Smt.Bollam Nagamani vs Sri.G.Jayendra Babu
2025 Latest Caselaw 5455 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt.Bollam Nagamani vs Sri.G.Jayendra Babu on 12 September, 2025

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

     CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOs.196 AND 199 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the common

judgment and decree dated 25.01.2019 passed in O.S.No.340 of

2007 and O.S.No.606 of 2011 by the learned XI Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred

to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff/G.Jayender Babu in O.S.No.340 of

2007 before the trial Court is that he was the tenant of the

defendant No.1/A.Shankar in premises bearing House No.SRT

377, M.No.1-1-379/226, situated at Industrial Housing Colony,

Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad from the year 2000

onwards and that A.Shankar offered a portion of the above said

house for sale to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was already a

tenant he readily agreed to purchase the same, thus, he has

entered into an agreement of sale with A.Shankar to purchase the

portion of the said premises to an extent of 115 Sq.yards out of the ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

total 215 Sq.yards for a total sale consideration of Rs.16 Lakhs.

The plaintiff paid Rs.3 Lakhs towards advance sale consideration

on 09.08.2006 and A.Shankar has executed an agreement of sale

by receiving said amount in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence

of witnesses, A.Prashanth, A.Sujatha, A.Vajramma. It is his further

case that one A.Papaiah, who is the father of A.Shankar was the

original owner of the property as he was allotted the entire house

on Hire Payment System by the Labour Department. By the time,

the Labour Department executed a sale deed, A.Papaiah died

leaving behind his three sons and two daughters, thus, the said

suit schedule property devolved on them and all the legal heirs of

late A.Papaiah approached the competent Court of law and

obtained succession in their favour. Thereafter, they surrendered

their rights in favour of A.Shankar in the said succession

proceedings and as such, the Labour Department executed a

registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 i.e.

A.Shankar, thus, A.Shankar is the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property. He further submitted that it was also agreed

upon that A.Shankar will receive the balance sale consideration

and register the said property in favour of the plaintiff within a

period of three months from the date of agreement or as and when ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

A.Shankar gets the sale deed in his favour from the Government

i.e. the Labour Department who originally allotted the house to

A.Shankar. Subsequently, on a request made by A.Shankar, the

plaintiff has paid another sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to A.Sujatha W/o.late

Sailu and A.Vajramma W/o.late Sailu both being the wives of

defendant's brother and that they have executed a receipt also.

Thus, A.Shankar has totally received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs towards

sale consideration. Subsequently, the A.Shankar got a sale deed

in his favour from the Government on 22.05.2007 vide document

No.1820 of 2007 and the plaintiff has approached A.Shankar on

22.05.2007 and demanded him of the agreement, for which

A.Shankar promised the plaintiff that he would execute a

registered sale deed within one week. Again on 04.06.2007, the

plaintiff has approached with the said request and offered the

balance sale consideration but A.Shankar has bluntly refused

saying that he was offered higher amount of Rs.20 Lakhs by

others and demanded the plaintiff to pay the same. The plaintiff

tried to settle the issue with A.Shankar but A.Shankar did not heed

to his request. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was always

ready and willing to perform his part of contract but A.Shankar has

dodged the matter and thus, he was constrained to issue a legal ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

notice on 06.06.2007 calling upon A.Shankar to receive the

balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed

but A.Shankar refused to receive the notice and thus, the suit is

filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale.

4. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 in O.S.No.340 of 2007 have filed

written statement admitting that Papaiah was the original owner

having been allotted the suit schedule property on hire purchase

from the Labour Department and that subsequently, it was

devolved upon his legal heirs and also that they relinquished their

rights in favour of A.Shankar and thus, A.Shankar became the

owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants have further

admitted that the Labour Department has executed the sale deed

in favour of A.Shankar on 22.05.2007 vide document No.1820 of

2007. But for that they denied all the other allegations saying that

A.Shankar has never executed any sale deed and that he has not

received any advance sale consideration. He further denied the

averments that initial payment of Rs.3 Lakhs towards the advance

sale consideration and also payment of Rs.2 Lakhs to Vajramma

and Sujatha. The defendants further contended that A.Shankar

never approached them on 22.05.2007 to execute a sale deed and

that the defendant has created the stories for the purpose of ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

grabbing the suit schedule property. They also denied to have

received any legal notice. It is their further case that the plaintiff

has occupied the suit schedule property as a tenant in the month

of April, 2000 @ Rs.2,000/- per month without any security deposit

and that the plaintiff used to pay the rents to A.Shankar upto

December, 2005 and thereafter, the plaintiff failed to pay the rents

whenever A.Shankar demanded for payment of rent, the plaintiff

requested for granting some more time to clear the payment and

that the plaintiff never came forward with any rents and that finally,

in the month of May, 2006, A.Shankar went along with his sons to

the plaintiff demanding to vacate the suit schedule property on

account of non-payment of rent but the plaintiff requested to grant

three months time to clear the dues and thereafter, in the month of

August, 2006, A.Shankar for need of family necessities requested

the plaintiff to grant a hand loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from him or any

persons through the plaintiff and on such request, the plaintiff

promised to arrange Rs.3 Lakhs and on that pretext the plaintiff

obtained the signatures on blank bond of Rs.100/- with a promise

that he would arrange the amount within a week, but the plaintiff

did not come forward to arrange the hand loan as promised. They

further alleged that the plaintiff has created the false and fabricated ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

document and filed the present suit and that he has committed

willful default in payment of rents from January, 2006 to

September, 2007 and he is due to a sum of Rs.40,000/-.

5. The defendant No.1/A.Shankar is the person alleged to have

executed the agreement of sale, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the sons

of defendant No.1, while defendant No.6 is a third party who has

filed O.S.No.606 of 2011 against A.Shankar (defendant No.1 in

both the suits) and his sons seeking specific performance of the

agreement of sale over suit schedule property. Therefore, the said

B.Nagamani is impleaded as defendant No.6 in O.S.No.340 of

2007.

6. The defendant No.6/B.Nagamani in O.S.No.340 of 2007 has

filed a written statement denying the averments of the plaint totally.

It is her case that after filing of the said implead petition, she has

learnt about the alleged transaction of agreement of sale dated

09.08.2006 with the plaintiff. It is her case that as on the date of

alleged agreement of sale on 09.08.2006, the defendants have no

right in any manner to enter into the agreement of sale. Since

defendant No.1 has already entered into an agreement of sale with

her in respect of 215 sq.yards on 09.12.1995 and also received the ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

entire sale consideration, thus, the subsequent agreement of sale

dated 09.08.2006 of the present plaintiff does not have any

strength. Thus, she contended that O.S.No.340 of 2007 is a

collusive suit brought in by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5

and she therefore, prayed to dismiss O.S.No.340 of 2007.

7. The case of the plaintiff/B.Nagamani in O.S.No.606 of 2011

is that defendant No.1/A.Shankar has executed into agreement of

sale in her favour in the year 1995 itself and that since 13.02.1993

she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of 113

Sq.yards in the suit schedule property with the permissive

possession of all the legal heirs of late A.Papaiah and that with her

funds, she has constructed permanent structures over the part of

suit schedule property and thus, has entered into a written

agreement of sale with the 1st defendant in respect of the entire

property i.e. the house constructed in 150 Sq.yards apart from the

extra land of 65 Sq.yards abutting the structures, thus, her

agreement of sale is to an extent of 215 Sq.yards for a total

consideration of Rs.4 Lakhs and that the suit schedule property

mentioned in the present suit is a part of the property mentioned in

her agreement of sale and that the 1st defendant has received a

sum of Rs.5,64,309/- from her and her husband towards the entire ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

sale consideration and also towards other miscellaneous

expenditure.

8. It is her case that on several occasions she has requested

for execution of sale deed but A.Shankar has been postponing the

same. It is her case that on 15.07.2007 she came to know that

A.Shankar has obtained registered sale deed from the Labour

Department on 22.05.2007 in respect of the suit schedule property

and that A.Shankar has executed a registered gift settlement deed

in favour of his sons on 15.06.2007 vide document No.2133 of

2007, ignoring her agreement of sale. Thus, immediately on

18.07.2007 she and her husband approached A.Shankar and

requested to execute a sale deed in their favour and to handover

the vacant physical possession of the remaining part of 102

Sq.yards but A.Shankar did not heed to their request. Thus, she

filed O.S.No.606 of 2011 for specific performance of agreement of

sale in respect of the entire 215 Sq.yards against A.Shankar and

his sons and that the said suit is pending.

9. Based on the pleadings in O.S.No.340 of 2007, the trial

Court framed the following issues:

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

"1) Whether the defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale on 09.08.2006 and received any consideration on that day and on 16.09.2007?

2) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract at all the material points of the time?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of contract?

4) To what relief?"

10. Based on the pleadings in O.S.No.606 of 2011, the trial

Court framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to declare the gift settlement deed dated 15.06.2007 vide document No.2133 of 2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 as null and void?

2) Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.1 dated 09.12.1995 and entitled to seek the relief of specific performance of contract?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property?

4) To what relief?"

11. It is pertinent to mention here that O.S.No.340 of 2007 was

clubbed with O.S.No.606 of 2011. Thus, both the suits were

clubbed together and joint trial was conducted.

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

12. Both the parties adduced evidence at the time of trial and

got marked the exhibits on their behalf. Based on the evidence on

record, the trial Court has decreed the suit i.e. O.S.No.340 of 2007

and dismissed the suit i.e. O.S.No.606 of 2011. Aggrieved by the

said common judgment and decree, the present appeals are filed.

13. Heard the submissions of Smt.Ramaa Swetha Ogirala,

learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellant/Bollam Nagamani and Mr.MAK Mukheed,

learned counsel for the respondent/G.Jayender Babu.

14. The learned appellant counsel submits that the trial Court

ought not to have decreed the suit and the trial court has not

evaluated the evidence in a proper perspective. She further

argued that the agreement of sale entered into by Bollam

Nagamani dates back to 1995 and the agreement of sale alleged

to have been executed between the plaintiff and other defendants

1 to 5 is subsequent and is alleged to have been executed on

09.08.2006 and that the defendants have no right to execute the

said agreement of sale and that it is not at all valid in the eye of

law. She further argued that the plaintiff has paid the total sale

consideration of Rs.5,64,309/- for the entire extent of 215 Sq.yards ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

which was agreed upon to be sold by the defendant No.1. She

further argued that the appellant herein/B.Nagamani was the

tenant in the premises to an extent of 130 Sq.yards and she has

been residing over there since 1993, out of the said acquaintance

in 1995 the agreement of sale was entered into by A.Shankar and

he agreed to sell the house and also the abutting premises

measuring 150+65 i.e. 215 Sq.yards. She further argued that

defendant Nos.1 to 5 have denied the execution of agreement of

sale in favour of the G.Jayender Babu, thus, the plaintiff has no

case at all and that subsequently, during the pendency of the suit,

A.Shankar has executed a gift deed in favour of defendant Nos.2

to 5 and by virtue of the said gift deed, defendant Nos.2 to 5 have

executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant herein on

09.11.2012 over an extent of 100 Sq.yards. She further argued

that, she has filed a suit vide O.S.No.606 of 2011 for specific

performance and also prayed for cancellation of gift deed alleged

to have been executed by A.Shankar in favour of his sons

defendant Nos.2 to 5. She argued that defendant Nos.2 to 5 have

executed a sale deed over 100 Sq.yards in her favour, therefore,

she is not pressing the 1st issue in the O.S.No.606 of 2019 with

regard to cancellation of gift deed. Apart from the advance sale ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

consideration, she has also paid the tax and in proof of which she

has filed Exs.A1 to A12 which are the tax receipts of tax payment

from 1993. Thus, these amounts were adjusted in the sale

consideration and the total amounts paid by her comes upto

Rs.5,64,309/-. She further argued that though an observation is

made by the trial Court that the sale deed has a bonafide mistake

at the preamble of the agreement of sale, which is to be condoned.

While the date on the other pages of the document is correctly

printed, it was wrongly printed by mistake on the preamble,

therefore, she says that the said mistake has to be condoned since

it is a bonafide mistake. She further argued that the sale deed

which was executed in her favour under Ex.A15 has recitals of the

earlier agreement of sale and that there is no cross examination by

G.Jayender Babu with regard to her registered sale deed vide

Ex.A15. She further strongly contended that A.Shankar has not

appeared and has not entered the witness box and by observing

the same the trial Court has drawn an adverse inference only in

their case but has not observed so in the case of the plaintiff

herein, that means the adverse inference is drawn in O.S.No.606

of 2011 but the same is not observed in O.S.No.340 of 2011, thus,

the counsel argues that it is not a correct view taken by the trial ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

Court. She further argued that A.Shankar and his sons could not

elicit that Ex.A16 is fabricated and when they have not disputed

Exs.A15 and A16, her case stands proved and that her strong

contention is that the agreement of sale executed in favour of

B.Nagamani is prior in time and therefore, much weightage has to

be given to her agreement of sale. She therefore, prayed to allow

her appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree.

15. The respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted

that O.S.No.340 of 2007 is filed for specific performance on 115

Sq.yards out of the total 215 Sq.yards. That B.Nagamani got

executed sale deed to an extent of 100 sq.yards during the

pendency of the suit. He is not aware of the agreement of sale

alleged to have been executed in favour of B.Nagamani.

However, A.Shankar and his sons were directed by the trial Court

to execute the sale deed in favour of G.Jayender Babu and they

have executed, they have not preferred any appeal. His

contention is that if at all A.Shankar and his sons are aggrieved by

the decree, they could not have come forward to execute a sale

deed, thus his transaction is complete with regard to the 115

Sq.yards, since his agreement of sale is valid, it has been

complied with pursuant to the Court decree. He further submitted ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

that he has also constructed a new building in the said premises

and thus, the present appeals by the appellant herein has no

strength at all. With an intention to extract money, the present

appeal has been filed, even though the original owners are not

aggrieved by the decree. He pointed out towards the conduct of

the appellant stating that in the original suit she has prayed for the

cancellation of gift deed executed by A.Shankar in favour of his

sons but during the pendency of the suit, she got executed a sale

deed through the sons of A.Shankar. When the appellant alleges

that the said gift deed is a sham document, then the sale deed

executed in her favour by the sons of A.Shankar collapses and she

would not have any right to claim the said property of 100 Sq.yards

also. Now again in the appeal, she averred that she is not

pressing the first issue with regard to cancellation of gift deed. The

said step was not taken before the trial Court. She has neither not

pressed the first issue nor amended the prayer. Therefore, the

conduct of the appellant/B.Nagamani is not good and she has not

approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, prayed to

dismiss the appeal saying that the trial Court has rightly dismissed

her suit and decreed the suit of G.Jayender Babu.

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

16. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

In CCCA No.196 of 2021:

1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.08.2006 is true, valid and binding on the defendants 1 to 5?

2) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance?

In CCCA No.199 of 2021:

4) Whether the gift deed is liable to be declared as null and void?

5) Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.12.1995 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale?

In CCCA Nos.196 and 199 of 2021:

7) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is sustainable in law and under the facts?

      8)     To what relief?


17.   POINT NOs.1 AND 2:

a)    The case of G.Jayender Babu, plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of

2007 is that he was originally a tenant in the suit schedule

premises and that he got executed an agreement of sale with

A.Shankar on 09.08.2006 and that A.Shankar has promised to

execute a sale deed in his favour over an extent of 115 Sq.yards ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

out of the total suit schedule property of 215 Sq.yards and that the

A.Shankar has received Rs.3 Lakhs towards advance sale

consideration. In proof of the same, he got examined himself as

DW2 in the joint trial conducted by the trial Court and also got

examined the attestors and scribe of the document.

b) Ex.B1 is the agreement of sale dated 09.08.2006. A perusal

of the said Ex.B1 reveals that it is executed by A.Shankar stating

that he has agreed to sell the house bearing No.SRT 377 to an

extent of 115 sq.yards out of 215 Sq.yards to G.Jayender Babu the

plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of 2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.16

Lakhs and that he has received Rs.3 Lakhs towards advance on

09.08.2006 and that the sale deed shall be executed within a

period of three months and that at the time of registration of sale

deed, the balance sale consideration would be paid. The said

document is attested by A.Prashanth, A.Sujatha, A.Vajramma,

Srinivasa Sastry and Eshwaraiah. The plan of the suit schedule

property is also annexed to the agreement of sale. Further, Ex.B2

is the receipt for Rs.2 Lakhs signed by A.Vajramma and A.Sujatha

and it is also mentioned that it is towards the part sale

consideration of the suit schedule property to an extent of 115

Sq.yards.

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

c) G.Jayender Babu's case is that when he requested

A.Shankar to get the sale deed executed, he refused, as such he

got issued a legal notice under Ex.B4. He has also filed postal

receipt under Exs.B5 and also the returned covers under Ex.B6

which prove that his notice was returned by the defendants.

d) The plaintiff/G.Jayender Babu got examined as DW2. In the

cross examination of DW2, he admitted that defendant No.1 has

let out four rooms in the premises to the plaintiff and it is elicited

from him that there is no written agreement regarding the payment

of rents after entering into the agreement of sale but it is orally

agreed in the presence of witnesses with regard to the payment of

rent and he admitted that since the date of agreement of sale he

has not paid any rents to A.Shankar or his sons. He further

admitted that Vajramma and Sujatha also signed on the

agreement of sale on the instructions of A.Shankar and it is further

elicited through him that said Sujatha and Vajramma are residing

in two rooms beside his portion. All these suggestions are made

by the counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 5 (A.Shankar and his sons)

in the suit. These suggestions would throw light upon a fact that

G.Jayender Babu was a tenant with A.Shankar and that he

stopped paying rents ever since the execution of agreement of ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

sale. It is further elicited from him that in Ex.B1 it is mentioned that

the sale deed shall be executed within a period of three months

and that Vajramma and Sujatha have signed on the agreement of

sale as per the instructions of A.Shankar. It is further elicited from

him that he has not filed any document to show his financial

position for payment of Rs.11 Lakhs except Ex.B4. It is further

elicited from him that he learnt about the sale deed under Ex.A15

executed in favour of B.Nagamani after the suit vide O.S.No.606 of

2011 was filed by B.Nagamani.

e) DW1 is A.Srinivas who is none other than the son of

A.Shankar and admitted that his father executed agreement of

sale under Ex.B1 in favour of G.Jayender Babu. It is elicited from

him that his father A.Shankar is the original owner of the suit

schedule property and that the Labour Department has executed a

registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 vide Ex.A4. He

further admitted that after filing of the suit by B.Nagamani in

O.S.No.606 of 2011, himself and his brothers executed a

registered sale deed in her favour under Ex.A15 in respect of 100

Sq.yards, out of the total extent of 215 Sq.yards. He further added

that without reading the contents of Ex.A15, they have signed on it

before the Registrar. It is further elicited from him that at the time ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

of executing the sale deed under Ex.A15 himself and his brothers

received Rs.6 Lakhs from B.Nagamani and also that they have not

disputed the recitals of Ex.A15 anywhere. It is further elicited from

him that they have executed sale deed only on extent of 100

Sq.yards and that the plaintiff therein/B.Nagamani promised him to

withdraw the suit but subsequently has not withdrawn. He stated

that Ex.A15 contains his signature but Ex.A16 does not contain his

signatures. It is further elicited from him that he does not know

why his father has executed Ex.A16/Agreement of sale dated

09.12.1995 and he also does not know whether his father has

received Rs.5,64,309/- from B.Nagamani towards sale

consideration. He further disputed the signatures of his father on

Ex.A16 and A17. It is elicited from him that they have not issued

any legal notice or filed any cases against B.Nagamani or her

husband for eviction of the suit schedule property at any point of

time but he stated that they have given a police complaint for

eviction but copy of the said complaint is not filed in this case. It is

elicited from him that his father has signed the agreement of sale

under Ex.B1 and also he has knowledge about his father receiving

the money from G.Jayender Babu as hand loan. It is elicited from

him that Vajramma and Sujatha are residing in a part of the suit ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

schedule property till date. It is elicited from him that he has not

lodged any complaint against G.Jayender Babu and not issued

any legal notice claiming that Jayender Babu has not paid any

amount and obtained the signatures of his father. He admitted that

Jayender Babu is residing in an extent of 115 Sq.yards and again

he has stated that Vajrama and Sujatha are also staying in the

said 115 Sq.yards. It is elicited from him that Jayender Babu has

been staying as their tenant since 2000 and that from 2006

onwards he is not paying rents and no notice was given to him and

no case for eviction was filed against him. He has admitted that

his father A.Shankar got the sale deed executed in his name on

22.05.2007 prior to which his grandfather was the owner of the suit

property and further admitted that his father or his family members

have not executed any document in favour of Bollam Nagamani,

nor they have received any consideration for the suit schedule

property in O.S.No.340 of 2007.

f) The evidence of DW1, thus would aid the case of

G.Jayender Babu to the extent that defendant No.1/A.Shankar has

signed the agreement of sale and also that he has received

Rs.3,00,000/- from G.Jayender Babu. Though he says that it was

received as hand loan, he admits the agreement of sale to be ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

signed by his father, while he denies the agreement of sale to have

been executed by his father in favour of Bollam Nagamani.

g) Another evidence which is in favour of G.Jayender Babu is

that, DW1 has admitted the tenancy of G.Jayender babu ever

since 2000 and he has also admitted that from the date of

agreement of sale, he has not been paying rents and he has also

admitted that they have not issued any legal notice or they have

not commenced legal proceedings against him for not paying rents

and they have also not instituted any eviction proceedings. That

means he is in total concurrence with the plaintiff's case. If at all

the plaintiff has committed default in payment of rents without

there being any valid agreement of sale, A.Shankar or his sons i.e.

D1 to D5 herein could have initiated legal proceedings or at least

could have issued a legal notice which is not done.

h) DW3/Pulluri Nagaraju, is the scribe of the agreement of sale

dated 09.08.2006. In his cross examination it is elicited that he

knows the contents of Ex.B1 in respect of the suit schedule

property to an extent of 115 Sq.yards and he also stated that in his

presence, the advance amount was paid by G.Jayender Babu to

Mr.A.Shankar as on the day of execution of Ex.B1.

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

i) DW4/Vajramma, is the wife of the brother of Defendant

No.1. It is elicited from her that A.Shankar has promised them to

give a share in the sale consideration while selling the suit

schedule property. Accordingly, they have received Rs.1 Lakh

each i.e. herself Rs.1 Lakh and Rs.1 Lakh to Sujatha. She also

stated that Ex.B1 was executed in the year 2006. It is elicited from

her that B.Nagamani was staying as a tenant in a part of the suit

premises from the year 1993 i.e. ever since their marriage. She

does not know whether defendant No.1 has signed on the receipt

of Rs.2 Lakh but she stated that herself and her sister have

received the amounts and they have signed on the document. It is

further elicited from her that Jayender Babu has been residing in a

portion of the suit schedule premises. The counsel for defendants

1 to 5 has posed a specific question to her stating that what is the

purpose of executing Ex.B2 i.e. receipt, she has clearly stated that

towards their share in the suit schedule property, herself and her

sister have received Rs.2 Lakhs from Jayender babu as per the

instructions given by Mr.A.Shankar.

j) DW5/R.Eshwaraiah is an attesting witness. In his cross

examination it is elicited that the agreement of sale was entered

into between A.Shankar and Jayander Babu in his presence with ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

regard to the 115 Sq.yards of the suit schedule property and that

there is no mention of boundaries in the said agreement of sale. It

is elicited from him that he is a colleague of A.Shankar and thus,

he signed as a witness on behalf of defendant No.1 on the

agreement of sale/Ex.B1. It is further elicited from him that the

advance sale consideration of Rs.3 Lakhs was received by

A.Shankar and that the negotiations regarding Ex.B1 were held in

his presence.

k) DW6/A.Srinivas is the scribe of the receipt/Ex.B2. In his

cross examination he has affirmed the same and he further stated

that the said consideration is paid to Sujatha and Vajramma on the

instructions of A.Shankar. It is elicited from him that he has not

signed in Ex.B1 as a witness. But it is elicited from him that Ex.B1

is scribed by a local resident by name Mr.Raju and he has also

stated about the contents of Ex.B1 saying that it is an agreement

of sale for 115 Sq.yards in SRT 377 for a total sale consideration

of Rs.16 Lakhs.

l) Thus, all these witnesses support the case of G.Jayender

Babu. Thus G.Jayender Babu, plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of 2007 was

successful in proving that the agreement of sale was executed by ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

A.Shankar on 09.08.2006. He got examined the scribe and also

the witnesses to the document. Further, said Vajramma who has

received the part sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh was also

examined, she deposed with regard to the receiving of amount by

her sister Sujatha also to an extent of Rs.1 Lakh, this supports the

case of the plaintiff that Rs.2 Lakhs was paid under Ex.B2 to the

said people under the instructions of A.Shankar. Therefore all

these witnesses have strengthened the case of the G.Jayender

Babu, plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of 2007.

m) Further it is to be observed that G.Jayender Babu, plaintiff in

O.S.No.340 of 2007 stood firm on his case that he has got an

agreement of sale in his favour executed by Shankar over an

extent of 115 Sq.yards and that he was ready and willing to

perform his part of contract. The payment of advance sale

consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and part sale consideration of

Rs.2,00,000/- is also proved through the evidence of DWs 1 to 6

coupled with Ex.B2. It is an admitted fact that original sale deed

was to be executed by the Labour Department in favour of

A.Papaih but since A.Papaiah died during the pendency of the

proceedings, the labour department has executed the sale deed

on 22.05.2007, till then Shankar could not have executed sale ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

deed in favour of G.Jayender Babu. However, on learning the

same he has approached the defendant No.1 on the same day for

execution of sale deed and expressing his readiness and

willingness. The said fact is also admitted by DW1.

n) Further, the legal notice served by G.Jayender Babu,

plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of 2007 would prove his effort in getting the

sale deed executed. It is also to be noted in this regard that he

has been staying in the premises as a tenant and he has been

regular in paying the rents till 2006 as admitted by DW1 and that

though DW1 stated that he committed default in paying rents from

the execution of sale deed, they have not taken any steps to

proceed against the plaintiff herein either for eviction or payment of

arrears. DW1 has further affirmed the execution of sale deed to

the extent of 100 sq.yards in favour of B.Nagamani and has clearly

stated that it has nothing to do with the agreement of sale in favour

of the G.Jayender Babu as it is over an extent of 115 Sq.yards.

He has also admitted the execution of agreement of sale dated

09.08.2006 under Ex.B1 by his father and also has admitted the

receiving of advance sale consideration. Therefore, G.Jayender

Babu, plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of 2007 could prove that Ex.B1

agreement of sale dated 09.08.2006 is true, valid and binding on ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

A.Shankar and his sons i.e. defendants 1 to 5 and thus, they are

liable to execute the sale deed. Further, the readiness and

willingness on part of G.Jayender Babu, the plaintiff in O.S.No.340

of 2007 is also proved by the evidence on record. Hence, point

Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

18. POINT NO.3:

In view of the findings arrived at under point Nos.1 and 2, it

is held that G.Jayender Babu, the plaintiff in O.S.No.340 of 2007 is

entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale and the

defendants having received the advance sale consideration are

liable to execute sale deed in favour of G.Jayender Babu, over an

extent of 115 Sq.yards in SRT 377 i.e. the suit schedule property

in O.S.No.340 of 2007. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

19. POINT NOS. 4 TO 6:

a) The husband of Bollam Nagamani is examined as PW1 in

the joint trial conducted by the trial Court. However, it is put forth

by the arguments of the counsel that a sale deed is already

executed in her favour to an extent of 100 Sq.yards and the said

fact is admitted by DW1 in his cross examination during the

pendency of suit, though she has filed the suit seeking cancellation ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

of gift deed executed by A.Shankar in favour of his sons, during

the pendency of suit she got executed a sale deed through the

sons of A.Shankar. In case if she seeks cancellation of gift deed,

then there will not be any title in favour of the sons of A.Shankar to

hold that they can convey the property in favour of Bollam

Nagamani. In the absence of any title in their favour, they cannot

convey a better title to her. However, the appellant counsel has

submitted that they would not press the first issue. This step is not

taken by B.Nagamani in the trial Court, once she got executed a

sale deed to an extent of 100 Sq.yards, she could have sought for

amendment of her prayer in the suit, which was not done.

B.Nagamani, plaintiff in O.S.No.606 of 2011 initially says that she

got an agreement of sale in her favour executed in the year 1995

for the total extent of land i.e. 215 Sq.yards. She filed the suit for

cancellation of gift deed and specific performance of agreement of

sale but during the pendency of the suit, a sale deed to an extent

of 100 Sq.yards got executed in her favour and now again she

says that she is not pressing the first issue i.e. the cancellation of

gift deed. However, B.Nagamani still claims that she is entitled for

specific performance of the agreement of sale to an extent of total

property i.e. the remaining 150 Sq.yards also. None of the ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

witnesses supported her case. DW1 who is the son of A.Shankar

himself says that the property that is registered in favour of Bollam

Nagamani has nothing to do with the agreement of sale executed

in favour of G.Jayender Babu. DW1 further admitted that they

have received a sale consideration of Rs.6 Lakhs from

B.Nagamani and has registered 100 Sq.yards and he feigned

ignorance with regard to the amounts if any received by his father

and he further denies to have executed any agreement of sale in

her favour by her father.

b) It is pertinent to note here that the sons of A.Shankar i.e.

defendants 1 to 5 have not preferred any appeal against the case

of G.Jayender Babu i.e. O.S.No.340 of 2007. If at all they were

aggrieved by the said suit, they could have preferred the appeal,

instead they have executed a sale deed in favour of G.Jayender

Babu over 115 Sq.yards. Thus, it is elicited that the property

beyond 100 Sq.yards is not available as on date. B.Nagamani has

already got sale deed in her favour over the 100 sq.yards and

another sale deed with respect to 115 Sq.yards of the suit

schedule property is executed in favour of G.Jayender Babu.

Further, to hold that the agreement of sale is valid, the executant

himself has to admit or the witnesses have to be examined.

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

Defendant No.1/A.Shankar has not entered into witness box, while

DW1 who is his son has denied the agreement of sale in favour of

B.Nagamani. Thus, there is no evidence to support the case of

B.Nagamani to hold that any agreement of sale was executed in

her favour by A.Shankar agreeing to sell the total extent of

property. However, DW1 has admitted execution of sale deed

over 100 Sq.yards of suit schedule property. Therefore, it is held

that B.Nagamani the plaintiff in O.S.No.606 of 2011 could not

prove the execution of agreement of sale and thus, the defendants

i.e. A.Shankar and his sons are not bound by the same.

Therefore, she is not entitled to a decree of specific performance.

Point Nos.4 to 6 are answered accordingly against B.Nagamani,

plaintiff in O.S.No.606 of 2011.

20. POINT NO.7:

In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 6, it

is held that the common judgment and decree dated 25.01.2019

passed in O.S.No.340 of 2007 and O.S.No.606 of 2011 by the

learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad,

are sustainable in law and under the facts.

ETD,J CCCA_196_199_2019

21. POINT NO.8:

In the result, the appeals are dismissed upholding the

common judgment and decree dated 25.01.2019 passed in

O.S.No.340 of 2007 and O.S.No.606 of 2011 by the learned XI

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

                                   ___________________________
                                  JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date:     12.09.2025
ns