[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Sri Sanvala Ananta Reddy vs Sri P.Raja Reddy on 16 April, 2026

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K.Lakshman

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT: HYDERABAD

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

                               AND

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                 APPEAL SUIT NO.991 OF 2012

                    DATED: 16th APRIL, 2026

Between:

1. Sri Sanvala Ananta Reddy and 4 Others
                                            .. Appellants-Defendants

                                Vs.

1. Sri P.Raja Reddy, S/o.Late Sudhakar Reddy,
   Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retd. Police Officer,
   R/o.H.No.3-12/13G, Ganesh Nagar,
   Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District.
                                             .. Respondent-Plaintiff


      This Court delivered the following:


JUDGMENT:

(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

1. This Memorandum of Civil Appeal is filed under Section 96 of

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC) assailing the

Judgment and decree passed by the learned IV Additional District

Judge at Siddipet, Medak District in OS No.16 of 2011, dated

27.09.2012.

                              2/26                        KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                          AS_991_2012

2. Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff

in OS No.16 of 2011.

3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit under Order 7 Rule 1 of

CPC against the appellants-defendants with a prayer to direct the

defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated

04.09.2006 in his favour and to execute registered sale deed.

3.2. It is important to mention here that the original of Ex.A1-

Agreement of Sale is showing the date as 11.09.2006, Ex.A3-Legal

Notice dated 02.11.2006 and Ex.A4-Reply Notice dated 17.11.2006

refers to the date of Agreement of Sale as 14.09.2006, the same

date is reflected in the plaint, but in the prayer portion of the

plaint, the date of Agreement of Sale is mentioned as 04.09.2006.

Stamp paper of Agreement of Sale is purchased on 14.09.2006.

Since 14.09.2006 is referred in the pleadings of the parties, the

same date will be herein after referred to henceforth.

3.3. The schedule of the property is land admeasuring Ac.01-28

gts in Sy.No.373 and land admeasuring Ac.01-03 gts., in

Sy.No.374, total admeasuring Acs.02-31 gts., situated at Islampur

Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District with specific boundaries.

3.4. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit is that

appellants-defendants are the owners and possessors of land 3/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

admeasuring Ac.01-28 gts., in Sy.No.373 and Ac.01-03 gts., in

Sy.No.374, total admeasuring Acs.02-31 gts., situated at Islampur

Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. Respondent-plaintiff

entered into an agreement of sale, dated 14.09.2006 in respect of

the above said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.27

Lakhs. Appellants-defendants have received an amount of

Rs.2,70,000/- in cash as part of sale consideration. The

respondent-plaintiff has issued post dated cheque No.004708,

dated 23.09.2006 for an amount of Rs.4,07,500/- drawn on State

Bank of Hyderabad, Himayath Nagar Branch. Appellants-

defendants have encashed the said cheque on 23.09.2006.

Appellants-defendants have to get the land surveyed. Respondent-

plaintiff further paid an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.09.2006

and a receipt is executed to that effect. Respondent-plaintiff

approached appellant No.5-defendant No.5 and requested him to

get the land surveyed and receive the balance sale consideration of

Rs.7,72,500/-. Respondent-plaintiff is always ready to pay the

balance sale consideration and willing to perform his part of

contract. The appellants-defendants have been postponing the

matter on one or the other pretext, thereby the respondent-plaintiff

got issued legal notice on 02.11.2006. Appellant Nos.1 and 3-

defendant Nos.1 and 3 received the notice and the notice sent to

appellant No.2 & 4-defendant Nos.2 & 4 is returned as 'unclaimed'.

                              4/26                          KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                            AS_991_2012




Appellants-defendants   have    got   issued   a   reply   notice    on

17.11.2006 admitting the agreement and its terms and conditions

and payments made by the respondent-plaintiff and alleged that

the sale consideration was not adequate for executing registered

sale deed in his favour. They further alleged that their consent for

executing agreement of sale was not voluntary but was obtained by

the respondent-plaintiff by playing foul play, inducement and

misrepresentation.

4. Appellants-defendants have filed their written statement and

contended that the respondent-plaintiff has got incorporated some

clauses in the agreement of sale without the concurrence of the

appellants-defendants and obtained their signatures and they have

received an amount of Rs.18,75,000/- but not the amount of

Rs.19,25,000/-. Agreement of Sale, dated 14.09.2006 is fraud and

obtained by misrepresentation. Suit schedule lands are quite

abutting to National Highway No.7 on the western side. Out of

total extent of Acs.02-31 gts., Ac.01-20 gts., is abutting the road

which is cultivable and irrigated by a bore well. Remaining extent

of Ac.01-11 gts., is abandoned being unused for more than three

years. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet got published a

notice in Deccan Chronicle and Vaartha Daily on 22.04.2006

declaring acquisition of lands under Section 3 of the National 5/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

Highways Authority Act and the land of the appellants-defendants

to an extent of Ac.01-29 gts., out of Sy.Nos.373 and 374 will be

acquired in the road widening. Subsequently, there was change in

the alignment of the road widening and the lands of the appellants-

defendants were excluded from acquisition. Respondent-plaintiff

having come to know the exclusion of the lands from acquisition

suppressed and approached the appellant No.5-defendant No.5

requested him to sell the lands saying that small extent of Ac.01-

02 gts., is left after acquisition is not useful. Appellant No.5-

defendant No.5 was misled and he accepted the offer of the

respondent-plaintiff without consulting the other appellants-

defendants. The market value of the land is Rs.20 Lakhs per acre.

In the second week of October, 2006, the appellants-defendants

came to know about the exclusion of their lands from acquisition.

Respondent-plaintiff made material alterations in Para No.6 of

agreement by incorporating a sentence with "Physical possession is

given in favour of the respondent- plaintiff from right now with

paddy crop of the said land". The respondent-plaintiff has also

added two lines in the receipt dated 30.09.2006 without the

knowledge of the appellants-defendants. Appellants-defendants

have returned the money by taking a Demand Draft in the name of

the respondent-plaintiff and sent the same through his advocate, 6/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

Sri Narsinga Raj by addressing a letter dated 14.04.2007 but there

is no response.

5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the defendants were induced by the plaintiff and obtained signatures in the agreement?

2. Whether the transaction dated 14.09.2006 is as a result of fraud?

3. Whether the agreement dated 14.09.2006 is materially altered in Para No.6 of the agreement?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the specific performance of contract as prayed?

5. To what relief?

6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also examined

PW.2 - B.Keshav Reddy, PW.3 - Rajender Reddy, got marked

Exs.A1 to A4. Appellant No.5 is examined as DW.1 and also

examined DW.2 - S.Narsimha Reddy, no documents are marked

from their side.

7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced

by the parties has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-

plaintiff and directed him to deposit the balance sale consideration

of Rs.7,75,000/- within two months from the date of decree i.e.,

27.09.2012 with notice to the appellants-defendants and the

appellants-defendants shall register the suit property in favour of

the respondent-plaintiff within 15 days from receipt of notice, 7/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

failing which the respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to execute the

decree.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that

the learned trial Court ought to have seen that agreement of sale -

Ex.A1, dated 14.09.2006 is vitiated by fraud, inducement played

by the respondent-plaintiff and there was no consensus between

the parties in respect of the agreement. Material alterations are

made in Ex.A1 by incorporating the words in Para 6. The learned

trial Court erred in holding that the interpolations in Ex.A1 done

by the respondent-plaintiff were with the consent of the appellants

-defendants. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the

respondent-plaintiff clearly stated that the additions in the second

page of Ex.A1 that the appellant-defendants have put their

signatures but not in page No.3 of the agreement (Ex.A1). Thus the

interpolations made in page No.3 of Ex.A1 are without the consent

of the appellants-defendants. The learned trial Court ought to have

seen that the interpolated clause 6 of Ex.A1 is running contrary to

clause 4 which clearly shows that clause 6 is incorporated by the

respondent-plaintiff alone without the consent of the appellants-

defendants. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that para

No.4 of the plaint says that the respondent-plaintiff repeatedly

requested the appellants-defendants and thereby he was put in 8/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

possession of the suit land on 30.09.2006 which is contrary to the

evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1. The learned trial Court ought to have

seen that interpolations are also made by the respondent-plaintiff

in Ex.A2 which are also without the consent of the appellants-

defendants. Appellants-defendants offered to return the money

received by them along with additional amount of Rs.1 Lakh to the

respondent-plaintiff, the same is not considered by the learned trial

Court. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the

decisions in the cases of (1) Lourdu Mari David and Others Vs.

Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy and Others 1 (2) Baldev Singh and

Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another 2 (3) Vimal Chand

Ghevarchand Jain and Others Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo3

(4) Suresh Kumar Wadhwa Vs. State of M.P. and Others 4

(5) Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Official Liquidator

of Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd., (In Liquidation) and Others5

(6) Narasamma and Others Vs. A.Krishnappa (Dead) through Lrs.6

(7) Janab M.H.M.Yakoob (died) and others Vs. M.Krishnan (died)

and Others 7 (8) Seth Loonkaran Sethiya and Others Vs. Mr.Ivan

1996 AIR SCW 3603

AIR 2006 SC 2832

2009 AIR SCW 3624

AIR 2017 SC 5435

AIR 2018 SC 4769

AIR 2020 SC 4178

AIR 1992 Madras 80 9/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

E.John and Others 8 (9) Vummalaneni Basavayya and Another Vs.

Myneni Venkayya and Others 9 (10) D.Narasimhamurthy and

Others Vs. D.Krishnamurthy Rao (died) by LRs. 10, prayed to allow

the Appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the

appellants-defendants have admitted that they have received the

amount and the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the

facts of the case by taking into consideration the evidence adduced

by the parties and decreed the suit directing the respondent-

plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within two

months from the date of decree (27.09.2012). Appellants-

defendants have not made out any case to interfere with the

reasoned judgment and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

10. Now the point for consideration are :

(i) Whether Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 14.09.2006 is

materially altered by the respondent-plaintiff without the

consent of the appellants-defendants?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial

Court suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so does it

requires interference of this Court?



  (1977) 1 SCC 379

  1997 (5) ALD 782

   2005 (1) ALD 75
                                    10/26                             KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                                     AS_991_2012

11.1. As per Ex.A1-agreement of sale dated 14.09.2006, the

schedule property is Acs.2.31 gts., (Ac.1.28 gts., in Sy.No.373 and

Ac.1.03 gts., in Sy.No.374). The total sale consideration is

Rs.27,00,000/-.

11.2. Conditions No.1, 2 and 6 of Ex.A1 - Agreement of Sale, dated

14.09.2006 are important to adjudicate the lis which are as under:

1. That the vendee herein has today paid cash a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy thousand only) to the vendors as advance dated 11.09.2006, and 21.09.2006 and cheque bearing No.004708 dated 23.09.2006, State Bank of Hyderabad.

2. And the balance amount of Rs.20,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Five thousand only) will be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of this Agreement. The cheque No.004708 contains Rs.40,5000/- is being given to Chintala Srinivas Reddy with consent of the other four S.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and all agreed and signed below.(Italic portion is hand written).

6. The balance payment is subject to survey of land and available at the time of Registration. If the land is less than the records, the payment would be made as per survey but not as per records. Physical possession is given in favour of P.Raja Reddy from right now with paddy crop of said land. (Italic portion is hand written).

12. Ex.A2 is the receipt dated 30.09.2006 executed by

Ch.Srinivas Reddy (appellant No.5-defendant No.5), K.Sridhar

Reddy (appellant No.2-defendant No.2) and T.Harinath Reddy

(appellant No.4-defendant No.4) for an amount of Rs.12,50,000/-

                                    11/26                             KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                                     AS_991_2012

received from the respondent-plaintiff in respect of Acs.2-31 gts., of

land in Sy.Nos.373 and 374 of Islampur limits, Toopran Mandal,

Medak District. The receipt further goes to show that balance

amount is Rs.7,75,000/-. Witnesses to Ex.A2 are Keshava Reddy

(PW.2) and K.Mallesh S/o.Sattaiah.

13. Respondent-plaintiff has got issued legal notice under Ex.A3

on 02.11.2006 stating that the balance amount to be paid is

Rs.7,75,000/- and he has approached the appellants-defendants

on 09.10.2006, 19.10.2006 and on 26.10.2006, requested them to

survey the land and receive the balance sale consideration and

execute the Sale Deed within 10 days of receipt of the notice, else

he will be constrained to file suit for specific performance.

Appellants-defendants have issued reply under Ex.A4 on

17.11.2006 contending that they are not disputing the agreement

of sale, dated 14.09.2006 (Ex.A1) and part payment of

consideration received by them and they have further stated in the

legal notice that it is an unfair deal and would result in substantial

loss if enforced, there is a foul play, inducement and

misrepresentation on the part of the respondent-plaintiff and

advised him to not to take any legal action, accept the money back

along with Rs.1 Lakh generously offered as compensation to avoid

further litigation in the matter.

                               12/26                         KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                            AS_991_2012

14. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff is the replica of his

plaint averments. In his cross-examination he stated that he

knows that the appellants-defendants are having 2 or 2 ½ Acres of

land in Sy.Nos.373 and 374, out of the land covered by the

agreement of sale (Ex.A1), the rare portion i.e., Ac.01-00 gts is

uncultivable land covered by filter beds and he has knowledge that

the appellants-defendants were doing agriculture in the land of the

remaining extent, there is a borewell existing in the suit land. By

September, 2006, he had knowledge about the widening of road for

N.H. and work was going on, at his instance appellants-defendants

got prepared the contents of Ex.A1. He incorporated the sentence

"Physical possession is given in favour of P.Raja Reddy

(respondent-plaintiff) right from now with paddy crop of said land"

at page No.3 in clause 6 of Ex.A1. After discussing with the

appellants-defendants, he mentioned the boundaries in writing in

Ex.A1 and at the time of Ex.A1 only. Witness adds that with the

consent of the appellants-defendants he wrote the same and also

stated in Ex.A1 on second page in terms and conditions, he

incorporated with pen with his hand. In Ex.A1 in clause 4, it is

mentioned that possession will be delivered after survey of the

lands. In page 3 of Ex.A1, it is not signed by the appellants-

defendants and he has not taken the physical possession of the

suit land as mentioned in Ex.A1 at page No.3. Since it is 13/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

mentioned in Ex.A1, he took possession of the suit land on his own

on the next day of Ex.A1, he has written the receipt under Ex.A2

on 30.09.2006. Numerical numbers are written in Blue colour and

the names were written in Black colour in Ex.A2. Ex.A2 contains

the signatures of appellant Nos.2, 4 and 5-defendant Nos.2, 4 and

5. While writing the contents of Ex.A2, he has written "I have

written the sentence", in the Pahanies filed by him he is shown as

cultivator for the years 2005-2006. Appellant Nos.3 and 4-

defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of Ex.Mayor, Hyderabad Sri

Teegala Krishna Reddy. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he

approached appellant No.5-defendant No.5 stating that after

acquisition remaining land is Acs.01-02 gts., and requested him to

sell the same without concurrence of other appellants-defendants.

He also denied the suggestion that he made material alterations in

Ex.A1 regarding delivery of possession and other contents in Ex.A2

without the knowledge and concurrence of the appellants-

defendants including alteration of survey number and he played

fraud on the appellants- defendants and got Ex.A1, he is not

entitled for specific performance of contract. PW.1 also denied the

suggestion that appellants-defendants are not aware of exclusion

of the suit land from acquisition on the date of Ex.A1 and he

obtained the signatures of appellant Nos.1 to 4-defendant Nos.1 to

4 by going door to door.

                                14/26                         KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                             AS_991_2012

15.1. PW.2 - B.Keshav Reddy deposed that he acted as a witness

to Exs.A1 and A2 and the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of

the land as per agreement of sale (Ex.A1) and in total he has paid

Rs.19,75,000/- and the balance amount to be paid is

Rs.7,50,000/- only and he also accompanied the respondent-

plaintiff while visiting the house of appellant No.5-defendant No.5

in the month of October, 2006. The rest of the evidence is the same

with that of respondent-plaintiff.

15.2. In his cross examination he stated that on 06.09.2006

appellants-defendants informed that the suit land was not covered

under Land Acquisition Act. The rate was not fixed on the basis of

acres. Ex.A1 was brought by the appellants-defendants, he do not

know where they got it typed. Respondent-plaintiff has informed

the terms in Ex.A1 to the appellant No.5-defendant No.5 while

preparing the document. The sentence written with a pen in clause

6 of Ex.A1 was written at the time of its execution by the

respondent-plaintiff and the suit land is not surveyed either prior

to entering into agreement or after the agreement. It is mentioned

in the agreement - Ex.A1 that the land has to be surveyed before

registration. The suit land is in possession of the respondent-

plaintiff without any cultivation. On the date of agreement - Ex.A1,

respondent-plaintiff paid cash of Rs.2,75,000/- and Rs.4,05,000/-

                              15/26                         KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                           AS_991_2012

to the appellants-defendants. At the time of execution of Ex.A1

appellants-defendants were present. Survey number was corrected

as Sy.No.373 either at Advocate office at Sanga Reddy or in the

Court. All the appellants-defendants have signed on the receipt-

Ex.A2 which was executed in the house of appellant No.1-

defendant No.1. On the date of Ex.A1 there was paddy field in the

suit land cultivated by the lessee of the appellants-defendants.

15.3. PW.2 further stated in his cross-examination that on the

next day after Ex.A1, they went to the suit land and took

possession of the land. He denied the suggestion that the sentence

in clause 6 of Ex.A1 was written subsequent without the

knowledge of the appellants-defendants and also denied the

suggestion that respondent-plaintiff induced the appellants-

defendants to sell the suit land and entered into agreement by

saying that after acquisition of the land only small extent remains

and that he was in knowledge that the lands are deleted from the

acquisition and thus played fraud on them. He also denied the

suggestion that at the time of execution of Ex.A1 he was not

present and he do not know anything about the agreement and the

transaction between the parties.

16.1. PW3 - Rajender Reddy deposed that the respondent-plaintiff

has entered into agreement with the appellants-defendants under 16/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

Ex.A1 and the total sale consideration is Rs.27 Lakhs, out of which

the respondent-plaintiff has paid substantial amount and the

balance amount to be paid is Rs.7,75,000/- only. Respondent-

plaintiff has requested him to solve the issue and they requested

the appellant Nos.1 and 5-defendant Nos.1 and 5 to survey the

land and register the property in the name of respondent-plaintiff

but they refused to do so. Hence, he left the house of appellant

No.5-defendant No.5 with respondent-plaintiff and Keshav Reddy.

16.2. In his cross examination he stated that he along with the

respondent-plaintiff, PW.2 and one Das, Ratnakar Reddy went to

the house of appellant No.5-defendant No.5 in second week of

October. All the appellants-defendants were present and on

enquiry, they informed that they are expecting Rs.4 or 5 Lakhs

more than the agreed amount. After 15 to 20 days, they again went

to the house of the appellants-defendants, appellant No.5-

defendant No.5 has informed them that the other appellants-

defendants are expecting more money, they did not give any

specific reason. He denied the suggestion that he has not

negotiated with the appellants- defendants.

17. The evidence of appellant No.5-defendant No.5 is the replica

of the written statement. In his cross-examination he stated that

the schedule lands are jointly in their names in the revenue 17/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

records including the title deeds. He know the respondent- plaintiff

from the date of agreement and they entered into agreement -

Ex.A1 with the plaintiff after publication of notice after excluding

the land of the proposed acquisition. They came to know that the

land is not required by the Government for the proposed Highway

after receiving 40% of the consideration under Ex.A1 and they have

received the amount by way of cash and cheque. The entire sale

consideration of the suit land is Rs.27 Lakhs. One day prior to the

agreement - Ex.A1 an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid. On the

date of agreement - Ex.A1 an amount of Rs.4,07,500/- is paid by

way of post dated cheque and the same was realized. Within one

week of Ex.A1 further amount of Rs.12,50,000/- was paid in two

installments and all the appellants-defendants are having

knowledge about the execution of Ex.A1. The amount paid by the

respondent-plaintiff have been distributed by all of them equally.

He received a major portion of the amount. They did not issue any

notice after knowing about the exclusion of their land from

acquisition. After receiving Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.09.2006, one

week thereafter respondent-plaintiff came to him and asked for

survey of the land and execution of the documents. He informed

the respondent-plaintiff that they are not ready for execution of

sale deed and asked him to take back the money. After payment of

Rs.12,50,000/- the respondent-plaintiff approached for two or 18/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

three times. Ex.A3 - Legal notice was received by all of them

individually and they got issued reply under Ex.A4. In Ex.A4 they

got mentioned "He pretended that a good price of Rs.27 Lakhs is

offered for the remaining land though same is considered for total

extent inclusive of acquired land". He has read the contents of

Ex.A1, then only he signed on it. DW.1 denied the suggestion that

they have falsely attributed fraud on the respondent-plaintiff.

18.1. DW.2 - S.Narsimha Reddy deposed that in the month of

September, 2006 respondent-plaintiff approached the appellant

No.5-defendant No.5 at his residence at Alwal, Secunderabad, and

requested him to sell the land stating that there is a road widening

of National Highway No.7 and only small extent of land i.e.,

Ac.01-02 gts., will be left after road widening. He pleaded that the

amount of Rs.27 Lakhs offered by him is virtually the value of the

land left after the road widening. At the time of agreement, the

prevailing market value of the land was above Rs.20 Lakhs per

acre. Respondent-plaintiff misled the appellant No.5-defendant

No.5 dishonestly induced him, played fraud and got the deal

settled.

18.2. In his cross-examination he stated that after filing claim

petition only his son and other owners entered into agreement with

the respondent-plaintiff. On the next day after the signature of 19/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

appellant No.5-defendant No.5 on Ex.A1, his son - appellant No.1-

defendant No.1 affixed his signature and the respondent-plaintiff

approached the other owners and took their signatures. He do not

remember whether he attested Ex.A1 or not. He denied the

suggestion that there is no mischief or fraud played by the

respondent-plaintiff and that the appellants-defendants voluntarily

entered into the agreement - Ex.A1 with him.

19.1. In Lourdu Mari David, the Supreme Court held that "It is

settled law that the party who seeks to avail of the equitable

jurisdiction of a Court and specific performance being equitable

relief, must come to the Court with clean hands. In other words

the party who makes false allegations does not came with clean

hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief"

19.2. In Baldev Singh, the Supreme Court held that "Inconsistent

pleas can be raised by defendants in written statement although

same may not be permissible in the case of plaint". Same view is

followed in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain, Narasamma.

19.3. In Suresh Kumar Wadhwa, the Supreme Court held that

"If any party adds any additional terms - conditions in the contract

without the consent of the other contracting party, then such

addition is not binding on the other party".

                               20/26                      KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                         AS_991_2012

19.4. In Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme

Court held that "A party cannot be permitted to approbate and

reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands".

19.5. In Janab M.H.M. Yakoob, the Madras High Court held that

"Material alteration in an agreement regarding the clause of

delivery of possession at the end of the description of the property

is the material alteration and the effect of making such an

alteration, without the consent of the party bound is exactly the

same as that of cancelling the deed". The same view is followed in

Vummalaneni Basavayya.

19.6. In Seth Loonkaran Sethiya, the Supreme Court observed that

"The effect of making alteration without the consent of the party is

exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed".

19.7 In D.Narasimhamurthy, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad held that "Conflicting clauses render agreement void

and ineffective as it created uncertainty".

20.1. Appellants-defendants have not disputed the agreement of

sale dated 14.09.2006 - Ex.A1 and also not disputed about the

payments made by the respondent-plaintiff as per Ex.A4. The

defence taken by the appellants-defendants in Ex.A4 is that the 21/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

small extent of land left after acquisition is not useful and that the

Government would pay only nominal price to the acquired land

and thus made him to say "Yes" for sale even without consulting

other sharers, he pretended that a good price of Rs.27 Lakhs is

offered for the remaining land though the same is considered for

the total extent inclusive of acquired land and the contract is

vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and is not at all binding,

there is foul play, inducement and misrepresentation on the part of

the respondent-plaintiff.

20.2. It is the defence of the appellants-defendants in the written

statement that out of total extent of Acs.02-31 gts., Ac.01-20 gts.,

is abutting the road was cultivable, irrigated by a bore well,

yielding 4 inches of water and the remaining extent of Ac.01-11

gts., rare portion is used for filter beds for producing stilt and is

abandoned being unused for the last three years and it is the

respondent-plaintiff who approached them to sell the small extent

of land i.e., Ac.01-02 gts., left after the acquisition is not useful

and appellant No.5-defendant No.5 was misled. It is to be noted

here that appellant No.5-defendant No.5 is only examined as DW.1

in the case. He stated in his cross-examination about the receipt of

amount from the respondent-plaintiff and stated that all the

partners are having knowledge about the execution of Ex.A1 and 22/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

the amount paid by the respondent-plaintiff have been distributed

by all of them equally, he read the contents of Ex.A1 and then only

signed on it. The learned trial Court rightly observed in para Nos.9

to 12 that the respondent-plaintiff has not played fraud on the

appellants-defendants and induced them to enter into the

agreement - Ex.A1.

21. Insofar as the material alteration in Ex.A1 in column No.6 in

page 3 is concerned, the wordings incorporated after Para 6 are :

"6.----- Physical possession is given in favour of P.Raja Reddy from right now with paddy crop of said land".

22. Ex.A2 is the receipt dated 30.09.2006 about receipt of

Rs.12,50,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff by appellant No.5-

defendant No.5 which is also signed by appellant No.2-defendant

No.2, appellant No.4-defendant No.4.

23. It is appropriate to refer paragraph No.4 of the plaint which

reads as under:

"The plaintiff lastly submit that on his repeated request, the defendants put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule land on 30.09.2006 when I paid further amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousands only)".

                               23/26                          KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                             AS_991_2012

24. As per the above said para, it is mentioned that on the

repeated requests made by the respondent-plaintiff, appellants-

defendants have put him in possession of the suit land on

30.09.2006. If really the appellants-defendants have put the

respondent-plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property on

30.09.2006, what made him to not to refer the same in Ex.A3 -

legal notice. Ex.A3 - legal notice dated 02.11.2006 is silent with

regard to the delivery of possession by the appellants-defendants

on 30.09.2006. Ex.A2-receipt dated 30.09.2006 also does not state

that the appellants-defendants have delivered possession to the

respondent-plaintiff on the date of receipt of Rs.12,50,000/-.

25. It is important to refer to the admissions made by

respondent-plaintiff in his cross-examination. Respondent-plaintiff

admitted that he has incorporated the sentence "physical

possession is given in favour of P.Raja Reddy from right now with

paddy crop of the said land at page No.3 in clause 6 of Ex.A1.

At the time of Ex.A1 only I incorporated clause 6 on page 3 of

Ex.A1 and the sentence is written by me. Witness adds that with

the consent of the appellants-defendants, he wrote the same. On

perusal of Ex.A1, there are no signatures of appellants-defendants

in column 6 of Ex.A1. The specific case of the respondent-plaintiff

is that possession was delivered to him by the appellants-

                             24/26                        KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                         AS_991_2012

defendants on 30.09.2006. Whereas in his cross-examination he

admitted that he made the incorporation at the time of Ex.A1 itself.

Respondent-plaintiff also admitted that clause 4 of Ex.A1 states

that possession will be delivered after survey of the lands and he

further admitted that he has not taken the physical possession of

the suit land as mentioned in Ex.A1 at page 3. Since it is

mentioned in Ex.A1, he took possession of the suit land on his own

on the next day of Ex.A1.

26. It is worth mentioning that the admission made by PW.2 in

his cross-examination that the sentence written with a pen in

clause 6 of Ex.A1 was at the time of its execution by the

respondent-plaintiff and he also admitted that it is mentioned in

the agreement-Ex.A1 that land has to be surveyed before

registration. When the pleadings of the respondent-plaintiff goes to

show that he was delivered possession on 30.09.2006, how can he

make an alteration in Ex.A1 that possession is delivered to him on

the date of Ex.A1 itself and furthermore, there is no whisper with

regard to delivery of possession in Ex.A3 - legal notice dated

02.11.2006. The learned trial Court has misread the evidence,

pleadings of the parties and the admissions made thereon and

erroneously held in para Nos.13 and 14 that column 6 of Ex.A1 is

made with the consent of the defendants.

                               25/26                          KL,J & BRMR,J
                                                             AS_991_2012

27. Respondent-plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate and he

approached the Court with unclean hands, also made material

alteration to Ex.A1 and has taken inconsistent pleas.

28. Appellants-defendants could able to prove that column 6 of

Ex.A1 is materially altered which is fortified with the pleadings of

the respondent-plaintiff with that of the admissions made by him

in his cross-examination and the admissions made by PW.2. We

are of the view that Ex.A1 is materially altered and respondent-

plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands, he is not

entitled for discretionary relief or specific performance.

29. The plaint prayer goes to show that the respondent-plaintiff

has only sought for specific performance of contract and he did not

sought for any alternate relief for refund of money. Hence, we are

estopped from granting any other relief in absence of a specific

prayer in the plaint.

30. The decisions cited by the appellant's counsel in para

Nos.19.1 to 19.7 are applicable to the facts of the case.

31. We are of the view that the judgment of the learned trial

Court is not sustainable in law in view of the reasons above as 26/26 KL,J & BRMR,J AS_991_2012

Ex.A1 is materially altered with regard to delivery of possession.

Appeal deserves consideration and the same is allowed.

32. AS.No.991 of 2012 is allowed and the judgment and decree

passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge at Siddipet in

OS.No.16 of 2011 dated 27.09.2012 is set aside and consequently

the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed without costs.