Partly allowed

Cherka Satyanarayana v. Peddaboina Yadaiah

Telangana HC10 Nov 2023AS/640/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment appeals against a specific performance suit and a transfer appeal challenging a refund order. The High Court dismissed the suit for specific performance and allowed the transfer appeal, setting aside the trial court's order commanding the refund of the earnest money as it was forfeited per the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Appeal Suit No. 640 of 2010 dismissed; Transfer Appeal Suit No. 373 of 2014 allowed, setting aside the refund order.

Cherka Satyanarayana Vs Peddaboina Yadaiah — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SiTT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶5

APPEAL SUIT NO; 6.() OF 2010 AND

¶6

TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT NO.373 OF 2014

¶7

APPEAL SUIT NO.64O OF 2O1O :

¶8

Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Deffee dated 5-7-2010 passed in OS No.207 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

¶9

TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT NO.373 OF 2014 :

¶10

Appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 Read With Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 5-7-2010 passed in OS No.207 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Cherka Satyanarayana, S/o Pitchaiah, Occ: Agriculture Rl/o H.No. 3-9-1721311, Saraswathi Nagar L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, R.R. District.

¶13

...Plaintiff/Appellant in as No.640 of 2010 & Respondent lN TR AS No.373 OF 2014

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . Peddaboina Yadaiah, S/o Sathaiah, Occ: Agriculturist R/o Goppulaipally Mllage Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

Peddaboina Dhanamma, Wo Yadaiah, Occ: Agriculturist R/o Goppulaipally Village Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

(Appeal against the R-2 dismissed as abated vide court roder dated 19492023)

¶18

...Defendants/Respondents in as No.640 of 2010 & Appellants in tr as No.373 ot 2014

¶19

These appeals are coming on for hearing and upon perusing The grounds of appeals filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pasupuleti Sudhakar, Advocate for the Plaintiff/Appellant in AS No.640 of 2010 and respondent in TR AS No.373 of 2014.

¶20

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWNG COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶23

APPEAL SUIT No.640 of 2010 AND TR.A.S.No.373 of 2O74

¶24

coMMoNJUDGMENT

¶25

Appeal Suit No.640 of 2010 is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 05.02.2010, passed in O.S.No.207 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil |udge,^Nalgonda, insofar as rejecting the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated29.12.2005.

¶26

Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014 is filed by the defendants aggrieved by the same judgment and decree, dated 05.07.2010, passed in O.S.No.207 of Z00g on the file of the Senior Civil ]udge, Nalgonda, insofar as ordering the defendants to refund the earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- to

¶27

the plaintiff within one month from the date of judgment.

¶28

The parties'arill be referred to as arrayed before the

¶29

trial Court.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶31

r5S,I A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶32

¶33

One Cherka Satyanarayana (Plaintiff) filed the^suit against one Peddaboina Yadaiah and his wife Peddaboina Dhanamma (defendants) for specific performance of agreement of sale dared 29.12.2005.

¶34

Defendants are owners and Possessors^ofthe agricultural land to an extent of^Ac.2.23 grts.^{situated in} Sy.No.145lAAl3, Sy.No.1⁴³ / AA /^1. and^Sy.No.143 /^{AA/ 2} Defendants purchased the land in^{Sy.No.143 to an extent of} Ac.2.22 gts. and in Sy.No.145 to an extent^{of Ac.1.18gts.} from one Ganta Shiva Reddy and^{Ganta Narsi Reddy of} Choudampally vitlage, Narketpally^{Mandal, Nalgonda} District, under a registered sale^{deed dated 22.01,.2002.} Defendants 1 and 2 offered to^{sell the said propertyto the} plaintiff @ Rs.1,15,000 / - per acre^{and the plaintiffagreed to} purchase the same for a total^{sale consideration of} Rs.7,61,875/- for agricultural lands^{and also agreed to pay} an amount of Rs.5,000/- for^{the existing Bore well and} motors. Thereafter, the defendants^{executed an agreement}

¶35

T5S, J A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

of sale dated29.72.2005 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing^to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,65,875/ -. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance towards part payment of sale consideration and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,1,6,875/ - within six months from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. The defendants also agreed to obtain Encumbrance Certificate from the office of the Sub Registrar and to deliver all the relevant documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff secured the balance sale consideration and approached the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour as he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration, but the defendants have been postponing the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff, having smelt the foul play on the part of the defendants, got issued a public notice in Telugu daily newspaper dated 08.12.2006 informing the general public that he has purchased the suit schedule property

¶41

r5S, I A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶42

¶43

under an agreement of^{sale and he is in possessionof the} property and if anybody^{enters into any agreement of sale} or mortgage with^{regardto the said land it will become null} and void. It is further^{stated that the defendantswere} negotiating with^{the third partiesto sell their suit schedule} property for higher^{price thoughthe plaintiff wasreadyand} willing to pay the^{balance sale consideration.Vexed with} the attitude of^{the defendants,the plaintiffissued a legal} notice dated 19.06.2006^{demandingthe defendants to} receive the balance^{sale considerationand to executethe} sale deed in his favour.^{In spite of receipt of the said notice,} the defendants failed^{to complythe termsof the agreement} of sale. Therefore,^{the plaintiff filed the suit for specific} performance of agreement^{of sale directingthe defendantto} execute a registered^{sale deed in respect of the suit schedule} property in favour^{of the plaintiff as} Per^{terms of sale} agreement dated^{29.72.2005and also sought for any other} relief or reliefs to^{whichhe is entitled to.}

¶44

rcS, I A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

l ti

i. il : l a :i ii

5 Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is contended that the defendants are not the joint owners of the suit schedule properties. The 1't defendant is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.145 to an extent of Ac.1.08 gts.; in Sy.No.143 to an extent of Ac.0.29 grs.; in Sy.No.143 to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts. in total Ac.2.25 gts., whereas the 2"d defendant is the owner and possessor to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts., in Sy.No.143; to an extent of Ac.1.18 gts., in Sy.No.145, in total Ac.4.00 gts., having purchased under separate registered sale deeds from their original owners. It is further contended that the defendants never offered to sell their suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.1,15,000/- per acre for total cost of Rs.2,66,500/including Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of bore well and motors. It is denied that the defendants executed the agreement of sale dated 29.12.2005 and received Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance. It is also denied that the

¶51

T'SS, J A.S.No.640 of²⁰¹⁰ and Tr.A.S.No.373 of²⁰¹⁴

¶52

¶53

plaintiff agreed^{to pay the balanceof sale consideration} within six months^{from the date of agreement of sale' Ttre} boundaries^{mentionedin the suit scheduleare not correct' It} is specifically^{deniedthat the plaintiff approachedthe} defendants after^{securing money and requestedthem to} receive the^{balance of sale consideration for executingthe} sale deed. It^{is further contendedthat they have not} received any^{legal notice dated19'06'2006 from the plaintiff'} The agreement^{of sale dated 29'12'2005 is forged for the} ptupose of this^{case. The suit filed on the basis of the} agreement of sale^{is not maintainable and, therefore' prayed} to dismiss^{the suit-}

¶54

During^{trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P'Ws'L to 3} were examined^{and got marked Exs'A-1to A4' On behalfof} the defendants,^{defendantNo'2 was examined herselfas} D.W.1 and got^{markedExs.B1and 82'}

¶55

The trial Court,^{after considering the entireevidence'} both oral and^{documentaryand after hearing both sides'}

¶56

I5S,] A.S-No.6,10 ot 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶57

¶58

¶59

while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance, held that the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/_ and accordingly directed the defendants to refund the said amount to the plaintiff within one month from the date of judgment, failing which the praintiff is entitred for interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.

¶60

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, A.S.No.640 of 2070 has been preferrecl by plaintiff, inter alia, contending that the kial Court erred in dismissing I.A.Nos.635 and 635 of 2010 filed for reopening of the case in order to adduce further evidence by the plaintiff pursuant to recasting of the issues including a specific issue regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in paying the balance sale consideration and obtaining of the sale deed, as a result, the plaintiff has lost

¶61

r5S, J A.S.No.640 of 201O and Tr.A.S.No.373^{of 2O14}

¶62

¶63

the opportunity^{of filing documents for addressingthe said} issues. The finding^{of the trial Court that the plaintiffhas} failed to prove^{the fact that he had sufficient amount for} payment of^{balancesale consideration is erroneousbecause} P.Ws.2 and 3^{categorically deposed that the plaintiff has} approached^{the defendants within the stipulated time with} balance of sale^{consideration, but the defendants have} rejected to receive^{the same'The triat Court erredin} rejecting specific^{performanceof agreement of sale having} held that the^{agreementof sale and receipt are trueand} genuine documents.^{The trial Court failed to take into} consideration^{E-x.Aa-Iegal notice dated19'06'2fi)6'however'} the same^{was not shownin the Appendix of Evidenceof the} judgment. Therefore,^{he requestedthe Court to set aside} the impugned^{judgmentand decree of the trial Court'}

¶64

g. Defendants 1^{and 2 also filed Tr'A'S'No'373 of 2014} aggrieved by^{the aforesaid} iudgment^{and decree of the trial} Court in directing^{them to refund the earnest money of}

¶65

H;S,] A.S.No.540 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

Rs.1,5O000/- to the plaintiff. The trial Court, vide order dated 23.02.2012 passed in I.A.No.2209 of 2070, condoned the delay of 74 days in filing the said appeal by the defendants on payment of costs.

¶70

The case agairut defendant No.2 (Respondent No.2 in the appeal) was dismissed as abated vide order of this Court dated 19.09.2023. . There was no representation on behalf of defendant No.1 (Respondent No.1).

¶71

Heard the leamed Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the entire material availabre on record.

¶72

The Point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the trial Court is on proper appreciation of facts or not?

¶73

Ttre plaintiff, who was examined as p.W.1, reiterated

¶74

the contents of plaint in his chief-examination_affidavit.

¶75

Exs.A1 to .A.4 were marked on his behalf. Though he filed Ex.A4-copy of legal notice, dated 19.06.2006, issued to the

¶76

r5s, J A.S.No.640 of 2010 aftd Tr.A.S.No.373 of²⁰¹⁴

¶77

¶78

¶79

defendants, he^{failed to place any} Proof^{of serviceof the} said legal^{noticeon the defendants'If really,he got issued} the said notice,^{he would have filed} Postal^{receiPt or} acknowledgment^{in proof of the same' The plaintiffgot} issued Ex.A3-Paper^{publicationon 08'12'2006'afterone year} of execution^{of agreementof sale, informing the general} public that^{he entered into an agreementof sale with the} defendants in^{respect of the suit schedule properties'} Plaintiff was^{a retired Clerkin ICICI Bank and was drawing} Rs.19,000/- per^{month as salary by the date of his} retirementandafterretirement,hewasdoingbusinessin Fish as a Contractor.^{In his cross-examinatioryhe stated} that he purchased^{the suit lands througha mediator'} namely, Yadagiri,^{and he has verified the title of the suit} Iands before^{enteringinto the agreement' D-1 and D-2} together sold^{him the suit lands' D-1 has Ac'4'00 of land'} whereas D-2 has^{Ac.2.25gts and both of them purchased the} land separately^{under separate registeredsale deeds and he}

¶80

I5S,I A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶81

¶82

¶83

has verified their sale deeds also. He admitted in his crossexamination that D-1 and D-2 Ere not joint owners arrd possessors of the land and Ex.A-1 was scribed by one Raghupathi. He further admitted that he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- before execution of Ex.A1 and Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and obtained receipt for the said amount on the same day and he agreed to pay the balance sale consideration within six months and that in the agreement, it was mentioned that if he fails to pay the amount within stipulated period, the agreement stands cancelled and the advance amount will be forfeited. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 was created by him when they refused to sell the land.

¶84

P.W.2 is the mediator through whom the plaintiff approached the defendants for purchase of the suit schedule property. In the cross-examinatiory he stated that D-1 and

¶85

D-2 are having the suit lands at one place. It was suggested to him that D-1 and D-2 are having the lands at different

¶86

TJSS.I A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr-A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶87

¶88

¶89

places and in different survey numhrs with separate

¶90

boundaries, but he denied the same.

¶91

P.W.3 is one of the signatories to Ex.Al-agreement of sale dated 29.12.2005. In the cross-examination, he stated that he has no personal knowledge with regard to survey numbers, extents and boundaries of the suit lands and that he has no acquaintance with the defendants prior to Ex.A1.

¶92

1.6. Defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1. She reiterated the contents of written statement in her chief examination-affidavit. She filed Exs.B1 and 82 certified copies of registered sale deeds vide Doc.Nos.4090/2002 and 4094/2002 dated 22.06.2002. She identified her signatures on vakalat and written statement, but denied her signafure

¶93

on Ex.A1.

¶94

The trial Court, after considering the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, held that in view of^Ex.A1- agreeme-nt of sale and Ex.A2-receipt, the defendants^entered

¶95

r5s, , A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶96

¶97

into the agreement of sale with the plaintiff and received the balance sale consideratiory but the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration within six months from the date of execution of the agreement of sale and as such he is not entitled for the relief of specific performance, but he is entitled for refund of the advance amount of agreement of sale.

¶98

The case of defendants is one of total denial. The contention of the defendants is that Ex.Al-agreement of sale dated 29.72.2005 is fabricated by forging the signarures of the defendants. The 1"t defendant is an illiterate and he does not know even to put his signafure. Ex.B2, which is a registered sale deed under which the 1"t defendant purchased his land, clearly shows that he is a thumb marker. Defendant No.2, who was examined as D.W.1, also denied her signature on Ex.Al. p.W.3, one of the signatories to Ex.A1, has not identified the signatures of

¶99

r€S,I A.S.No.64O of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶100

¶101

(

¶102

defendants on Ex.A1 and he has not stated that the defendants signed on Ex.A1 in his presence. Admittedlp defendants 1 and 2 are having lands in different survey numhrs. In fact, they purchased the Iands through different sale deeds i.e., Exs.B1 and 82 respectively. The plaintiff (P.W.l) in his cross_examination stated that defendant No.1 is having Ac.4.00 of land and defendant No.2 is having Ac.2.25 gts. But, as per Exs.B1 and 82, defendant No.1 is having Ac.2.25 gts. and defendant No.2 is having Ac.4.00 of land respectively. So also, the boundaries of the suit schedule properties were shown wrongly in the plaint. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract basing on the agreement of sare dated29.12.2005. It is for him to prove his case with proper evidence both oral and documentary. p.w.1 in his cross-examination stated that he paid Rs.5O000/- bfore execution of Ex.A1 and Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of execution of Ex.A1. Ffowever, in Ex.A1-agreement of sale, it was mentioned that the

¶103

I5S, J 15 A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶104

I i I I I

¶105

I il il I I I 1 i rl I i

¶106

plaintiff paid Rs.1,50,000/-towards advance sale consideration on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and accordingly Ex.A2-receipt was issued on the date of execution of Ex.A1 dated 29.12.2005. Thus, there was variance in the oral and documenta4r evidence to that effect.

¶107

The trial Court held that it is for the plaintiff to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. There is no evidence that the plaintiff is having sufficient amount in his bank account to pay the balance sale consideration as he has not filed any bank statement to that effect. Further, the contention of the plaintiff is that before expiry of six months, he got issued Ex.A4-legal notice dated, 19.06.2006 to the defendants. However, he has not placed any proof of service of said Ex.A4-legal notice on the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to establish

¶108

r5S, I A_S.No.64O of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.323 of 2014

i i

(

that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

¶113

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/plainriff that the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.635 and 636 of 201,0 for reopening of the case to adduce further evidence and to receive the documents, however, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the said applications and as such he has Iost the opportunity of filing documents for addressing the issues. He also contended that after recasting of the issues regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in paying the barance sare consideration, an opportunity was not given to him by the trial Court for adducing f urther evidence.

¶114

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that after cross-examination of the witnesses, issues were recasted. If at all the aforesaid applications were dismissed by the kial Court, the plaintiff ought to have preferred revision

¶115

rcs,l A.S.No.64O of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 20I4

¶116

't7

¶117

ll ii

¶118

petition, but, he failed to do so and thus the order of the trial Court became final, as such the plaintiff c€rnnot contend at the appellate stage that he was not given an opportunity to file the bank statement to show that he is having sufficient amount in his accouat to pay the balance sale consideration. In fact, when he sought for the relief of specific performance of contract, it is for him to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. kr Ex.A4-legal notice dated 19.06.2006, the plaintiff stated that the defendants offered to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and he paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards part payment on the same day. In fact the total sale consideration as per Ex.A1-agreement of sale is Rs.7,67,875/- and he has also agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the existing two bore-wells and motors. Thus, it clearly shows that Ex.A4-legal notice was got up for the purpose of this case.

¶119

PSS, 1E A.S.No.640 of 2010' and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶120

(

¶121

Ex.A1-agreement of sale was executed or.29.12.2N5.

¶122

As per the plaintiff, he got issued Ex.A4-legal notice to the defendants on 19.06.2006. However, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale on 23.12.2008. As per Ex.A1-agreement of sale, the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration within six months from the date of agreement of sale i.e., on or before 28.06.2006. If at all the plaintiff was ready with the balance sale consideratiorL he ought to have filed the suit within the stipulated period by duly depositing the balance of sale consideration in the Court. However, he failed to do so. The trial Court, considering all these aspects, rightly rejected the plea of specific performance of agreement of sale, but erroneously granted refund of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/ -.

¶123

T5S, J A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

i l I I I I

'23. In P.Panilit Rao (Died pet L.R.) and others o

¶128

K.Damodar and anotherl, the High Court of Andhra

¶129

Pradesh held as under:

¶130

"Defendants are not entitled to repayment of any amount referred to in agreement as they have not sought any such relief, in view of prohibition under Section 22 (2) of the Specific Relief Act."

¶131

Section 22 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:

¶132

" 22.(7)xxxxxxx

¶133

"(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (l) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed:

¶134

Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terrns as may be just for including a claim for such relief."

¶135

25 Admittedly, there is no alternative relief claimed by

¶136

the plaintiff for refund of earnest money. So also in Ex.A1-

¶137

'^zoos 1oy^{aLr rao}

¶138

PSS, I A.S.No.640 of m1O and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶139

¶140

¶141

agreement of sale, it was specifically mentioned that if the plaintiff fails to pay the balance sale consideration within six months from the date of execution of the^{agreement, the} agreement stands cancelled and the advance^{amount will be} forfeited. As the plaintiff could not pay the^balancesale consideration within six months from^{the date of execution} of agreement, he is not enfitled for refund^{of advance} amount. Therefore, this Court finds that it^{is just and} reasonable to set aside the iudgment of^{the trial Court with} regard to refund of advance amount^{to the plaintiff.}

¶142

Accordingly, A.S.No.640 of 2010 filed by^{the plaintiff} 1S dismissed, confirming the impugned^judgmentand decree of the trial Court, dated^{05.07.2010, passedin} O.S.No.207 of 2008, insofar as the^relief of^specific performance of agreement of sale.

¶143

Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014 filed by the^defendantsis allowed and the^judgment and^{decree of the trial Court,}

¶144

I5S,] A.S.No.640 of 2010 and Tr.A.S.No.373 of 2014

¶145

¶146

dated 05.07.2010, passed in O.S.No.207 of 200g, is set aside

¶147

insofar as ordering the defendants to refurrd the advance

¶148

amount of Rs.1.,50,000,/- to the plaintiff.

¶149

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

¶150

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶151

Sd/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JorNr(REGISTRAR /

//TRUE COPY//

)

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda. (with records) - --

¶157

One CC to Sri^{Pasupuleti Sudhakar, Advocate[oPUC]}

¶158

Two CD CoPies.

H.^.Ct#_

PSR

t_ I

HIGH COURT

DATED:10.11.2023

COMMON JUDGMENT : + 6914MON DECREE

¶165

AS.No.640 ot 2010 AND

¶166

TR AS NO.373 0F 2014

¶167

..--:'.<br>1l
v, .i<br>(
'!a
-l' - --r
i
I
,-l 31 tti'- :
i,
'.. i
'!+.-
-.t.--.1 ': - :.. 1 i .. r

¶168

AS NO.64O OF 2O1O IS DISMTSSED & TR AS NO.373 OF 2014 tS ALLOWED

¶169

(- il5^la</sup>

¶170

]N THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

¶171

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAYOF NOVEMBER NruO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶172

PRESENT

¶173

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUOHA

¶174

APPEAL SUIT NO: 640 OF 2010 ANO

¶175

TRANSFER APPEAL SUIT NO.373 OF 2014

¶176

Between:

¶177

Cherka Saty. anarayana, S/o Pitchaiah, Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No. 3-g-1lZt3t1, Saraswathi Nagar L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, R.R. District.

¶178

...Plaintiff/Appellant lN AS NO.640 OF 2010 & Respondent lN TR AS NO.373 OF 2014

¶179

AND

¶180

1 . P-eddaboina Yadaiah, S/o Sathaiah, Occ: Agriculturist Ri/o Goppulaipally Mllage Narketpally Mandal, Natgonda District.

¶181

PeddaQgina Dhanamma, Wo Ybdaiah, Occ: Agricdturist Rl/o Goppulairally Village Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.^- (Appeal against the R-2 dismiss-ed as abated vide court roder dated 19{92023)

¶182

...Defendants/Respondents lN AS NO.640 OF 2010 & Appellants lN TR AS NO.373 OF 2014

¶183

APPEAL SUIT NO.64O OF 2O1O :

¶184

Appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil procedure aoainst the Judgment and Decree dated 5-7-2010 passed in OS No.207 of 2fi)8 6n the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge ai Nalgonda.

¶185

TRANSFER AS NO.373 OF 20.14 :

¶186

Transfer Appeal Suit filed under Order XLI Rule 1 Read With Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated S-7-20i0 pagsed in OS No.Z)7 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

¶187

¶188

These appeal suit and transfer appeal suit are coming on for hearing and upon perusing the petitions and the grounds of appeal, judgment ani decree of the lower court and the material papers in the case "nd upon hearing the arguments of sri Pasuputeti sudhakar, Advocate for the plaintiff/Appellan-t in AS No.640 of 2010 and respondent in TR AS No.373 of2014

¶189

THE COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLOWS :

¶190

1. That AS No.640 of 2010 filed by the ptaintiff is dismissed confirmino the impugned judgment and detree df the trial court dated OS.OI.n1d passed in OS No.207 of 200g insofar as the relief of specini performance of agreement of sale;

¶191

2l That Transfer AS No.373 ol 2014 filed by defendants is allowed and the judgment and decree of the triat c6u( dated OS.OZ.ZO1-6-in OS No.207 of 2008 is set aside insofar as ordering defendants to r;fune the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plailntiff; and

¶192