Allowed

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi v. S.K. Jani Miya and Another

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022AS/670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellate court set aside a lower court's decree ordering specific performance of a property sale. The judge held the agreement lacked essential details, was suspiciously executed on plain paper, and the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, disentitling him to equitable relief.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree were set aside and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi Vs S.K. Jani… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD '

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO: 670 OF 2019

¶6

Appeal under Section^g6 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dateci 1711012019 in O.S.No. 85 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against women-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge-Khammam.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Venkala Narayana, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Chitakani Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

S.K. Jani Miya, S/o. Lal Mohammed.

¶12

Chittimodu Rama Devi, W/o Papaiah. (Respondent No.2 is a formal party)

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B. N. SWAMIJI, Advocate

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: NAGESWARARAO REPAKULA

¶16

The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A, VENXATESHWAITA REDDY AD peal Suit No.6 70 of 20 L9

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The irst defendant has filed this Appea.l Suit assailing th: judgment and decree dated 17.1O.,2019 in OS No.BS of 2(t14 on the file of the learne,d VItt Additional District Jud Je at Khammam

¶21

The p.aintiff has filed the original suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.04 .2014 in respect of Imd admeasuring Ac.2.0O guntasr in Survey No.568 situated at Chinthakani Revenue rillage and Mandal, Khi Lmmam District with precise borrndaries as mentioned ir L the schedule of property. The tria-l Court after full len,;th trial decreed the suit of the p aintiff with costs for spe:ific performance of Ex.A. l_agreenrent of sale in favour of tlre plaintiff in respect of suit schedrLle property directing hin to deposit the barance sare co :rsideration within one month from the date of judgment an([ thereafter the defendant s were directed to execute the regi5.1,s1.6 aa-l.

¶22

¶23

Pege 2 of 22

¶24

AVRJ AS No.67o of 20l9

¶25

deed in favour of the plaintilf and deliver the vacant possession of the same.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the first defendant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds and accordingly prayed to allow this appeal suit:

¶27

i) that the judgment and decree passed by the tria-l Court is contrarlr to law, weight of evidence, all probabilities of the case and it is devoid of merits;

¶28

ii) that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the suit agreement of sale is only obtained on an ordinary paper, it does not contain the details of the land, boundaries and survey number and blindly decreed the suit;

¶29

iii) that the trial Court failed to ascertain whether the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and also failed to see that their signatures were obtained on blank papers for mutation of the land in the revenue records, but the trial Court has directed for deposit of balance amount of Rs.6 lakhs, instead of Rs. 1 1,80,000/-; and -.o4

Page 3 of 22

AVRJ lSl No.,;70 of20l9

¶34

iv) t hat the impugned judgment and ,lecree is r gainst the oral and documentary r:vidence r.vailable on record.

¶35

In th : cause title of grounds of a :peal, it is mentioned r hat the second defendant, u-ho ir. t-he second respondent herein, is only a formal part-r anrl r-ro reiief is claimed aga nst her.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the ap 1:,:llant/first defendant ard the first respondent/plaintilf. [:rused the material avz ilable on record. The submissio I s rrLade on either side have received due consideration of tlris Court.

¶37

6 . In the light of rival contentions and t hr: rnaterial available on record the following points wou lcl arise for consideratio. r:

¶38

i) V'hether the plaintiff is able to estahlish the e. <ecution of Ex.A. l-agreement of sale by d:fendants and it is a genuine dc<:ument? ard

¶39

ii) !\ hether the judgment impugned 1S sr rstainable?

¶40

Page 4 of 22

¶41

AVR.J AS No.670 of 2019

¶42

¶43

Point Nos.lil and {iil:

¶44

7 . For the sa-ke of convenience, both the points are answered together as under and the parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the first defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

¶45

The plaintiff has fi1ed the original suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.04.2014 in respect of the suit schedule property alleging that the defendants have executed Ex.A. 1 agreeing to execute the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule pioperty for a total sale consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs, @ Rs.6 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, on 23.04.2014 the defendants acknowledged the receipt of Rs.20,000/- as part of sale consideration. As per the terms of agreement of sate, the amount of Rs.6 lakhs has to be paid on or before 30.05.2014 and the remaining amount has to be paid on or before 30.08.2014. But in spite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendants either failed to receive the amount or to execute the registered sa_le deed. Finally, the plaintilf has got issued a legal notice dated 09.06.2OI4 calling upon

¶46

¶47

AVRJ F.S No.670 of 2019

¶48

Page 5 ol 22

¶49

the defendr Lnts for execution of registered s ale^,1eed for which the defendants got issued a replY .rr:)tice dated 13.06.2014 u,ith all false allegations. The p-airrtiff has deposited tlre amount of Rs.6 lakhs in A.P. Gr a;rrina Vikas Bank, Chinthal<ani branch, vide account No.^()36834405 and further he is ready and willing to pay the l:alance sa-le consideratic n. Hence, the suit

¶50

9 . The d :fen dants 1 & 2 have filed com cr on written statement. Thr: main averments of the writtt n statement are that the suit is not maintainable, the deferrclants never offered to sr 11 the suit scheduie property to th: plaintiff as alleged and all false allegations are made. E.x.h. 1 is a fabricated drcument. The plaintiff did not ch,rcrse to send the alleged agreement of sale as demantle,d by the defendants . n ttre reply notice. Mere deposit cl Rs.6 lakhs by the plair rtiff in the bank account is not strffir:ient to prove his rerrdiness and willingness and accordirrgly prayed for dismissa of the suit.

¶51

Based on the above pleadings, the tria. Corrrt has framed the f rllowing issues:

¶52

Page 6 of 22

¶53

AV RJ AS No.670 of 2019

¶54

I
I

¶55

1 Whether the agreement of saie dated 23.04.2014 is true, valid and supported by consideration?

¶56

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Specific Performance as prayed for?

¶57

To what relieP

¶58

During the tria-l on behaif of the plaintiff, PWs. l to 4 were examined and Exs.A. 1 to A.4 are marked. Since pW.3 failed to appear for cross-examination, his evidence was eschewed from consideration. Thereafter, on behalf of the defendants, DWs.I to 3 are marked. After hearing both the parties and on considering the entire material available on record, the trial Court has answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.O4.2OL4 directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court within one month and thereafter to inform the same to the defendants by way of issuing notice ald in case the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff is entitled for execution of such sa_le deed

¶59

by due process of law.

¶60

Paqe 7 ol 22

¶61

AVRJ l.ll No.670 of2019

¶62

Amon3 the four witnesses examined on l>,:he.if of the plaintiff, hr: himself got examined as PW. 1 ancl in his evidence o. rly Exs.A. 1 to A.4 documents are marked. Ex.A. 1 is th: agreement of saie dated 23.04.20I^,1, Ux.A.2 is the office c()py of legal notice dated 09.06.20 t4, Ex.A.3 is the two pos.al receipts and Ex.A.4 is the reply ;:otice dated 13.06.2014. Tl-re plaintiff as PW.t has iiled his r:vidence aflidavit in ieu of chief examination reiteratirrg the plaint averments. To prove the execution of Ex.A. l-rrgreement of Sale, the ple intiff has also examined the scribe ,tf Ex.A. 1 as PW.2 and orLe of the attesters as PW.4. All thest'. wrtnesses were subjec .ecl to lengthy cross-exarnination. ln hi:; crossexamination, PW. t has stated that Ex.A. 1 do€ s not reveal the source )f title of defendants I & 2. anrl where the property is s ituated and the recitals do not disclose. that it is al agreer. rent of sale. He denied all other suggestions given to him

¶63

PW.2, 'vho is the scribe of Ex.A. 1, has sultported the case of the plaintiff. He has also admitted tha, the source of ti d roundaries are not mentioned in Elx.A. 1. He

¶64

AVRJ AS No.670 of 20 19

¶65

¶66

Page 8 of 22

¶67

used to write the agreements to the needy persons and the survey number is mentioned in the brackets wrth different ink. He stated that at the time of drafting Ex.A. 1, he did not mention the survey number, which is in the brackets and it might have been mentioned at a later stage. He denied all other suggestions given to him.

¶68

1.4. PW.4 is one of the attester of Ex.A.l. He supported the entire case of the plaintiff. Throughout the cross_ examination, nothing is elicited to disbelieve the contents of Ex.A. 1 and explained that in Ex.A. 1 it is not recited that the defendants have agreed to execute the sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff. He explained that the survey numbers were mentioned by using different pen. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of defendants were obtained on a plain paper and fabricated Ex.A. 1.

¶69

On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant has filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the averments in the written statement. The relationship between defendants 1 & 2 is not in dispute as siylrs. She denied the suggestion that the defendants

¶70

Page 9 of 22

¶71

AVRJ l:i No.670 of 20 I I

¶72

¶73

have agree I to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 11,80,0(t0f- on or before 30.08.2074 a.r'.d agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of r,he plaintiff. She further denied the suggestion that the ptaintiff has arranged the balance sale consideration arrd rr:que:sted for execution o I the registered sale deed. She a^jrnitr,ed that she has re( eived the legal notice and explair re:d 1.hat the plaintiff wa; called upon to furnish the cop1. of alleged were agreement of sa.le dated 23.04.2014 since they disputing tt e same, but the plaintiff failed to I'urnish the copy. She also admitted the relationship rvlrl.r []andam Ganapathi and denied other suggestions given r) her.

¶74

DW.2 s the second defendant. She has surported the evidencr : of DW. 1 on all material partic ,rlars . She admitted he r signature on Ex.A. 1 and also r;r.atod that PW.2 scribe I the Ex.A. 1 and she does not ,<no'"v one Bandam Gar tapathi. On perusal of Ex.A. 1, sht: has stated that it r.r,as sr:ribed by PW.2.

¶75

17 . DW.3, vho is an independent witness, suploorled the evidence of ])Ws.1 & 2 and in the cross- exarz.irration, he

¶76

Page 10 of 22

¶77

AVRJ AS No.670 of 2019

¶78

denied the suggestion that the defendants 1 & 2 have executed Ex.A. I in favour of the plaintiff and that they have received Rs.20,0OO/- as advance amount. However, this witness admitted about the civil disputes pending between the plaintiff and Bandam Ganapathi.

¶79

Ex.A. 1 is the said alteged agreement of sale dated 23.04.2014 said to have been scribed by pW.2. But this document is not styled as agreement of sale or bond, without any heading or title this document is scribed and at tlre end above the signatures of both the defendalts were found beneath "ittlu". Though pW.2 clarified that he has scribed Ex.A. 1, in his cross-examination, the witness has clearly stated that Ex.A. 1 does not contain the description of the propert5r, it does not contain the correct description of both the defendants. He further stated that the land extent and survey number details are not mentioned by him in Ex.A. 1. He claimed to be a professional document writer and he is aware that any such agreement of sa_le has to be executed on a required on-judicial stamp paper. In the cross-examination, this

¶80

Page 11 of 22

¶81

AVRJ ll:i No 670 of 2019

¶82

witness car egorically stated that he did not ntention the survey nun ber as '568' and it might han e bet.:: mentioned at a later s -age and the title of Ex.A. 1 <sup>'as n.)t mentioned as 'bayana rgreement'or 'sale agreement'. Tht: ivitness has stated that he used to write the agreements to the needy persons art I he has knowledge that such aijreements of sales eire 5 enerally prepared or drafteci on non-judicial stamp pap, )rs and he denied the suggesti rrr that the defendants lave approached him for some otlr:r' work and he obtained their signatures on blank papers rrr:d rnisused the same at the instance of plaintiff.

¶83

The o her independent witness-PW.4 is r:ite.d as a witness to Ex.A.1, but curiously he again clairr ed to be the scribe of the said document. In his chief exarn natiorr itself PW.4 has ck arl1'stated that Ex.A. 1 was scriberl iry him. In the cross-ex mination, the witness stated tha - ne scribed the agreeme nt of sale on a plain paper and h e did not mention the heading as 'agreement of sale' a:r.l it is not recited in I )x.A. 1 that the defendants have agreed to execute the r egistered sa,le deed in favour of tht: piaintiff as

¶84

Page 12 of 22

¶85

AVRJ AS No.67O of 20 i9

¶86

and when demanded by the plaintiff, however, explained that both the defendants have orally agreed for the same. This witness stated that the survey number was mentioned in Ex.A. I by using different pen within the brackets compared to the matter written in Ex.A. 1. He further stated that PW.2 himself scribed or mentioned the survey number within the brackets by using different pen. He is distant relative of the plaintiff. He further admitted that Ex.A. 1 does not reveal location where the lands are situated or boundaries of the land and source of title of the defendants. He denied the suggestion that since the subject propergr is a valuable property, in order to grab the same, having colluded with the plaintiff and deposing false. 20. Be it stated that though pW.3 is cited as a witness, and attester to Ex.A. 1, his evidence is eschewed from consideration at the request of the plaintiff. Though pWs.2 & 4 are claiming that they have scribed Ex.A. l-document, PW.2 has stated that he did not mention the survey number and other details of the land. He fairly admitted that the description of defendants is not correctly

¶87

Page 13 of 22

¶88

AVRJ \S No.r;70 of 2019

¶89

mentioned in Ex.A.1. PW.2 has further a(lmitted that subsequent.y the survey number is mentionr:<i in Ex.A. 1 within the lrrackets, whereas PW.4 though initialllr stated that he has scribed Ex.A. i, in the cross-exa:nination, he stated that .)W.2 has mentioned the survey number within the bracketrt with different pen. Further, p!t',rt admitted that it is not recited in Ex.A. 1 that the defencialts have agreed to e; :ecute the registered sale deed ar; and when demanded by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to nrention that PW.4 is a c ose relative of the plaintiff and hr: is not an independent witness.

¶90

2l . The pl rintiff who is seeking to enforce a contract must show fiat a1l the conditions precedent have been fulfilled and that he has performed or has beert ready and willing to pe rform the terms of contract whic h ought to have been p erformed by him and that he is ready and willing to I erform the future obligations r.r nder the contract.

¶91

Section 16 (c) of the Specilic Relief Act enr.isages that th9-plaintiff r nust plead and prove that he had perlbrmed

¶92

¶93

PaBe t4 of 22

¶94

AVRJ AS No.670 of 20l9

¶95

or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential tbrms of the contract which are to be performed by him other than those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. Thus, readiness may meajl the capacity of plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his Iinancial ability to pay the purchase price, but in case of willingness to perform his conduct has to be properly scrutinized.

¶96

As per Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, the Court is not bound to decree the specific performance of contract, simply because it would be lawful. The conduct of the plaintiff must be above abode and there must be a valid contract. The specific performance of contract is only execution of contract as per the agreed terms. The stipulation and terms have to be certain and the parties must be adidem, the burden of showing the terms of conclirded contract is always on the plaintiff and when

¶97

PaEe 15 of 22

¶98

AVRJ AS No.670 of 2019

¶99

there is no ralitl contract between the parties, Lhe question of enforcem:nt will not arise.

¶100

In the above legal background, if the ore I evidence of PWs.1, 2 ar d 4 and the contents of Ex.A. 1 arr ".icn:tinized, it can be safely stated that the description of rlelendants is not proper y mentioned, the description of the suit schedule pr tperty including survey number and the source of title ol d:fendants also not mentioned. Tlrcugh PW.2 has stated that he has scribed Ex.A. 1, it is clEi:.r from his evidence th at he did not mention the det,rils of tand including th: particulars of survey number, w:.ereas PW.4 who is cite,l as a witness claimed that he has scribed Ex.A. 1 but egain stated that the survey numbe r details are mentioned ty PW.2 on1y. Undisputedly, the ,locurnent is not styled e ither as 'agreement of sale' or 'asleernent of receipt of ad rance amount' and the recitals onLJ' shr:w that the names o'both the defendants are mentionecl. agreed to receive Rs.6 lakhs per one acre and thev harr: agreed to execute the sa-le deed in respect of two ac :e s rvithout mentioning the details such as survey number. location of

¶101

Page 16 of 22

¶102

AVRJ AS No.670 of 2019

¶103

the property, boundaries, source of title of the defendants etc. In fact, a plain reading of Ex.A.l further shows that it appears to be a letter of intention entered into in between the parties and it cannot be treated as an agreement of sale by aly stretch of imagination. Both pWs.2 & 4 have categorically stated that nowhere it is recited in Ex.A. 1 that both the defendants have agreed to execute the sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff.

¶104

The plaintiff is not al uneducated person, he is retired Assistant Manager of A.p. Gramina Vikas Bank. He is a graduate. He is aware of recitals of agreements of sale and the sale transactions will have effected or such documents will be scribed, whereas both the defendants are rustic village ladies without any academic background. The specific case of both the defendants is that they signed on papers before PW.2 and they never intend to execute the agreement of sale in respect of their land. DW. t has categorically stated that she is aware of the details of survey number of her land. The evidence of DWs.l & 2 only goes to show that their parents have given Ac. 1 .00

¶105

Page L7 of 22

¶106

AVRJ LS No.67O of2019

¶107

guntas of lend to each of them and that after ".he marriage, the second lefendant is living with her husband aI her-inlaws place. Though the husband of second cil:fendant is also cited r .s a witness to Ex.A. 1 , no efforts wer.e made either by th-. plaintiff or by the defendant to exzrmine him. When the siile price was agreed for Rs.6 lakhs per acre, for atotal consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs, Ac.2.00 gtrntas of land was agreed o be sold, only a paltry amount of Rs.20,000/_ was paid as advance, that too, by scribing a clocument as described a f ove on a plain paper without even using revenue sta mp acknowledging the receipt ,tf the said amount. Tlus, the ora-l evidence of pWs.l, 2 and 4 and recitals of E x.A.l creates a reasonable doubt as to the intention of .he defendants to execute registerr.d sale deed in respect of their land of two acres @ Rs.6 lalJrs per acre and that tl ey have received Rs.20,O0O/- its advance alnount.

¶108

Further, there is no erridence to show thrt from the date of Ex.A. I till the date of Ex.A.2 legal notice , there was demand by he plaintiff for execution of registered sale

¶109

¶110

Page 18 of 22

¶111

AVRJ AS No.670 of 20 19

¶112

(

¶113

deed. Immediately, after receipt ol Ex.A.2-legal notice, both the defendants have got issued reply notice denying the contents of said notice stating that no such agreement of sale was executed by them at any point of time and it is a fabricated document. Accordingly, the plaintiff was called upon to furnish a copy of the said agreement of sale dated 23.O4.2O14, having received Ex.A.4 reply notice, the plaintiff faiied to furnish copy of Ex.A. 1 to the defendants but liled ..^{the present suit for specific performance} of agreement of sale. All these circumstances coupled with the interpolations or mentioning the survey number without consent of defendants either by pW.2 or pW.4 shows that the plaintiffs conduct is not above abode. There is suppression of material facts and Ex.A. 1 is clouded by suspicious circumstance. The details of survey number appea-r to have been inserted at a later point of time without the consent of both the defendants. In such circumstances, it amounts to material alteration of Ex.A. I without the consent of both the defendants and such conduct of the plaintiff disentitles him to the equitable relief of specific performance.

¶114

AVRJ \Sr No.ri70 of 2O l9

¶115

Page L9 of 22

¶116

Though the plaintiff has pleaded tlrert he has deposited Rs.6 lakhs in a bank account, no such proof is filed to that eflect except the averments in the tl,{nt and in his chief ex rmination. Therefore, considering the defence of the defen lalts that there is a steep increase i.n tl:re price of lands in the recent times and also palt4 amount of Rs.20,000/1S aileged to have been paid urrder Ex.A. 1, which is also disputed by defendants, the concluc: of the plaintiff and the recitals of Ex.A. 1 including th,: suspicious circumstalc:s as elicited in the evidence ol F\V's.2 and 4 disentitles tl e plaint for such discretionan reli,:f of specific performance

¶117

Equity and fairness are the most es ientials for validity of a contract. The court has to consirler whether the exercise ol discretion will be fair, just an d equitable and r,r,ill be lgided by the principles of justice, equity and good concise The court should meticulously :onsrder all the facts and circumstarces of the case, motive beh:.nd the litigation an I ensure that the discretion of the Court should not re used as an instrument to^{g -ant} unfair

¶118

Page 20 of 22

¶119

AVRJ AS No.67b of 2Ol9

¶120

¶121

advantage to the plaintiff. As indicated above, the defendants are rustic village ladies where as the plaintiff is a graduate, retired Bank Manager. pW.2 is a professional scribe. PW.4 is a B.tech Graduate. Both the defendants in Ex.A.4 reply notice, in the written statement and in their evidence consistently alleged that pW.2 being a document writer, obtained their signatures for some other purpose on a plain paper, and such paper was misused ard fabricated as Ex.A. 1. That too, Ex.A. 1 does not contain proper description of defendants, schedule of property and source of title of the defendants. Even as per pW.2, he did not mention the survey number in Ex.A. 1. Though pW.4 is cited as witness, he claims to be the scribe of Ex.A. I and again stated that pW.2 has mentioned the details of survey number, and that a paJtry amount of Rs.20,000/_ only paid against the agreed sale price of Rs.12 lakhs raising suspicion on the genuineness of the document. Though the plaintiff was ca_lled upon to furnish copy of Ex.A. 1 through Ex-A.4, he failed to furnish the same and filed the _ __suit in a hasty manner.

¶122

Page ZL of 22

¶123

AVRJ {S No.'i7O of20l9

¶124

t I

¶125

t ,

¶126

29 . Therel cre, in my considered opinior , all these attending c rcumstances coupled with the co..(luct of the plaintiff, re:itals of Ex.A. 1, disentitles the plaintiff for discretionar r relief of specific performanct:. It lppears that he has bee n trying to take unfair advarrtae;t: over the defendants^.rho are rustic uneducated village 1r<lies. and as such not eltitled for the relief of specific I,,: rformance. ConsequentJy, both the points are answered in favour of the defendarrts zr-nd against the plaintiff and tlre judgment alrd decree i npugned is liable to be set aside.

¶127

In that view of the matter, in my co:rsiderr:d opinion, the trial Cr urt has failed to appreciate the: oral and documentarr evidence adduced and available on record in correct lines and the plaintiff failed to prove tbt: rec:itals of Ex.A. I with cogent and convincing evidence There are material altt rations, only paltry amount of )?s.20,000/was paid for an agreement of sale considerati,tn o1' Rs. 12 lakhs, the p aintiff failed to furnish copy of E>:A.l when demanded b.' the defendants through reply nctice. Such qondqct of tJre plaintiff disentitles him from c.a:iming the

¶128

-t

¶129

PaEe 22 of 22

¶130

AVRJ AS No.670 of20l9

¶131

¶132

equitable relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and accordingly the judgment and decree.impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶133

3 i. In the result, the appeal suit is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 17. IO.2Olg in OS No.85 of 2Ol4 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶134

As a sequei, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this appeal, shal1 staad closed.

¶135

To,

¶136

Sd/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶137

1 . The Special Sessions Judge, For Fast Tracking the Cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-Vlll Additional district Judge, at kEammam (with records)

¶138

One CC to Sri B. N. SWAM|JI, Advocate [OpUC]

¶139

One CC to Sri NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA, Advocate [OpUC]

¶140

Two CD Copies.

Njb

HIGH COU 1T

AVR,J

DATED:21 10912022

JUDGMEN.- + DECREE

AS.No.670 cf 2019

1 rrE. STi f
()
( i<br>q-
i)c, 2 0 [i:B A?3 a
-!
.. f<br>

¶148

AILOWEDTHI APPEAL

¶149

tr
c--
),D))

¶150

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶151

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶152

PRESENT

¶153

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶154

FIRST APPEAL NO: 670 OF 2019

¶155

(

¶156

Between:

¶157

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo Venkala Narayana, Aged about 40^years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Chitakani Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

¶158

...APPELLANT

¶159

AND

¶160

S.K. Jani Miya, S/o. Lal Mohammed.

¶161

Chittimodu Rama Devi, Wo Papaiah. (Respondent No.2 is a formal^party)

¶162

...RESPONDENT

¶163

Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against women-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge-Khammam.

¶164

ln the Original Suit No. 85 of 2014

¶165

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papes in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. N. SWAMIJI, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri NAGESWARA RAO REPAKULA, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶166

This Court doth order and decree as follows :-

¶167

That the Judgment and decree dated 17.10.2019 in O.S.No. 85 of 2014 on the file of the learned Vlll Additional District Judge be and hereby is^{set aside} and the appeal suit allowed. And

¶168

This court doth further and decree that there be no order as to costs in^this appeal.

¶169

To,

¶170

//TRUE COPY//

¶171

sd/.. B.S. bttRnru.leevr "rotNr^REgslBAc

¶172

siEcfloN 6-rrrcen

¶173

1 $:"',ru*:i',iffiixtif^{il,ix.,fi,.,ffi :iE,$,.:"? j;:[,i::1,,,lfl} #,", 2. Two CD vCo ries

HIGH COUIRT

AVR,J

DATED:21 t0912022

DECREE

AS.No.670 of 2019

ALLOWED TT E APPEAL

3
I 9,O 24

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi v. S.K. Jani Miya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi v. S.K. Jani Miya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gattoju Haritha Vs G.Sai Ram

Smt. Bandoju Krishnaveni Vs Uppula Aravind Kumar

P.N.Sudhakar, Vs Mohammed Ismail

M/s. Grove Limited, Vs M/s. Shrinath Roto Pack (P) Ltd.

Nakka Posetty Vs N Jagannatham

Dasari Sruthi Vs Dasari Srinivasa Rao