Telangana High Court
L. Jaya Reddy vs Sri Bandaru Narayana Swamy on 21 May, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
Page 1 of 14
PSK,J & JAK,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Appeal Suit No.451 of 2023
and
Appeal Suit No.453 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Since the issue involved in the instant appeals is one and the
same, we proceed to decide the instant appeals by way of this common
judgment.
2. Appeal Suit No.451 of 2023 is filed by the appellant / plaintiff
under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the
judgment and decree dated 05.07.2023 in O.S.No.28 of 2020 passed
by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy
District, at Prashanth Nagar, Kukatpally; and Appeal Suit No.453 of
2023 is filed by the appellant / plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree dated
05.07.2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2020 passed by the same Court. (for
short, 'the impugned judgments')
PSK,J & JAK,J
3. Heard Mr.A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff, in
both the appeals.
4. Initially, the appellants herein filed two suits, viz., O.S.No.27 of
2020 and O.S.No.28 of 2020 both under Order VII Rules 1 and 2 read
with Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for relief of
specific performance of two unregistered Sale Deeds dated 09.04.1998
and 09.01.1999.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs herein, viz., Mr.
L. Jaya Reddy and Mr. B. Aga Reddy, have filed the above suits
seeking for specific performance of the above sale deeds. The relief
sought for by the plaintiffs was for a direction to the respondent No.1
to complete the registration process of a sale deed in respect of the
suit schedule property pursuant to the above unregistered sale deeds
in the above two suits; and also for a direction to the respondent No.2
to register the names of plaintiffs in the Dharani website by way of
mutation in the Revenue Records so far as the suit schedule property
is concerned. The contention of the appellants herein is that they are
absolute owners and possessors of an extent of land admeasuring
Acs.1.17 gts., situated in Survey No.66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa
Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The claim of
PSK,J & JAK,J
the appellants in the above two suits are that the two schedule
properties in the two suits is part of a bigger chunk of Acs.5.00 of land
which once stood in the name of one Mrs.Chandini Begum; after the
death of Mrs.Chandini Begum, her legal representatives have sold the
said Acs.5.00 of land in favour of one Mr.Bandaru Narayana Swamy
(respondent No.1 in the instant appeals) under a registered Sale Deed
bearing Document No.6770 of 1989. It is the further case of the
plaintiffs that on 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999, the said respondent
No.1 is said to have executed an unregistered sale deed each in favour
of the plaintiffs herein insofar as Acs.1.17 gts., situated in Survey
No.66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, out of the total extent of Acs.5.00 gts. of land. It is
contended that the above two plots of land purchased by the
appellants admeasuring Acs.1.17 gts. each was purchased for a sale
consideration of Rs.17,95,500/- and Rs.19,23,750.00, respectively.
The appellants further contended that the entire sale consideration
agreed upon was paid to the vendor, i.e., the respondent No.1.
According to the appellants, the respondent No.1 did not get the sale
deed registered because of certain litigation pending with the State
Government in respect of the entire land situated at Survey No.66 of
Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, as there were certain claims made by the State Government
PSK,J & JAK,J
in respect to the said property. Therefore, it was agreed between the
parties in the instant appeals that the sale deed would be registered
immediately after the litigation in respect of the claim raised by the
State Government stands finally adjudicated.
6. According to the appellants, though the claim of the State
Government so far as their possession over the said property that is
situated at Survey No.66, the suits filed by the appellants stood
decided against the State Government and the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court was upheld up till the stage of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. According to them, it is only subsequently when the
appellants came to know that the verdict would be was going in favour
of respondent No.1, the appellants approached the respondent No.1
for getting the sale deed registered at the earliest. However, the
respondent No.1 showed no interest in getting the property registered
in favour of the appellants, and as a consequence, the appellants
herein got issued a legal notice to the respondent No.1 on 20.01.2020.
Yet, the respondent No.1 did not care to comply his part of the sale
contract, which led to filing of the above two suits by the appellants
before the Trial Court seeking for specific performance of the two
unregistered sale deeds, dated 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999.
PSK,J & JAK,J
7. The two suits, viz., O.S.No.27 of 2020 and O.S.No.28 of 2020,
were registered before the Trial Court and notices were issued to the
parties. In spite of proper service to the respondents, and since there
was no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 either in person or
through a duly engaged counsel, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte
against the respondent No.1 and decided the two suits on merits.
8. The appellants herein have submitted their evidence in the form
of an affidavit, and since the respondents have been proceeded ex
parte there was no cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses. In
addition, there was also no evidence in rebuttal available on record.
Therefore, the Trial Court, taking into consideration the averments
made in the affidavits that the appellants have filed, has proceeded to
decide the two suits on merits. Even though the respondent No.2 has
been proceeded ex parte, the Trial Court found that the appellants
have not been able to establish their case so far as the agreement of
sale is concerned. Insofar as the validity and veracity of the two
unregistered sale deeds are concerned, the Trial Court also found that
there were certain discrepancies and infirmities in the evidence of
PW.1 and also in the pleadings put forth by the appellants. The Trial
Court further found that the appellants have not been able to produce
cogent, strong material in support of their contentions. Therefore, the
Trial Court finally dismissed the two suits on the same day and on
PSK,J & JAK,J
identical finding of facts, by holding that the appellants were not
entitled for any specific relief in the nature of specific performance of
sale contract. It is this dismissal of the two suits which stand assailed
in the instant appeals by the appellants.
9. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants in both the
appeals, contended that the Trial Court has erred inasmuch as in not
appreciating the facts properly that, there were two unregistered sale
deeds already executed between the parties and the appellants and
the respondent No.1 have completed all the required formalities so far
as the completion of sale transaction pertaining to the suit schedule
property is concerned. He further contended that except for
registration of the sale deeds, all other requirement of law was adhered
to and therefore the Trial Court, instead of dismissing the two suits, it
ought to have decreed the suits in favour of appellants. He further
submitted that once when there was no evidence in rebuttal to
disprove the claim of appellants, the Court below ought to have
entertained the claim petition.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended when the
respondents were set ex parte once, there was nothing in rebuttal for
the Trial Court to have not accepted the version put forth by the
appellants or to presume that the contentions so made by the
PSK,J & JAK,J
appellants are false and incorrect. He further submitted that in the
absence of any cogent evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the
appellants, there was not much scope for the Trial Court to conduct
an enquiry much less a roving enquiry. He further submitted that the
Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that once
when the entire sale transaction was made and the physical
possession of the suit schedule property also being vested with the
appellants, the entire contract stood concluded between the parties
and, for this reason also the Trial Court could not have dismissed the
two suits. He further submitted that possession of land was not of
much consequence and relevance for establishing a suit for specific
performance, but failure to establish possession could not have been a
ground available for the Trial Court to dismiss the suits where the
relief sought for was only for a specific performance of an agreement of
sale so far as the registration of the unregistered sale deeds are
concerned. Thus, for all these reasons, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants prayed for allowing of the appeals and also for grant of
relief of specific performance insofar as registration of the sale deeds
to be completed at the earliest.
11. In the aforesaid factual backdrop of the case what we need to
understand and appreciate is that the instant appeals are filed by the
appellants / plaintiffs challenging the ex parte judgment and decree.
PSK,J & JAK,J
In spite of the respondents having been proceeded ex parte with no
written statement or any evidence in rebuttal available on record with
the Trial Court even then the appellants' two suits for specific
performance have got dismissed. Therefore, it becomes all the more
necessary for the appellants to prove and establish their case for
issuance of a judgment and decree of specific performance. Having
lost the suits before the Trial Court and now the instant appeals
having been filed, it is still the responsibility of the appellants to
establish their case for issuance of a decree of specific performance.
When the suits have been proceeded ex parte and in the appeal also
the respondents have gone ex parte, the burden is all the more upon
the appellants to establish their case for allowing of the appeals.
12. From the pleadings and evidence available on record some of the
admitted factual matrix of the case is that : the entire claim of the
appellants herein is resting upon an unregistered Sale Deeds executed
by the respondent No.1 in favour of the appellants herein on
09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999, respectively. The unregistered Sale Deed
is one which has been executed by one Mr. Bandaru Narayana Swamy
as the vendor of the appellants herein. Except for the averment made
by the appellants, there does not seem to be any other evidence
available to prove the execution of the unregistered Sale Deed. Except
for the examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit under Order
PSK,J & JAK,J
XVIII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, there is no supporting
evidence to any of the contentions put forth by the appellants. The
two unregistered Sale Deeds dated 09.04.1998 and 09.01.1999 show
that there were two witnesses who had signed these documents : (a)
one was the son of the vendor himself, viz., Mr. B. Ravi Kumar (son of
Mr. B. Narayana Swamy), who was the common witness in the two
unregistered sale deeds; and (b) the name of the other witness in the
unregistered sale deed dated 09.04.1998 was Mr. K. Narayana Rao,
and in the other unregistered sale deed dated 09.01.1999, the name of
the witness was Mr. Venkatesham. For reasons best known, all these
witnesses were called and examined to support the claim of the
appellants so far as validity and veracity of the unregistered sale deeds
are concerned. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that
the two unregistered sale deeds do not disclose the mode of payment
made by the vendee to the vendor except for reference of the sale
consideration having been paid and the vendor having received the
same; or whether the sale consideration was paid by cash or by
cheque. The two unregistered sale deeds are also silent of the date on
which the payments were made because in the two unregistered sale
deeds, it is reflected that the vendees have already paid the entire sale
consideration. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that
Clause (4) of the unregistered sale deed has a clause which is common
PSK,J & JAK,J
in the two unregistered sale deeds, which for ready reference is being
reproduced hereunder, viz.,
"4. That the schedule property hereby sold is free from all
encumbrances, charges, prior sale, mortgages, gifts, liens, court
attachments and litigations acquisition / requisition proceedings,
etc., and the Vendor have full power and absolute authority to sell
the same to the Vendee."
13. The above clause is in conflict with the plaint averment at
paragraph No.6 of the plaint, that the appellants / plaintiffs have
admitted the fact that when the so-called unregistered sale deed was
being executed they were fully aware of the claim made by the State
Government with regard to the title over entire part of Survey No.66,
situated at Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District. If the parties, viz., vendor and vendee, are aware of the
litigation the vendor had with the State Government, there does not
seem to be any reason why that would not have been reflected in the
agreement of sale, particularly in the Agreement of Sale Clause (4) it is
already reflected that the property in question is being free from all
encumbrances and litigations. Another fact which is revealed from the
proceedings is that the so-called registered Sale Deed executed in
favour of the vendor way back on 12.06.1989 has been obtained by
the appellants only in January, 2020 (copy of which has been
obtained by the appellants), and that is the time when the two suits
PSK,J & JAK,J
were filed by the Trial Court. Therefore, it appears that those
documents have been obtained only for the purpose of filing of the
suits.
14. From the aforesaid facts what is also reflected is that the
appellants have also not anywhere in the deposition affidavit stated as
to what mode of payment of sale transaction was made to the vendor,
viz., Mr. B. Narayana Swamy. Further, the appellants have also not
cared to make a statement before the Trial Court as to whether such
purchase of property by paying an amount of Rs.17,95,500/- in
O.S.No.27 of 2020 and Rs.19,23,750/- in O.S.No.28 of 2020 was being
reflected in the income tax returns, if any, by the appellants. All these
aspects give rise to serious doubt insofar as the veracity of the alleged
agreements of sale. Yet another aspect which raises serious doubt is
the fact that the two agreements of sale involved in the two suits, viz.,
09.04.1998 in O.S.No.27 of 2020 and 09.01.1999 in O.S.No.28 of
2020, specifically stated that the entire sale consideration mentioned
in the preceding paragraphs having already been paid to the vendor,
and that the vendor had also transferred the entire rights in the suit
schedule property in favour of the appellants, yet from April, 1998 and
in January, 1999, when the said agreements of sale were said to have
been executed, both the appellants waited for well over a period of 10
years for filing of the instants suits before the Trial Court seeking for
PSK,J & JAK,J
specific performance of the agreement of sale. No justification
whatsoever is available on record as to what prevented the appellants
from getting the property registered in their names earlier, or what
prevented the appellants from even filing of a suit for specific
performance within a period of three years, which is the normal period
of limitation even for invoking the provisions of Specific Relief Act,
1963. Further, there is no cogent material adduced by the appellants
to even show that they have made an effort on the earlier occasion for
getting the sale deeds registered. Even the legal notice that was
issued was only one which was issued in the year 2020, i.e., just
preceding the period of filing of the above two suits. All this go to
show that the appellants at no point of time were not at all interested
in getting the unregistered sale deeds registered.
15. It is by now well settled legal position that an unregistered sale
deed has a very limited legal validity. It is also well settled legal
position of law that an unregistered sale deed is not sufficient to prove
ownership or title to a property. An unregistered sale deed also
cannot be used to prove a sale by itself. It may be used as a piece of
evidence substantiated with other cogent proof of agreement of sale
having been executed genuinely between the parties. Even Section 49
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 holds that an unregistered sale deed
cannot be used as an evidence of proof of sale.
PSK,J & JAK,J
16. In the case on hand, the unregistered sale deeds also do not
reveal the identification of the plots which have been purchased by the
appellants in both the suits. It is for the aforesaid infirmities and
doubts that has fallen in the mind of this Bench which forces us to
state that since the respondents are set ex parte, the burden of
proving the case all the more falls upon the appellants and therefore
they have to bring in more clarity in their evidence and also more
clarity to their pleadings, including the averments that are reflected in
the so-called agreement of sale executed in favour of the appellants.
17. Having gone through the entire averments, pleadings and
evidence and also the documents enclosed to the plaint, we are of the
considered opinion that the appellants have not been able to provide
cogent, justifiable explanation to the doubts and suspicion narrated in
the preceding paragraphs.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion
that the appellants have not been able to make out a strong case
calling for interference to the impugned judgments passed by the Trial
Court while dismissing the above two suits. The appeals being devoid
of merit, deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
PSK,J & JAK,J
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
________________________________
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Date :: 21.05.2025
Ndr
