Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 291 (TS)

Madala Ramadevi v. Made China Kotaiah

2025-04-10

K.SUJANA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (K. SUJANA, J.) Challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2008 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suit is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.05.2007. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1, M. Chenna Kotaiah, was the absolute owner of the suit property located at Thattianaram Village, Ranga Reddy District, and entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was allegedly paid as advance. The plaintiff claimed that despite readiness and willingness to pay the balance, the defendant failed to complete the sale and instead executed a subsequent sale agreement-cum-GPA on 17.01.2008 in favor of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.1 remained ex parte. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, however, denied the claims of the plaintiff before the trial Court and asserted that the defendant No.1 agreed to sell the property to them for Rs.18,70,000/-. They entered into an agreement on 06.12.2007 and paid Rs.3,00,000/- initially, later clearing the outstanding housing loan of Rs.10,76,320/- to redeem the mortgage on the property. A registered agreement of sale- cum-GPA was executed in their favor (Ex.B1), and they claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value. They also contended that defendant No.1 had a habit of signing blank papers and cheques, casting doubt on the plaintiff’s agreement. 3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. DWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 24.01.2015, dismissed the suit observing that there are discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence in the plaintiff’s version, particularly regarding the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- allegedly made in cash without documentation. The supporting witness (PW2) gave inconsistent testimony, weakening the case of the plaintiff. In contrast, defendant Nos.2 and 3 provided credible documentary evidence (Exs.B1 to B15), proving payment and possession. The supporting witness (PW2) gave inconsistent testimony, weakening the case of the plaintiff. In contrast, defendant Nos.2 and 3 provided credible documentary evidence (Exs.B1 to B15), proving payment and possession. Due to the non-appearance of defendant No.1 and the doubtful circumstances around the agreement of the plaintiff, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the agreement. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suit is filed. 5. Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are incorrect and against the evidence and law and that the trial Court wrongly rejected the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance based on assumptions instead of properly considering the documents and witness testimonies. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the plaintiff only because she is from a different district and has no business in Hyderabad. He further submitted that there is nothing unusual about someone wanting to buy property in the capital city and that the trial Court ignored that defendant Nos.2 and 3 claimed ownership through an agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, which does not transfer title under the law. He further submitted that even if the document is genuine, it only gives them the right to seek specific performance from defendant No.1, which they never did, and are now barred by limitation. 7. Leaned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant proved her case by examining the attesting witness, and his evidence remained unchallenged and that the trial Court also failed to notice the collusion among the defendants, especially since defendant No.1 remained ex-parte and did not appear to give evidence. He further contended that the blank cheque relied on by the defendants raises suspicion and shows further collusion. Moreover, the agreement of sale relied upon by the defendants is not admissible in evidence as it was not properly stamped. He further contended that the trial Court made its decision based on assumptions rather than evidence, and the dismissal of the suit is unjust. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial court by allowing this appeal suit. 8. He further contended that the trial Court made its decision based on assumptions rather than evidence, and the dismissal of the suit is unjust. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial court by allowing this appeal suit. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaint itself reveals that there is no proper basis for the agreement, as no registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff despite the alleged payment of Rs.14,00,000/-. He further submitted that the appellant/plaintiff has not filed any receipt to prove the payment of the advance amount, nor has she explained the source of funds used to pay the said amount to defendant No.1. This, according to the respondents, indicates that the document is fabricated to defeat the rights of Defendant Nos.2 and 3. He further contended that Ex.A1 lacks credibility and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not support her claim. Hence, he prayed the Court that the appeal suit be dismissed. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: i. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale under Ex.A1? ii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court warrants any interference? Point No.i: 10. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the suit has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A1. The case of the appellant is that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale with her for the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was allegedly paid in cash. As per the terms of the agreement, defendant No.1 was to complete construction of the cement-structured house, deliver possession, and thereafter execute a registered sale deed upon payment of the remaining sale consideration. 11. In support of her claim, the appellant/plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 (agreement of sale), Ex.A2 (office copy of legal notice dated 30.01.2008), Exs.A3 and A4 (returned covers and postal acknowledgment), and Ex.A5 (certified copy of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA). 11. In support of her claim, the appellant/plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 (agreement of sale), Ex.A2 (office copy of legal notice dated 30.01.2008), Exs.A3 and A4 (returned covers and postal acknowledgment), and Ex.A5 (certified copy of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA). It is a settled principle of law that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must not only prove the execution of a valid agreement but also establish her continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. 12. In the present case, although the agreement of sale is dated 14.05.2007, no time limit for performance was specified. However, the plaintiff claims that she approached defendant No.1 in the first week of November 2007 to pay the balance sale consideration, but defendant No.1 was not ready to perform his part of the contract. It was only on 30.01.2008 that a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff, which raises doubts regarding her readiness and willingness. 13. Further, the plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as receipts or bank records, to substantiate the alleged payment of Rs.14,00,000/-. During her evidence, she vaguely stated that the amount was adjusted from her dowry, but no further proof was submitted in support of this claim. She also admitted that she never visited the suit schedule property before entering into the agreement, which further weakens her case. 14. Further, the documents filed by the defendants, including Ex.B2 (agreement of sale dated 03.12.2007), reveal that defendant No.1 had entered into a subsequent agreement of sale with the husband of defendant No.3, who is also the father of defendant No.2, for a higher sale consideration of Rs.18,70,000/-, out of which Rs.14,97,320/- was duly acknowledged and supported by receipts. The defendants also produced Ex.B1 (registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA), Exs.B5 to B7 (loan discharge documents), and Ex.B13 (electricity demand notices in the name of DW1), which collectively establish their possession and payment of sale consideration. 15. The evidence of DW1 and DW3 further corroborates the fact that defendant No.1 had a practice of signing blank documents and issuing blank cheques due to his indebtedness. Ex.B15, a blank cheque issued by defendant No.1 in favour of DW3, supports this contention. These facts undermine the credibility of Ex.A1 relied upon by the plaintiff. 16. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. Ex.B15, a blank cheque issued by defendant No.1 in favour of DW3, supports this contention. These facts undermine the credibility of Ex.A1 relied upon by the plaintiff. 16. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. There is also no convincing evidence to support the alleged payment of a substantial part of the sale consideration. On the contrary, the defendants have successfully established their case by producing credible oral and documentary evidence, including discharge of the housing loan on the suit schedule property. Point No.ii: 17. In view of the above discussion in point No.i, there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court discussed all the issues and it is a well reasoned judgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment. 18. In view thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2008 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.