which was later renumbered as Sy.No.255. The
Sub-Registrar raised an objection and requested the plaintiff
to allow additional time for rectification of the issue
SKS,J
concerning the survey number. The plaintiff, therefore,
granted time for the execution of the registered sale deed.
12. Subsequently, with the escalation in land prices, the
defendant approached the plaintiff demanded 5 lakhs for
registration of land. However, the plaintiff did not agree to
this, thereby defendant issued a notice on 02.07.2006
informing the plaintiff of the cancellation of the agreement of
sale dated 30.06.2005. In response, the plaintiff filed the
suit.
13. The grounds of appeal show that, subsequent to the
execution of the agreement of sale (Ex.A2), a sale deed for 16
guntas of land from Sy.No.255 was executed in favor of the
plaintiff, in lieu of one acre of land covered under the
agreement. The appellants contend that the trial Court
erred in dismissing the suit, despite this fact.
14. First, it is not in dispute that the agreement of sale
(Ex.A2) was executed on 30.06.2005, for the purchase of five
acres of land from the appellants. As per the agreement, the
1st, 2nd, and 3rd installments of Rs.9,75,000/- each were
paid. The appellants executed a registered sale deed for four
SKS,J
acres in favor of the respondent, as per the terms of the
agreement. According to the respondent, the remaining land
was not conveyed due to an objection raised by the RDO.
The appellants contend that he had already executed a sale
deed for 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.255 in lieu of one acre of
land covered under the agreement. Therefore, he asserts
that the remaining contract was fulfilled.
15. Ex.A2, however, does not mention that 16 guntas of
land were agreed to be sold in exchange for one acre of land.
The sale deed through which the 16 guntas of land was
purchased does not reference the 16 guntas of land as part
of the agreement. The appellants claims that the
transaction of 16 guntas of land is an independent
transaction, and no document has been submitted to show
that this land was sold to the respondent in lieu of the one
acre of land covered by Ex.A2.
16. The appellants further contends that the trial Court
failed to examine Exs.A23 to A28, which contain crucial
documents relating to the terms of Ex.A2, and misread the
evidence presented in the case. Ex.A24 is a sale deed
executed by the appellants in favor of the respondent for
SKS,J
land measuring 36 guntas in Sy.Nos.254/R, 255/R. Ex.A25
is a sale deed for 22 guntas in Sy.No.254/R, Ex.A26 is a
sale deed for one acre in Sy.No.254/R, Ex.A27 is a sale deed
for 0.22 guntas, and Ex.A28 is a sale deed for one acre.
These sale deeds demonstrate that the appellants executed
registered sale deeds for four acres of land.
17. However, the contention of the appellants that he
executed the registered sale deed for 16 guntas in
Sy.No.255, as reflected in Ex.B3, is not supported by any
recital in the sale deed. The sale deed does not mention that
16 guntas of land were sold to the respondent in lieu of the
one acre covered under Ex.A2. Therefore, it cannot be
considered that the remaining land was sold to the
respondent in fulfillment of the agreement of sale.
18. Furthermore, it is important to assess whether the
respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract. The records indicate that when the appellants
demanded an additional payment of Rs.5 lakhs, the
respondent refused. Subsequently, the appellants sent a
notice for the cancellation of the agreement of sale. The
cancellation notice, Ex.A23, indicates that the total sale
SKS,J
consideration of Rs.49 lakhs was to be paid by 30.06.2006,
but the respondent willfully failed to pay the balance sale
consideration within the stipulated time. As a result, the
agreement was cancelled.
19. After the cancellation, the plaintiff filed the suit. The
notice for cancellation was issued on 02.07.2006, three days
after the expiration of the payment deadline, without any
prior notice demanding payment of the balance sale
consideration. This suggests that the time was of the
essence in the contract, and the failure to make the
payment by the respondent was a material breach.
20. The appellants further asserts that the plaintiff failed
to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,38,000/-.
However, the appellants did not issue any notice demanding
payment before sending the legal notice for cancellation.
Had the respondent not been willing to pay, the appellants
would have been expected to issue a notice demanding the
balance amount.
21. The appellants' claim that the sale consideration for
the remaining one acre is Rs.9,75,000/-, and that only half
SKS,J
of this amount is still due, is contested by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff maintains that he is ready to pay the balance
amount and was willing to go to the registration office to
execute the remaining sale deed, but the transaction was
not completed due to the objection raised by the RDO.
22. Upon careful consideration, it appears that the
appellants failed to take a consistent position regarding the
payment and the execution of the sale deed, leading to
doubts about the respondent's willingness to perform his
part of the contract. The notice for cancellation was issued
within three days of the expiration of the deadline without
prior communication, which was not in accordance with the
terms of the agreement. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit.
The order of the trial Court is upheld, and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
Point No.iii:
23. In view of the above discussion in point Nos. i and ii,
there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The
trial Court discussed all the issues and it is a well reasoned
SKS,J
judgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the
judgment.
24. In view thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed
confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2008
passed in O.S.No.1637 of 2006 by the learned I Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 03.04.2025
SAI
