Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1018 (TS)

Bollam Nagamani v. A. Shankar

2025-09-12

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. 1. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 of2007. 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 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. 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 1 st 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 1 st defendant has received a sum of Rs.5,64,309/- from her and her husband towards the entire 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. 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: “1) Whether the defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale on 09.08.2006 and received any consideration on that day and on16.09.2007? 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. 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. 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 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 1 st issue in the O.S.No.606 of 2019 with regard to cancellation of gift deed. 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 1 st issue in the O.S.No.606 of 2019 with regard to cancellation of gift deed. Apart from the advance sale 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 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. 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 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. 16. 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. 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 to5? 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 of2011 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. None of the 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.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. 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. 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.