Telangana High Court
Gudur China Manga Reddy vs Bobbala Raji Reddy on 13 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT No.197 OF 2019
AND
I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT No.202 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
Perused the record.
2. The above appeals are preferred aggrieved by the judgments
and decrees of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in
O.S.Nos.307of 2013 and 308 of 2013, dated 05.11.2018, whereby,
two suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific
performance have been decreed, directing the appellants/defendants
in the respective suits to receive the balance sale consideration and
to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the respondent, failing
which, the respondent is at liberty to follow due process of law for
securing registered sale deeds.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.Nos.307 and 308 of 2013
seeking specific performance with respect to land in Sy.No.41/UU,
51/UU, 52/EE and 53/U admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas and land in
Sy.No.40/U, 41/U, 52/E and 53/EE admeasuring Acs.4.00 guntas
respectively situated at Gudur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda
District. The above suits are filed by the respondent/plaintiff against
two different appellants/defendants. Except the subject property,
the rest of the facts are common. The evidence led is common and
the judgments rendered are similar. Therefore, both the appeals are
tagged together for common disposal.
4. Brief facts of the cases:
The appellants in both the appeals are the owners and
possessors of the subject properties. They offered to sell the property
i.e. total of Acs.4.00 of land in each suit for a sale consideration of
Rs.1,32,000/- per acre. There was agreement between the
appellants and the respondent which was reduced into writing by
way of agreement of sale, dated 17.09.2004, on payment of
Rs.1,75,000/- as advance for each piece of land. There was further
agreement of payment of balance sale consideration for each piece of
land on or before 15.01.2005, before getting the registered sale deed.
The respondent expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the
balance sale consideration orally and requested the appellants to
execute the registered sale deed, whereas the same was not acceded
by the appellants. Vexed with the attitude of the appellants, the
respondent got issued legal notices, dated 22.11.2006. However,
said notices were returned unserved. At this juncture, on account of
oral refusal by the appellants to register the sale deed, the
respondent filed suits for specific performance with a prayer for
execution of registered sale deed by the appellants by receiving the
balance sale consideration.
The appellants opposed the suit claims by admitting the
agreement of sale and receipt of advance. However, there is a denial
about the readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent to
pay the balance sale consideration. According to the appellants, the
respondent was never ready and willing to pay the balance sale
consideration, as he did not have the requisite amount. Since the
agreements of sale contains a specific date for payment of balance
sale consideration i.e. 15.01.2005, the appellants contend that the
respondent failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the
stipulated time and, therefore, the agreements are cancelled and the
advance amount paid is forfeited. It is further case of the appellants
that time is essence of contract and that the respondent paid paltry
amount of only 25% of sale consideration and there is balance of
75% of sale consideration, which was not paid in time. There is also
another contention that the agreements of sale are not admissible, as
the same are hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act.
Upon examining the contention of the rival parties, the trial
Court settled the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of
agreement of sale dated 17.09.2004?
2. Whether time was made as essence of contract and if whether
the advance amount is forfeited for non-compliance?
Thereafter, after examining the evidence led by both the
parties, the suits have been decreed on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the respondent while discarding
the defence taken by the appellants. Aggrieved by the said
judgments and decrees, the present appeals are preferred.
5. Grounds of appeals:
It is contended that the respondent is due to pay a sum of
Rs.5,28,000/- for each piece of Acs.4.00 of land, but has paid meager
amount of Rs.1,75,000/- each, which constitutes only 25% of sale
consideration. The time is essence of contract and the same has not
been complied by the respondent. There is an emphasis on the fact
that the legal notice got issued by the respondent was not served on
the appellants. It is further case of the appellants that the legal
notice is dated 22.11.2006 and the suits have been filed in the year
2013 and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54
of the Indian Limitation Act. On the aspect of granting relief of
specific performance in a time barred suit, it is alleged that the same
is in conflict with the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in
Thota Rambabu @ Ramu v. Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao @
Pedababu & others 1 and Smt.Thakamma Mathew v.
M.Azamathulla Khan and others 2. The appellants contend that
the respondent has never had amounts as per the bank statement
marked under Ex.A4 which show less than Rs.10,000/- at any given
point of time. Whenever substantial sums are deposited, the same is
withdrawn on the very next date or within one week. The bank
statements negate the contention of the respondent that he is ready
and willing to perform his part of contract. There is also an
emphasis on the fact that audited books of accounts are not
produced and the Income Tax returns of the respondent are required
to enable him to claim the amount deposited in the bank is properly
accounted money, failing which the money in the bank account
would be in the nature of black money. Without proving the source
of income, the advance sale consideration and the balance sale
consideration would constitute benami money under Section 2(26) of
the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. In this
context, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Kalawati (D) through LRs v. Rakesh Kumar 3. To sum up,
according to the appellants, the pleadings and the evidence do not
support the case of the respondent.The evidence does not prove the
(2005) 5 ALT 278
AIR 1993 SC Page 1120
AID 2018 SC 960
readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent to pay the
balance sale consideration. Both the main relief and alternative relief
of advance sale consideration are barred by limitation. Hence the
appeals.
6. Along with the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants filed
I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.197 of 2019 and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
A.S.No.202 of 2019 respectively requesting this Court to raise two
additional grounds about non-receipt of legal notice by the appellants
and the same vitiating the judgment followed by failure on the part of
respondent to show his readiness and willingness and the time was
essence of contract, respectively.
7. The oral arguments of the counsel for the appellants is a
restatement of the appeal grounds, where there is emphasis on
failure on the part of the respondent to prove his readiness and
willingness to pay the balance sale consideration on account of non-
availability of the required funds and the bank statement being
inadequate to support the respondent about availability of sufficient
funds. The written arguments filed are to the effect that the findings
of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda about the respondent
having financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration being
erroneous. Further, the respondent entered into two separate
agreements of sale for different extents, for total consideration of
Rs.5,28,000/- and Rs.2,64,000/- respectively. As on 15.01.2005,
the balance sale consideration is Rs.3,53,000/- in one agreement
and Rs.1,98,000/- under another agreement. It is argued that the
respondent has to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to
abide by the agreement of sale under three different agreements of
sale dated 17.09.2004, 17.09.2004 and 19.08.2004. Lastly, it is
argued that the suit claims are fraudulent as per established legal
precedents and therefore prayed that the appeals are to be allowed.
8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for
appellants relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in Anantam Veeraju and others v. Valluri Venkayya @ Venkamma
(died) and another 4, for the purpose of raising additional issue
during appeal i.e. the issue of limitation which was not addressed
before the trial Court. On this issue, as per the record, the last date
for payment of sale consideration is 15.01.2005 and therefore, the
limitation of three years would expire on 15.01.2008. Since
15.01.2008 is Sankranthi festival, the suit was presented on
17.01.2008. Therefore, issue of limitation has no bearing on the
maintainability of the present suits irrespective of the fact that
though the suits were presented in 2008, the same were registered in
the year 2013. When the suit is presented before a competent Court
AIR 1960 AP 222
within limitation, its registration subsequently with delay will not
affect limitation.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the judgment
of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ramakrishna Rao @ Baburao
v. Srinivasarao and others 5 which is about essentials for initiation
into sanyas ashram as per Hindu Law and power of an appellate
Court to receive additional evidence at appeal stage. Both the issues
are not in question in the present appeals and therefore, the said
judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
10. Lastly, learned counsel relied on the judgment of High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt 6
which is about application for permission to adduce additional
evidence at appeal stage and the same is not applicable to the
present appeals as there are no applications for receipt of additional
evidence.
11. The sum total of the facts and circumstances of the matters
show that it is undisputed fact that there were agreements of sale
executed between the respondent and the appellants for sale of
subject land for a specific amount. Advance sale consideration was
paid and the balance has to be paid on or before 15.01.2005. The
AIR 1960 AP 449
AIR 2018 SC 4796
contention of the respondent is that he is ready and willing to pay the
balance sale consideration while the same is denied by the
appellants. The respondent allegedly repeatedly requested for
execution of registered sale deeds but the same was not acceded to
by the appellants. Having waited for some time, the respondent got
issued legal notices dated 22.11.2006 but the same were returned
unserved. In the circumstances, the respondent filed suits for
specific performance against the appellants wherein the appellants
were put to notice about the respondent's claims seeking relief of
specific performance of agreements of sale dated 17.09.2004. The
only substantial ground canvassed by the appellants is that the
respondent does not have financial capacity to pay the balance sale
consideration for which no independent evidence was led to prove
except the self-serving pleadings and oral evidence of the appellants.
There is no convincing evidence to believe the version of the
appellants. Per contra, the respondent has led evidence to prove his
claim by getting himself examined as P.W.1 and a witness to the
agreement of sale as P.W.2. To prove his readiness and willingness,
which includes financial capacity to pay the balance sale
consideration, the respondent got his bank statement marked as
Ex.A4 showing the inflow and outflow of his bank account during the
relevant period. The contents of the bank statement are referred to
for contending that the respondent did not have more than
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- of money in the account at any given
point of time. Further, it is contended that whenever huge amounts,
such as, Rs.50,000/- are deposited, the same is withdrawn within a
day or 2 days. Such contentions cannot be given much weightage
unless there is proof that the respondent indeed does not have
financially capacity to pay the balance sale consideration.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Azhar Sultana v.
B.Rajamani 7, held that "it is not necessary that the entire amount
of sale consideration should be kept ready and the plaintiff must file
proof in respect thereof". In Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed 8, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is not necessary for the plaintiff
to produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for financing the
transaction to prove his readiness and willingness". In Rithu
Saxena v. J.S. Grover 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is
sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity
to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should
always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till the
date of the decree". In U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M.Krishna
Murthy 10, it is held that "it may not be essential for the plaintiff to
actually tender money to the defendant or to deposit money in Court,
(2009)17 SCC 27
(2017)4 SCC 654
(2019)9 SCC 132
(2023)11 SCC 775
except when so directed by the Court, to prove readiness and
willingness to perform the essential terms of a contract, which
involves payment of money."
13. As per aforementioned citations, the party approaching the
Court seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale need
not produce actual cash/money but is entitled to prove his readiness
and willingness by any other means. In the instant cases, the
respondent has produced his bank statement to show that he had
sufficient inflow and outflow of cash in his bank account during the
relevant period. As to how the respondent utilized the cash available
in his bank account is not the concern of the appellants as long as
the balance sale consideration is paid in time.
14. The contention of the appellants that the audited books of
accounts are not filed or that the Income Tax returns of the
respondent are not produced are contentions which are not tenable
in the face of the judgments referred supra 7 to 10. There is no law
which mandates production of audited books of accounts or Income
Tax returns to show that the respondent is using properly accounted
money and not black money for the purpose of payment of sale
consideration. In case the appellants have any such doubt it is for
the appellants to prove the same and cannot call upon the
respondent to prove that his money is properly accounted money and
not black money. There is no law which states that a person seeking
specific relief should prove his source of income, rather the law
stipulates that there should be amounts available for payment of sale
consideration. The contention of the appellants that the failure to
prove the source of income would give rise to assumption about the
money paid as sale consideration by the respondent is benami is
untenable. There are no such presumptions in law of specific
performance, as such, the contentions raised by the appellants are
untenable. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court sees no
ground to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda as the same are based on
proper appreciation of facts and the appeals lack merit and are liable
to be dismissed.
14. In the result, both the Appeal Suits and the Interlocutory
Applications are dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals,
shall stand closed.
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 13.06.2025
ssp
