Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 887 (TS)

Gudur Madhava Reddy v. Bobbala Raji Reddy

2025-06-13

RENUKA YARA

body2025
JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. The above appeals are preferred aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in O.S.Nos.307of 2013 and 308 of 2013, dated 05.11.2018, whereby, two suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance have been decreed, directing the appellants/defendants in the respective suits to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deeds in favour of the respondent, failing which, the respondent is at liberty to follow due process of law for securing registered sale deeds. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.Nos.307 and 308 of 2013 seeking specific performance with respect to land in Sy.No.41/UU, 51/UU, 52/EE and 53/U admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas and land in Sy.No.40/U, 41/U, 52/E and 53/EE admeasuring Acs.4.00 guntas respectively situated at Gudur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. The above suits are filed by the respondent/plaintiff against two different appellants/defendants. Except the subject property, the rest of the facts are common. The evidence led is common and the judgments rendered are similar. Therefore, both the appeals are tagged together for common disposal. 4. Brief facts of the cases: The appellants in both the appeals are the owners and possessors of the subject properties. They offered to sell the property i.e. total of Acs.4.00 of land in each suit for a sale consideration of Rs.1,32,000/- per acre. There was agreement between the appellants and the respondent which was reduced into writing by way of agreement of sale, dated 17.09.2004, on payment of Rs.1,75,000/- as advance for each piece of land. There was further agreement of payment of balance sale consideration for each piece of land on or before 15.01.2005, before getting the registered sale deed. The respondent expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration orally and requested the appellants to execute the registered sale deed, whereas the same was not acceded by the appellants. Vexed with the attitude of the appellants, the respondent got issued legal notices, dated 22.11.2006. However, said notices were returned unserved. At this juncture, on account of oral refusal by the appellants to register the sale deed, the respondent filed suits for specific performance with a prayer for execution of registered sale deed by the appellants by receiving the balance sale consideration. However, said notices were returned unserved. At this juncture, on account of oral refusal by the appellants to register the sale deed, the respondent filed suits for specific performance with a prayer for execution of registered sale deed by the appellants by receiving the balance sale consideration. The appellants opposed the suit claims by admitting the agreement of sale and receipt of advance. However, there is a denial about the readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent to pay the balance sale consideration. According to the appellants, the respondent was never ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, as he did not have the requisite amount. Since the agreements of sale contains a specific date for payment of balance sale consideration i.e. 15.01.2005, the appellants contend that the respondent failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time and, therefore, the agreements are cancelled and the advance amount paid is forfeited. It is further case of the appellants that time is essence of contract and that the respondent paid paltry amount of only 25% of sale consideration and there is balance of 75% of sale consideration, which was not paid in time. There is also another contention that the agreements of sale are not admissible, as the same are hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act. Upon examining the contention of the rival parties, the trial Court settled the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.09.2004? 2. Whether time was made as essence of contract and if whether the advance amount is forfeited for non-compliance? Thereafter, after examining the evidence led by both the parties, the suits have been decreed on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent while discarding the defence taken by the appellants. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present appeals are preferred. 5. Grounds of appeals: It is contended that the respondent is due to pay a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- for each piece of Acs.4.00 of land, but has paid meager amount of Rs.1,75,000/- each, which constitutes only 25% of sale consideration. The time is essence of contract and the same has not been complied by the respondent. There is an emphasis on the fact that the legal notice got issued by the respondent was not served on the appellants. The time is essence of contract and the same has not been complied by the respondent. There is an emphasis on the fact that the legal notice got issued by the respondent was not served on the appellants. It is further case of the appellants that the legal notice is dated 22.11.2006 and the suits have been filed in the year 2013 and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act. On the aspect of granting relief of specific performance in a time barred suit, it is alleged that the same is in conflict with the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in Thota Rambabu @ Ramu v. Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao @ Pedababu & others , [ (2005) 5 ALT 278 ] and Smt.Thakamma Mathew v. M.Azamathulla Khan and others , [AIR 1993 SC Page 1120] . The appellants contend that the respondent has never had amounts as per the bank statement marked under Ex.A4 which show less than Rs.10,000/- at any given point of time. Whenever substantial sums are deposited, the same is withdrawn on the very next date or within one week. The bank statements negate the contention of the respondent that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. There is also an emphasis on the fact that audited books of accounts are not produced and the Income Tax returns of the respondent are required to enable him to claim the amount deposited in the bank is properly accounted money, failing which the money in the bank account would be in the nature of black money. Without proving the source of income, the advance sale consideration and the balance sale consideration would constitute benami money under Section 2(26) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. In this context, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalawati (D) through LRs v. Rakesh Kumar , [AID 2018 SC 960] . To sum up, according to the appellants, the pleadings and the evidence do not support the case of the respondent. The evidence does not prove the readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent to pay the balance sale consideration. Both the main relief and alternative relief of advance sale consideration are barred by limitation. Hence the appeals. 6. To sum up, according to the appellants, the pleadings and the evidence do not support the case of the respondent. The evidence does not prove the readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent to pay the balance sale consideration. Both the main relief and alternative relief of advance sale consideration are barred by limitation. Hence the appeals. 6. Along with the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.197 of 2019 and I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.202 of 2019 respectively requesting this Court to raise two additional grounds about non-receipt of legal notice by the appellants and the same vitiating the judgment followed by failure on the part of respondent to show his readiness and willingness and the time was essence of contract, respectively. 7. The oral arguments of the counsel for the appellants is a restatement of the appeal grounds, where there is emphasis on failure on the part of the respondent to prove his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration on account of non- availability of the required funds and the bank statement being inadequate to support the respondent about availability of sufficient funds. The written arguments filed are to the effect that the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda about the respondent having financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration being erroneous. Further, the respondent entered into two separate agreements of sale for different extents, for total consideration of Rs.5,28,000/- and Rs.2,64,000/- respectively. As on 15.01.2005, the balance sale consideration is Rs.3,53,000/- in one agreement and Rs.1,98,000/- under another agreement. It is argued that the respondent has to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to abide by the agreement of sale under three different agreements of sale dated 17.09.2004, 17.09.2004 and 19.08.2004. Lastly, it is argued that the suit claims are fraudulent as per established legal precedents and therefore prayed that the appeals are to be allowed. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for appellants relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Anantam Veeraju and others v. Valluri Venkayya @ Venkamma (died) and another, AIR 1960 AP 222 for the purpose of raising additional issue during appeal i.e. the issue of limitation which was not addressed before the trial Court. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for appellants relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Anantam Veeraju and others v. Valluri Venkayya @ Venkamma (died) and another, AIR 1960 AP 222 for the purpose of raising additional issue during appeal i.e. the issue of limitation which was not addressed before the trial Court. On this issue, as per the record, the last date for payment of sale consideration is 15.01.2005 and therefore, the limitation of three years would expire on 15.01.2008. Since 15.01.2008 is Sankranthi festival, the suit was presented on 17.01.2008. Therefore, issue of limitation has no bearing on the maintainability of the present suits irrespective of the fact that though the suits were presented in 2008, the same were registered in the year 2013. When the suit is presented before a competent Court within limitation, its registration subsequently with delay will not affect limitation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ramakrishna Rao @ Baburao v. Srinivasarao and others , AIR 1960 AP 449 which is about essentials for initiation into sanyas ashram as per Hindu Law and power of an appellate Court to receive additional evidence at appeal stage. Both the issues are not in question in the present appeals and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 10. Lastly, learned counsel relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt , AIR 2018 SC 4796 which is about application for permission to adduce additional evidence at appeal stage and the same is not applicable to the present appeals as there are no applications for receipt of additional evidence. 11. The sum total of the facts and circumstances of the matters show that it is undisputed fact that there were agreements of sale executed between the respondent and the appellants for sale of subject land for a specific amount. Advance sale consideration was paid and the balance has to be paid on or before 15.01.2005. The contention of the respondent is that he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration while the same is denied by the appellants. The respondent allegedly repeatedly requested for execution of registered sale deeds but the same was not acceded to by the appellants. The contention of the respondent is that he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration while the same is denied by the appellants. The respondent allegedly repeatedly requested for execution of registered sale deeds but the same was not acceded to by the appellants. Having waited for some time, the respondent got issued legal notices dated 22.11.2006 but the same were returned unserved. In the circumstances, the respondent filed suits for specific performance against the appellants wherein the appellants were put to notice about the respondent’s claims seeking relief of specific performance of agreements of sale dated 17.09.2004. The only substantial ground canvassed by the appellants is that the respondent does not have financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration for which no independent evidence was led to prove except the self-serving pleadings and oral evidence of the appellants. There is no convincing evidence to believe the version of the appellants. Per contra, the respondent has led evidence to prove his claim by getting himself examined as P.W.1 and a witness to the agreement of sale as P.W.2. To prove his readiness and willingness, which includes financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration, the respondent got his bank statement marked as Ex.A4 showing the inflow and outflow of his bank account during the relevant period. The contents of the bank statement are referred to for contending that the respondent did not have more than Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- of money in the account at any given point of time. Further, it is contended that whenever huge amounts, such as, Rs.50,000/- are deposited, the same is withdrawn within a day or 2 days. Such contentions cannot be given much weightage unless there is proof that the respondent indeed does not have financially capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Azhar Sultana v. B.Rajamani , (2009)17 SCC 27 held that “it is not necessary that the entire amount of sale consideration should be kept ready and the plaintiff must file proof in respect thereof”. In Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed , (2017)4 SCC 654 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction to prove his readiness and willingness”. In Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed , (2017)4 SCC 654 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction to prove his readiness and willingness”. In Rithu Saxena v. J.S. Grover , (2019)9 SCC 132 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “it is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till the date of the decree”. In U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishna Murthy , (2023)11 SCC 775 , it is held that “it may not be essential for the plaintiff to actually tender money to the defendant or to deposit money in Court, except when so directed by the Court, to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of a contract, which involves payment of money.” 13. As per aforementioned citations, the party approaching the Court seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale need not produce actual cash/money but is entitled to prove his readiness and willingness by any other means. In the instant cases, the respondent has produced his bank statement to show that he had sufficient inflow and outflow of cash in his bank account during the relevant period. As to how the respondent utilized the cash available in his bank account is not the concern of the appellants as long as the balance sale consideration is paid in time. 14. The contention of the appellants that the audited books of accounts are not filed or that the Income Tax returns of the respondent are not produced are contentions which are not tenable in the face of the judgments referred supra 7 to 10. There is no law which mandates production of audited books of accounts or Income Tax returns to show that the respondent is using properly accounted money and not black money for the purpose of payment of sale consideration. In case the appellants have any such doubt it is for the appellants to prove the same and cannot call upon the respondent to prove that his money is properly accounted money and not black money. In case the appellants have any such doubt it is for the appellants to prove the same and cannot call upon the respondent to prove that his money is properly accounted money and not black money. There is no law which states that a person seeking specific relief should prove his source of income, rather the law stipulates that there should be amounts available for payment of sale consideration. The contention of the appellants that the failure to prove the source of income would give rise to assumption about the money paid as sale consideration by the respondent is benami is untenable. There are no such presumptions in law of specific performance, as such, the contentions raised by the appellants are untenable. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court sees no ground to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda as the same are based on proper appreciation of facts and the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, both the Appeal Suits and the Interlocutory Applications are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals, shall stand closed.