Telangana High Court
Mirza Ahmed Baig vs Pavushetty Srinivas on 18 August, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ A.S.No.75 OF 2020
% 18--08--2025
# Sri Mirza Ahmed Baig
... Appellant
vs.
$ Sri Pavushetty Srinivas
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
2/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
A.S.No.75 OF 2020
Between:
Sri Mirza Ahmed Baig ... Appellant
And
Sri Pavushetty Srinivas ... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.08.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
A.S.NO.75 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.157 of 2015, dated 23.10.2019
by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.
2. The respondent-plaintiff has filed suit under Section 26 r/w
Order 7 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and under Sections 36
and 38 of Specific Relief Act against the appellant-defendant with a
prayer to direct the defendant to register the suit schedule property in
his favour (respondent-plaintiff), in alternative the defendant
(appellant herein) is directed to repay the amount of Rs.23,70,333/-
(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Three Hundred
and Thirty Three only) and to award costs of the suit.
3.1. Respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant are residing in
Parkal Town and they are known to each other. Appellant-defendant
approached the respondent-plaintiff on 09.04.2010 with a request to
lend Rs.10,00,000/- stating that he wants to construct a house in the
Plot purchased by him and he deposited his Deed of Agreement of
Sale, dated 11.11.2009 with the respondent-plaintiff and promised to
pay interest @ 2% per month on the loan amount and he will clear the
4/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
same by 31.03.2013. Appellant-defendant undertook that in case of
his inability in making the repayment of the loan amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- before 31.03.2013 with interest @ 2% which will be
treated as the value of the house constructed. As per the recitals of
the agreement, dated 09.04.2010, the appellant-defendant has to
register the house property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The
respondent-plaintiff has paid the above said amount to the appellant-
defendant in the presence of the witnesses. Appellant-defendant has
obtained loan for construction of the house in the Plot purchased by
him and got the Grampanchayath assessment number as 5-183/1/C.
3.2. Since more than 2 years and 8 months the appellant-defendant
has not come forward to settle the issue and that the respondent-
plaintiff is not a money lender, he made several requests to the
appellant-defendant to repay his money back with interest but he did
not care. Finally, the respondent-plaintiff got issued legal notice on
03.12.2015 calling the appellant-defendant to perform his part of
contract either to pay the money or to get the house property and Plot
register in his name within one week from the date of receipt of the
notice. Appellant-defendant received the notice on 07.12.2015 and he
got issued reply notice on 10.12.2015 with false allegations. The
amount payable by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff
is as follows:
5/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
Agreement note date 09.04.2010 Rs.10,00,000/-
amount
Interest @ 2% per month from Rs.13,67,333/-
09.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 i.e.,
(68 months and 11 days)
Legal notice charges Rs.3,000/-
Total Rs.23,70,333/-
and prayed to decree the suit.
4. Appellant-defendant has filed his written statement and
contended that he is the absolute owner, possessor of the suit
property by virtue of Agreement of Sale executed in his favour by its
erstwhile owner on 11.11.2009. Thereafter, he got the same mutated
in the records of Nagar Panchayathi Parkal and the house stands in his
name in the records, got constructed the house in the said Plot with his
hard earned money and residing therein peacefully and enjoying the
fruits of the property. Respondent-plaintiff is unauthroised money
lender in Parkal and he is involving innocent people after developing
relationship with them as money lender, obtaining their signatures of
innocent people on the blank papers by lending petty sums and
blackmailing them in many ways, appellant-defendant has become the
prey of the respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff with a malafide
intention to grab the property of the appellant-defendant which is in
prime locality has created the alleged agreement by forging his
signature and the allegations leveled against him are false and
6/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
defamatory and the suit is filed to grab the property of the appellant-
defendant, prayed to dismiss the suit and direct the respondent-
plaintiff to pay compensation to him for frivolous litigation.
5. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the agreement, dated 09.04.2010 is
Agreement of Sale?
2. Whether the agreement of Sale, dated 09.04.2010 is
true, valid and binding on defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for specific
performance?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of
amount with interest as prayed for?
5. To what relief?
6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got examined PW.2-
Palleboina Ramanna, PW.3-Molguri Venkateshwarlu, got marked
Exs.A1 to A4.
7. Appellant-defendant did not enter into witness box to
substantiate his contention.
8. Learned Trial Court after going through the evidence led by the
respondent-plaintiff and after going through the documents thereon
has decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.17,14,667/- (Rupees
Seventeen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Seven
Only) with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit
till realization on the principle amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the relief
of specific performance is rejected.
7/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
9. Respondent-plaintiff has refused the notice in the Appeal as per
the Endorsement, dated 02.03.2020.
10.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the
Trial Court has discussed all the issues together which is in gross
violation of settled principle of law as per Order 14 Rule 2 and that the
Court shall pronounce judgment on all the issues, that a part according
to Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC, 1908 and failed to follow the well settled
principles of law. Appellant-defendant has denied the suit claim made
by the respondent-plaintiff that he never executed Ex.A1 and the
admissions made by PW.1 in his cross-examination goes to show that
a person having a family from agricultural income cannot advance such
a huge loan and also failed to say the denomination during the course
of cross-examination.
10.2. The Trial Court failed to see that Ex.A1 is a compulsory
registrable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the
legal fiction was not considered by the trial Court and came to a wrong
conclusion, decreed the suit in part. The alleged Ex.A1 is on
09.04.2010, suit is instituted on 22.12.2015, money transactions are
covered under Articles 18, 19, 21 and 23, time prescribed in law is
3 years. Under Article 54 of Limitation Act, 3 years is fixed for the
date of performance or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has
notice that performance is refused, on that score, suit is barred by
8/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
limitation. According to Section 194 of Tax Deduction at Source,
interest on securities, interest on loans are covered under T.D.S.
mechanism, which are to be deducted under Section 195 of the said
Act and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is not maintainable
either on law or facts and impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, perused the
record.
12. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned
judgment and decree, dated 23.10.2019 suffers from any perversity or
illegality?
13. Ex.A1 is the Agreement, dated 09.04.2010. The recitals goes to
show that "the appellant-defendant needs some amount to construct
the house in the land admeasuring Ac.0-03 gts., equivalent to
363 Sq.yards in Sy.No.958, purchased from erstwhile owners and is in
possession, and the land papers are deposited with you for obtaining
hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, for the said amount you are charged
Rs.2/-. The entire amount will be cleared by 31.03.2013, if the said
amount is not returned to you, the agreement may be treated as sale
agreement, you take over the possession of the above said property
and house including open land and I will hand over the same to you, if
any due amount is found to be paid to you, I will pay the said amount
9/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
and I will execute the document as per your request, and the same will
be registered".
Witnesses: Sd/- Ahmed Baig
1. Sd/- S/o M.K.Baig
2. Sd/- M.Venkatesh Parkal
3. Sd/- D.Vidyasagar Rao
4. Sd/-
14. Ex.A3 is Legal Notice, dated 03.12.2015 got issued by the
respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant, which states about the
borrowing of the amount by the appellant-defendant from him and
executed Ex.A1 document, as he failed to pay the amount by
31.03.2013, vexed with his attitude got issued legal notice calling him
to register the house in his name or else to settle the accounts.
15. Ex.A4 is the Reply Notice, dated 10.12.2015 got issued by the
appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. The defense set up in
the Reply notice is that he (appellant-defendant) used to borrow
money from the respondent-plaintiff and repay the same, during such
transactions of petty loans, respondent-plaintiff has obtained his
signatures on blank papers, on clearing the amounts failed to return
the same and denied the agreement, dated 09.04.2010 in toto.
16. The evidence of respondent-plaintiff as PW.1 is the same with
that of the plaint averments. During his cross-examination, he stated
that he paid the consideration under Ex.A1 by way of cash and on the
date of execution of Ex.A1, himself (respondent-plaintiff) and the
10/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
defendant (appellant herein) scribe-Ramanna, attestors-Venkat,
Sadanandam, Vidyasagar and Buchi Rama Rao were present and he
cannot say the boundaries of the schedule property. PW.1 denied the
suggestion that Ex.A1 is forged document.
17. PW.2 is the scribe of Ex.A1. His evidence is that the
respondent-plaintiff and appellant-defendant have approached him to
draft the Agreement for Rs.10,00,000/- on 09.04.2010 and he scribed
the same. As per Ex.A1, appellant-defendant agreed to pay interest
@ 2% per month and on failure to pay the amount on or before
31.03.2013, he will register the house in the name of the respondent-
plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he stated that in his presence,
three attestors signed and that the appellant-defendant put his
signature on right side bottom. He denied the suggestion that the
signature on Ex.A1 is forged by the plaintiff.
18. PW.3 is one of the attestor. He supported the case of the
plaintiff with that of the evidence of PW.2 and no incriminating
material is elicited from his cross-examination.
19. Appellant's counsel has taken the point of Limitation for the first
time in the Appeal.
20. Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 is as under:
3. Bar of limitation:-
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24
(inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and
11/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
application made after the prescribed period shall be
dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a
defence.
21. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence adduced by the
respondent-plaintiff coupled with Exs.A1, A3 and A4, rejected the
prayer i.e., for specific performance of agreement, dated 09.04.2010
with an observation that "Though the first relief prayed by the plaintiff
(respondent herein) is to direct the defendant to register the schedule
property in his name, the same cannot be considered for a simple
reason even according to the plaintiff (respondent herein) the
defendant (appellant herein) yet to obtain registered sale deed for the
schedule property from his so called vendors namely Khasim Shareef
and Yakub Shareef in terms of Agreement of Sale obtained by him
dated 11.11.2009. Since the defendant (appellant herein) is yet to
acquire title to the schedule property, this Court is of the opinion, it
cannot direct him to execute registered sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff (respondent herein) in terms of Ex.A1. In view of the same,
the first relief sought for by the plaintiff (respondent herein) to direct
the defendant (appellant herein) to execute registered sale deed in his
favour for the schedule property cannot be ordered".
22. In so far as the alternative relief of refund in the plaint is
concerned, the Trial Court observed that the plaintiff (respondent
herein) could prove that he advanced loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
defendant (appellant herein) on 09.04.2010, this Court is of the
12/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
opinion that he is entitled to the alternative relief of refund of the
amount with interest, accordingly, these issues are settled in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant".
23. The Trial Court has framed four issues basing on the pleadings
of the parties and thought it fit that the issues are interlinked with
each other and decided them at one stretch. I find no illegality on the
said aspect.
24. It is worth mentioning that the Trial Court has decreed the suit
for a sum of Rs.17,14,667/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of suit till realization on the principle amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-. The amount claimed by the plaintiff as stated in the
plaint is Rs.23,70,333/- which is shown at Para No.3.2 (supra). There
is no reason given by the Trial Court how it has arrived at
Rs.17,14,667/-.
25. Appellant's counsel has taken the ground of Limitation in the
Appeal that the suit is barred by limitation. The Legal maxim
"VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT" means that
"the law helps those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their
rights". This principle also supports the idea that while it's best to
raise limitation issue early, they can still be addressed later if the
grounds are clear. The facts necessary to determine the limitation
period are evident from the record of the case.
13/11 BRMR,J
AS.No.75_2020
26. Appellant has taken a ground in the Appeal with regard to
Tax Deduction Source, the said defence is not the defense in the
written statement filed by him, hence, the ground taken by the
appellant with regard to TDS mechanism is negatived.
27. Since the Trial Court has not discussed in detail with regard to
arrival of Rs.17,14,667/-, this Court feels that it is a fit case to remand
the matter on the above said point and with a direction to frame issue
of limitation raised by the appellant, take evidence of the parties if
required and hear the matter a fresh and dispose it off at the earliest.
28. In the result, appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed
by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal,
dated 23.10.2019 in O.S.No.157 of 2015, is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Trial Court as indicated in the preceding Paras of
the judgment.
Consequently, Miscellaneous application/s if any, are closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
18th August, 2025.
PLV
