Dismissed

Madala Ramadevi, v. Made China Kotaiah

Telangana HC10 Apr 2025AS/267/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a specific performance suit based on an agreement of sale. The High Court found the plaintiff failed to prove readiness, willingness and the alleged cash advance payment, while defendants proved payment and possession through subsequent sale documents. Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court judgment.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed without costs, confirming the judgment dated 24.01.2015 in O.S.No.259 of 2008.

Madala Ramadevi, Vs Made China Kotaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^HIGH "",.If3lo',ffoildE

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE TENTHDAY OF APRIL} 'rtio'iiousnND AND rwENrY FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEK' SUJANA}

¶6

APPE^{AL SUIT NO:267 0F 2015}

¶7

J,ds".tRffi^il,:*J::ff i:"Izi3ryilr:"i i llj:=ff il"Skf^$t:ldTl iti,;'d;;'otfi.^{ittt Roaition"lDistrict andsess ons Jt-} L B.Nagar,^HYderabad'

¶8

Between:

¶9

' nl"d"l, Ramadevi,^wo' yi'63'b#,:::,*frli-il i?Xli'3ift'ilili"HJl?;Yft KothaPeta,^{1Oth ward' ne} District.

¶10

...APPellanUPlaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

1 H,Xl"..'l,i:.Y3i'ft^{:-'gJ:?It1*,1%*3ifl :'#,t"fi :;"?"i;"''n"''}

¶13

2 tllT"',ft'i#^{fi[{iti+Hif,tffi{,1il"ile'"":"nrff':'o""}

¶14

3 el)l&""3"13ii1'ii'5xr'"i^{I *}

¶15

t!$[ji*l-ii,^{;ifi#fi!"[I;HtL"3:s:Pl?}

¶16

"'ResPondents/Defendants

¶17

counsel^{for the Appellant :Smt' R MADHAVI LATHA}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'2& 3 : M/S' V SATYAM REDDY}

¶19

The Court^{delivered the following:JUDGMENT}

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶22

APPEAL SUrT No.26Z of2OlS

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

Chzrl]enging the judgment dated 24.O1.2O15 p;rssed in O.S.No.259 of 20Og by the learned XIII Additional Dislrict ald Sessions .tr,clg6, p2rr*. Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suit tsr filed.

¶25

Thc b"ief facts of the case are that the plaintiff hled a suit under ()rder VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of tlre Civil Procedure tlo,le seeking specihc performance of an agrr:ement of sale dated .4.OS.2OOZ As per the plaintifl defendan- No.1, M. Chenna I.iotaiah, was the absolute owner ol. thr: 5pi1 property located at Thattianaram Village, Ranga Reddy District, an<l e ntered into a sale agreement with the pJaintiff for a total cc,nsideration of Rs. 1S,0O,000/, out ol ,vhich Rs. 14,O0,00t),' . was allegedty paid as advarce. The pl,rintiff claimed thar <lespite readiness and willingness to pa,r the balance, the defendant failed to complete the sale and in,stead executed a subsequent sare agreement-cum-GpA on 77.O1.2OO8 in :.avor of defendants 2 and 3. Defendant No.1

¶26

l
I
i
i
/

¶27

¶28

sxs' J A.S.No.267^of2015

¶29

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 agreedto sell the property to them for} Rs. 18,70,0O0/-.^{They entered intoan-' agreement on} 06.12.2007^{and paid Rs'3'OO'000/- initially' later clearing the} outstanding^{housingloan of Rs' 1O'76'320/-to redeem the} mortgage^{on the property' A registered agreementof sale-} cum-GPA^{was executed intheir favor(ExB 1)' and they} claimed^{to be bona hde purchasers for value'They also} contended^{that defendantNo 1 had a habit of signingblank} papers and^{cheques,casting doubt on theplaintiffs} agreement-

¶30

Basing^{on the above pleadings'the trial Court framed} fourissuesandonbehalfoftheplaintiffsi.e.,PWs.land2 were examined^{and ExAl to A5 are marked' DWs'1 to 3 are} examined^{and trxs'Bl to 815 were marked on behalf of the} defendants.

¶31

After examining^{the evidence' the trial Court' uide order} dated 24.01.2015,^{dismissedthe suit observing that there are} discrepancies^{and lack of corroborative evidence inthe}

¶32

¶33

¶34

SKS, J A.S.No 267 of 2O1S

¶35

plaintiffs version, particularly regarding the payrrrent of Rs. 14,O0,0110/_ allegedly made in cash without documenta[ron. The supporting witness (pW:]) gave lnconsisten t testimony, weakening the case of the plai ntiff. In contrast, cefendant Nos.2 and 3 provided credible documentilJ' evidence (Exs.B1 to B15), proving paym,rnt and possessiorr. Due to the non_appearance of def_endant No. 1 and the dotLlttful circumstances around the agreemen t of the plaintiff, rhr, trial Court concluded that the plaintifl f,riled to prove the r.rrtidity of the agreement. Aggrieved there by, the prcsent apltcal suit is hled.

¶36

Hearrf Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned c.ounsel appearing or behalf of the appellant as well as Sri V. Siatyam Reddy. lcalr.d counsel appearing on behali of resp,rn6l6,61 Nos.2 ar-rd !l

¶37

Learnerl counsel for the appellant submitted thrrt the judgment arri decree passed by the triar court are rncorrect and against :he evidence and law artd that the trial Court wrongly rejer:ied the claim of the plaintiff for specific performance based on assumptions instead of properly

¶38

¶39

¶40

SKS, J A.S.No.267^of2()l5

¶41

¶42

considering the^{documents and witness testimonies'The trial} Court disbelieved^{the caseof the plaintiffonlybecause she is} from a different^{district and has no businessin Hyderabad'} He further^{submittedthat there is nothing unusual about} someone wanting^{to buy propertyin the capital city and that} the trial Court^{ignoredthat defendantNos'2 and 3 claimed} ownership through^{an agreementof Sale-cum-GeneralPower} of Attorney,^{whichdoes not transfer title underthe lawHe} further submitted^{that even if the document is genuine' it only} gives them the^{right toseek specificperformancefrom} defendant^{No.1, whichthey never did, and are nowbarred by} iimitation

¶43

Leaned counsel^{for the appellant contended thatthe} appellant^{proved her case by examining the attesting witness'} and his^{evidence remained unchallengedand that the trial} Courtalsofailedtonoticethecollusionamongthedefendants, especially^{since defendantNo 1 remained ex-parteald did not} appear to^{give evidence.He further contendedthat the blank} cheque relied^{on by the defendants raises suspicion and} showsfurthercollusion'Moreover,theagreementofsale relied upon^{by the defendants is not admissiblein evidence as}

¶44

l l',-.,i-'::-:-riri-:a- f :

¶45

¶46

sKs, J A.S.No.:167 of 2()l5

¶47

()

¶48

it was not grroperly stamped. He further contended r_hat the trial Court ;rade its decision based on assumptionr,; rather than evidence, and the dismissal of the suit is unjust. Therefore, h,: prayed the Court to set aside thc juclgment of the trial corlrt by allowing this appeal suit.

¶49

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaint itself reveals that there is nc proper basis lbr thc agreement, as no registered sale cle::d was executed in f,l,our of the plaintiff despite the alleged p,lyment of Rs. 14 0tr,0O0/-. He further submitted rert the appellaxt / pla intiff has not filed any receipt to prcve the payment ol the advance amount, nor has she explair ed the source of lunds used to pay the said amount to del.:ndant No. 1. This, il:cording to the respondents, indicates tl Lat the documenr is fabricated to defeat the rights of Defendant. Nos.2 and 3. He ir-r rther contended that trx.A1 lacks credibil ty and that the docu;rents relied upon by the plaintiff do not s.-rpport her claim. Hence, he prayed the Court that the appeal r;uit be dismissed.

¶50

¶51

SKS' J A.S.I{o.267^of2015

¶52

¶53

The points^{that arisefor consid'eration in this appeal}

¶54

are

¶55

Whether the^{appellant/plaintiff is entitled'.to the relief of} of the agreement^ofsaleunder

¶56

specific Performance Ex-A1? whether the^{judgmentof the trialCourt warrantsany} interference?

¶57

Point^No.i:

¶58

In^{lightof the submissions made by the learned counsel} on either^{side and upon careful perusalof the material} available^{on record,it appears that the suit has been hled by} the appellant/^{plaintiff seeking specilic performance of the} agreement^{of sale markedas Ex'A1' The case of the appellant} is that defendant^{No 1 enteredinto an agreement of saie witJl} her for the^{suit schedulepropertyfor a total consideration of} Rs. 15,0O,OO0/-,^{out of which Rs'14'00'OOO/- was allegedly} paid in cash.^{As per the termsof the agreement' defendant} No. 1 was to^{complete constructionof the cement-structured} house, deliver^{possession, and thereafter executea registered} sale deed^{upon payment of the remainingsale consideration'}

¶59

¶60

SKS, J A.S.N(.26? of 2()ls

rlr

,f)

1 1. In srrpport of her claim, the appellart/plaintiff relied on

¶65

Ex.A 1 (agreement of sale), Ex.A2 (office copy of Jeg;rl notice dated 30.01.2OOg), Exs.A3 and ,{4 (returned cor.ers arLd postal acknowledgrnent), and Ex.AS (certified copy of the.a5rreement of sale-curr -GpA). It is a settled principle of lau. that rn a suit for specilic prerformance, the plaintiff must not onll- p.:ove the execution rf a valid agreement but arso estabr sh her continuous r eadiness and willingness to perform her part of the contrar:1

¶66

In tLre present case, although the agreement ot sale is dated 14.011.2OO7, no time limit for performance was sp:cified. However, fllr plaintiff claims that she approached clefr:ndant No. 1 in the ,'irst week of November 2OOZ to pay the balance sale conside:;rtion, but defendant No.1 was not rei dy to perform his lxrrt of the contract. It was only on 3O.Ol.2OOg that a legal ll,rtice was issued by the plaintiff, which raises doubts regarding her readiness and willingness.

¶67

Furth€.r the plaintiff failed to produce any docume ntary evidence, suclt as receipts or bank records, to substal.rtiate the alleged payment of Rs.14,OO,OO0/_. During her evrd:nce,

¶68

¶69

SKS, J AS.No.267 of 20l5

¶70

¶71

she vaguely stated that the^{amount was adjusted from her} dowry, but no further^{proof was submittedin 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.

¶72

Further, the^{documentsfiled by thedefendants,} including Ex.B2^{(agreement of saledated, 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^{whichRs.14,97,32O1- was duly} acknowledged and supported^{by receipts. The defendantsalso} produced Ex.B 1 (registered^{agreement ofsale-cum-GPA),} Exs.BS to B7^{(1oandischarge documents), and Ex'B13} (electricity demand notices in^{the name ofDW 1), which} collectively establish^{their possession and paymentof sale} consideration.

¶73

The evidence^{of DWland DW3furthercorroboratesthe} fact that defendant^{No.l had a practice of signing blank} documents and issuing^{blankcheques due tohis}

¶74

¶75

¶76

SKS, J A.S.N o.267 of 2()1S

¶77

¶78

indebtedne.ss. Ex.B15, a blank cheque issuecl by rlefendant No.1 in fa',our of DW3, supports this contention. Trtese facts undermine the credibility of Ex.A1 relied upon by the plaintiff.

¶79

¶80

Therr-.fore, this Court finds that the appellanr-/plaintiff has failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. There is also no convincing evidence to suppc,rr, the alleged payment of a substantial perrt of the sale consiieration. On the contrary, the rlcfenda nts have successful[.,- established their case by proclucing creilible oral and docunrr:ntary evidence, including discharge of thr housing loan on th,: suit schedule property.

¶81

Point No.ii:

¶82

In vi,t.,t, of the above discussion in point No.i, there is no illegalitl, Lr the judgment of the trial Court. The tn al Court discussed tl1 the issues and it is a u,e1l rea scined j ,,rdgment and there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment.

¶83

In vie'ry thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2OO8

¶84

¶85

srs, J A.S. o.267 of2015

¶86

¶87

by the iearned^{XIII AdditionalDistrict and SessionsJudge'} There shall^{be no orderas} Ranga ReddY^{District, L'B' Nagar'}

¶88

to costs.

¶89

Miscellaneous^{applications,if any pending' shall stand}

¶90

closed

¶91

SD/- K. SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

.1. The Xlll Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at^L B.Nagar, Hyderabad(With^{records,if any)}

¶96

1. one 6c to-rus.^{R tvlADHAVl LATHA,Advocate[OPUC]} g On" CC to M/S. V SATYAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD^CoPies

ADK/gh W

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010412025

JUDGMENT+DECREE

2 DRAFTS

AS.No.267 of 2015

a-a
.//-,,.-,. 5TA i! Qs.
4'..,'
7
( ),rC)
i \eq M
1
._ <t'.,

¶104

DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

¶105

b fll{
\l -1/,
lk

¶106

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^H|GH ""r*IfffIrtffio"rtffE

¶107

THURSDAY,^{THE TENTHDAY OF APRIL'} 'li'o-r-Hiiusruto nuo wverurv rtve :

¶108

PRESENT

¶109

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEK. SUJANA}

¶110

APPEA^{L SUITNO:267oF 2015}

¶111

Between:

¶112

Madala Ramadevi,^{Wo Malyadri'Aged.about, 47- veetsOcc: Housewife'R/o'} Kandutur'^{kandukur Mandal' Prakasam} Kothapeta, District.^1Othward, "J;ii6o'bff;e

"'APPellanUPlaintiff

AND

1 ttlatle China^{Kotaiah, S/o Kondaiah'agsd about 37 vears Occ: Business'} R/o.HNoa-40,New"N"is"i"'tdlii;,'"t;'oomagar'Hvderabad

¶117

Thakur^{Padmini, D/oThaku Ranveer Singh' aged about 39 years'Occ:} Housewife, nlo^{n llo'iI-iiil ram't'nigar'-V-ivekandaNagar'} i;il;;;;t"., nanla Reddv^{District' Hvderabad'}

¶118

Thakur^{Sharada,Wo Thakur Mahender pilqfr, aoed about 37 years'occ:} Housewife, wo^{H io 'iii)"oslo6)oe'cortul -Naga"rcolony' Neredmet'} ivrirfigiii,^{ilangaReddv District'}

¶119

...ResPondents/Defendants

¶120

Appeal^{under section 96 R/w Order 4'1 Rule 1 of C'P C against the} Judgment^{and Decree o"t"l Z+ of zo15 made in O S No'259 of 2008 on the file of} the court^{of the Xlil noaitiJn""ioitrictand sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at} L B.Nagar,^HYderabad'

¶121

This appeal^{coming on for hearing and upon perusing the groundsof appeal'} the Judgment^{and Decree oi ti" r-o''"icourtand the material papersin the Case} ot Smt'^{R MADHAVI LATHA' Advocatefor the} and upon^{hearing the} "'g*;ntt Appellant^{andof M/S.V snfVnft'fnEDDY'Advocate for the Respondent No 2 & 3'}

¶122

, ,/'7

¶123

This Court doth Orcier and Decree as follows:

¶124

1 That the Apoeal suit be and hereby is dismissed confirmrng the judgment dated 24 0'r '2r)15 passed in o.s.No.259 0f 2008 by the X' ,\dditionar District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar;

¶125

2 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶126

To,

¶127

SD/- K SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I l ..^{SECTION OFFICER}

¶128

1 The Xllt Additional Diskict a tnd sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at

¶129

L B.Nagar, Hyderabad

¶130

2 Two CD Copies

ADK

ry-

HIGH COURT

DATED:10 t04t2O2S

DECREE

AS.No.26T of 2015

DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

¶138

Madala Ramadevi, v. Made China Kotaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madala Ramadevi, v. Made China Kotaiah

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

Mori Devara Bhai Vs The State of Telangana

Dinthakurthi Abhi Subramanyam Vs The State of Telangana

M. Niharika Vs Macharla Santosh

Urabavi Venkatanna Vs The State of Telangana

Devisetti Uma Maheswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Konnay Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana