Telangana High Court
Madala Ramadevi, vs Made China Kotaiah on 10 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT No.267 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in
O.S.No.259 of 2008 by the learned XIII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, the present
appeal suit is filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a
suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Civil
Procedure Code seeking specific performance of an agreement
of sale dated 14.05.2007. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1,
M. Chenna Kotaiah, was the absolute owner of the suit
property located at Thattianaram Village, Ranga Reddy
District, and entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff
for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which
Rs.14,00,000/- was allegedly paid as advance. The plaintiff
claimed that despite readiness and willingness to pay the
balance, the defendant failed to complete the sale and instead
executed a subsequent sale agreement-cum-GPA on
17.01.2008 in favor of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.1
SKS, J
remained ex parte. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, however, denied
the claims of the plaintiff before the trial Court and asserted
that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the property to them for
Rs.18,70,000/-. They entered into an agreement on
06.12.2007 and paid Rs.3,00,000/- initially, later clearing the
outstanding housing loan of Rs.10,76,320/- to redeem the
mortgage on the property. A registered agreement of sale-
cum-GPA was executed in their favor (Ex.B1), and they
claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value. They also
contended that defendant No.1 had a habit of signing blank
papers and cheques, casting doubt on the plaintiff's
agreement.
3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed
four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2
were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. DWs.1 to 3 are
examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked on behalf of the
defendants.
4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order
dated 24.01.2015, dismissed the suit observing that there are
discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the
SKS, J
plaintiff's version, particularly regarding the payment of
Rs.14,00,000/- allegedly made in cash without
documentation. The supporting witness (PW2) gave
inconsistent testimony, weakening the case of the plaintiff. In
contrast, defendant Nos.2 and 3 provided credible
documentary evidence (Exs.B1 to B15), proving payment and
possession. Due to the non-appearance of defendant No.1
and the doubtful circumstances around the agreement of the
plaintiff, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to
prove the validity of the agreement. Aggrieved thereby, the
present appeal suit is filed.
5. Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri V. Satyam
Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are incorrect
and against the evidence and law and that the trial Court
wrongly rejected the claim of the plaintiff for specific
performance based on assumptions instead of properly
SKS, J
considering the documents and witness testimonies. The trial
Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff only because she is
from a different district and has no business in Hyderabad.
He further submitted that there is nothing unusual about
someone wanting to buy property in the capital city and that
the trial Court ignored that defendant Nos.2 and 3 claimed
ownership through an agreement of Sale-cum-General Power
of Attorney, which does not transfer title under the law. He
further submitted that even if the document is genuine, it only
gives them the right to seek specific performance from
defendant No.1, which they never did, and are now barred by
limitation.
7. Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant proved her case by examining the attesting witness,
and his evidence remained unchallenged and that the trial
Court also failed to notice the collusion among the defendants,
especially since defendant No.1 remained ex-parte and did not
appear to give evidence. He further contended that the blank
cheque relied on by the defendants raises suspicion and
shows further collusion. Moreover, the agreement of sale
relied upon by the defendants is not admissible in evidence as
SKS, J
it was not properly stamped. He further contended that the
trial Court made its decision based on assumptions rather
than evidence, and the dismissal of the suit is unjust.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of
the trial court by allowing this appeal suit.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the plaint itself reveals that there is no proper
basis for the agreement, as no registered sale deed was
executed in favour of the plaintiff despite the alleged payment
of Rs.14,00,000/-. He further submitted that the
appellant/plaintiff has not filed any receipt to prove the
payment of the advance amount, nor has she explained the
source of funds used to pay the said amount to defendant
No.1. This, according to the respondents, indicates that the
document is fabricated to defeat the rights of Defendant Nos.2
and 3. He further contended that Ex.A1 lacks credibility and
that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not support
her claim. Hence, he prayed the Court that the appeal suit be
dismissed.
SKS, J
9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal
are:
i. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
specific performance of the agreement of sale under
Ex.A1?
ii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court warrants any
interference?
Point No.i:
10. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel
on either side and upon careful perusal of the material
available on record, it appears that the suit has been filed by
the appellant/plaintiff seeking specific performance of the
agreement of sale marked as Ex.A1. The case of the appellant
is that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale with
her for the suit schedule property for a total consideration of
Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was allegedly
paid in cash. As per the terms of the agreement, defendant
No.1 was to complete construction of the cement-structured
house, deliver possession, and thereafter execute a registered
sale deed upon payment of the remaining sale consideration.
SKS, J
11. In support of her claim, the appellant/plaintiff relied on
Ex.A1 (agreement of sale), Ex.A2 (office copy of legal notice
dated 30.01.2008), Exs.A3 and A4 (returned covers and postal
acknowledgment), and Ex.A5 (certified copy of the agreement
of sale-cum-GPA). It is a settled principle of law that in a suit
for specific performance, the plaintiff must not only prove the
execution of a valid agreement but also establish her
continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of
the contract.
12. In the present case, although the agreement of sale is
dated 14.05.2007, no time limit for performance was specified.
However, the plaintiff claims that she approached defendant
No.1 in the first week of November 2007 to pay the balance
sale consideration, but defendant No.1 was not ready to
perform his part of the contract. It was only on 30.01.2008
that a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff, which raises
doubts regarding her readiness and willingness.
13. Further, the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary
evidence, such as receipts or bank records, to substantiate
the alleged payment of Rs.14,00,000/-. During her evidence,
SKS, J
she vaguely stated that the amount was adjusted from her
dowry, but no further proof was submitted in support of this
claim. She also admitted that she never visited the suit
schedule property before entering into the agreement, which
further weakens her case.
14. Further, the documents filed by the defendants,
including Ex.B2 (agreement of sale dated 03.12.2007), reveal
that defendant No.1 had entered into a subsequent agreement
of sale with the husband of defendant No.3, who is also the
father of defendant No.2, for a higher sale consideration of
Rs.18,70,000/-, out of which Rs.14,97,320/- was duly
acknowledged and supported by receipts. The defendants also
produced Ex.B1 (registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA),
Exs.B5 to B7 (loan discharge documents), and Ex.B13
(electricity demand notices in the name of DW1), which
collectively establish their possession and payment of sale
consideration.
15. The evidence of DW1 and DW3 further corroborates the
fact that defendant No.1 had a practice of signing blank
documents and issuing blank cheques due to his
SKS, J
indebtedness. Ex.B15, a blank cheque issued by defendant
No.1 in favour of DW3, supports this contention. These facts
undermine the credibility of Ex.A1 relied upon by the plaintiff.
16. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellant/plaintiff
has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform
her part of the contract. There is also no convincing evidence
to support the alleged payment of a substantial part of the
sale consideration. On the contrary, the defendants have
successfully established their case by producing credible oral
and documentary evidence, including discharge of the housing
loan on the suit schedule property.
Point No.ii:
17. In view of the above discussion in point No.i, there is no
illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court
discussed all the issues and it is a well reasoned judgment
and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment.
18. In view thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming
the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2008
SKS, J
by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 10.04.2025
SAI
SKS, J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. JUDGMENT
IN
Date: 10.04.2025
SAI
