Disposed

T. Malkaiah v. K. Hanumantha Rao

Telangana HC10 Feb 2025AS/313/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of an unregistered specific performance suit for alleged deficit court fee. The appellants had paid court fee only for Ac.10-27 guntas, the land the respondent possessed per revenue records, not the full agreement extent. The High Court set aside the rejection and directed the trial Court to number and hear the suit on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.10.2018 rejecting the plaint set aside; trial Court directed to number the subject Suit and hear it on merits; no order as to costs.

T. Malkaiah Vs K. Hanumantha Rao — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

APPEAL SUIT NO: 313 OF 2019

¶7

Appeal filed under section 96 of CPC against the order and decree dated 08 10.2018 in SR. No. 4005 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. T. Malkaiah, son of T. Sailoo, aged about 64 years, Occupation, Business, Resident of Plot No. 401, H. No.¹ -5-B0B/1 2 3134140, Hanuman Enclave, Musheerabad, Near EK Minar, Zaiminsthapur, Hyderabad.

¶10

K. Amarender Reddy, Son of K. Kista Reddy, Aged about 47^years, Occupation. Business, Resident of house no. 10-3-1221A, Vidyanagcr, Near Sri Rama Kalyana Mandapam, Karimnagar District.

¶11

...APPELLANTS/PLAI NTIFFS

¶12

AND

¶13

K. Hanumantha Rao, Son of K. Raghunandhan Rao, Aged about 67^years, Occupation retired, Resident of H.^No. 2-8-218, Mukarampura,^Karimnagar

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy

¶16

Counsel for the_ Respondent:

¶17

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶18

THE HON'BLI].CiRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAtrt S]IAVILI AND THE HON'BI-]E SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE/I EADA

¶19

ITPPEAL SUIT No.313 OF 2019

¶20

TUDGMENI': iPe,r I Ion'ble Sri lustice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

¶21

This ap,pr:al is filed aggrieved by the order, date'd 03.10.2018,

¶22

passed in SR.No^z.Ct05 of 2018 in Un-Reg. O.S.No.Nil of 20111 by the leamed Prin<:ip,aI l)istrict Judge, Nalgonda, rejecting the plaint on the ground thar' tL e appellants have paid deficit Court Fee.

¶23

Heard Sri I,4. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counse,l for the appellants

¶24

Learnerl ,:orrrmel for the appellants had contended lhat the appellants havr: l'ik:d the subject unregistered Suit seekinl; specific performance. .,\s; per the Agreement of Sale, daterl 19,.01..2()16, the total extent of larx.l was 1L-32^1/z gantas, but as per the revenue records, the lotal extent of the land possessed by the rel;p,ondent was Ac."I0-27 guntzrs. Therefore, the appellants have parcl Court Fee in respect cf tt<:.70-27 guntas of land. But, the trial C >rrrt was insisting tha t *Jg; appellants should pay (lou:.t^,ir:e for

¶25

¶26

2 AKS,J^{& ETD,J} A.s.No 3 t3 of²⁰¹⁹

¶27

Ac.11-321/z guntas of land and on that^ground, rejected the plaint, without numbering the same.^{Therefore, appropriate} orders^be passed in the appeal by setting^{aside the} impugned^order,dated 08.10.2018, and further, direct the trial Court^{to numberthe subject} Suit and hear the same on merits and pass^{appropriate orders.}

¶28

This Court, having considered the said submissions,^{is of the} considered view that the trial Court was not^{justified in rejecting} the plaint on the ground that the appellants^{have paid deficit Court} Fee. As per the revenue records, when the land^{possessedby the} respondent was Ac.10-27 guntas, the^{appellants were} iustifiedⁱⁿ paying Court Fee for Ac.10-27 guntas^of land.^{If the subject Suit is} decreed for Ac.11-32^r/z guntas, the^{appellants can alwaysbe} directed to pay the deficit Court Fee, if^{any at} all.^{Therefore,the} trial Court is directed to number the subject^{Suit and hear the same} on merits. It is needless to state that^{the impugned order,dated} 08.10.2018, passed in SR.No.4005 of^{2018 in Uir-Reg'O.S.No.Nil of} 2078 by the learned Principal District ]udge,^{Nalgonda,is set aside'}

¶29

A]IS,J & ETD,J l..S No.313 of 2019

¶30

¶31

IS 5. With the ribove^{observations/directions, the rrppeal}

¶32

disposed of. f h,:rc^{shall be no order as to costs'}

¶33

Miscellarre'ous Applications,^{if any, pending in tl'ir; appeal}

¶34

shall stand clo;e<[

¶35

St,. B.SATYAVATHI JOIN REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECl ION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal D s'.rict Judge at Nalgonda, (with records, if any)

¶40

One CC tc, -Sri r\l Ram Mohan^{Reddy,Advocate} IOPUCI

¶41

Two CD C op ies

VH/PSt,

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010t2t2025

JUDGMENT

AS.No.313 ot 2019

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT'

¶48

', t- | ii f.
€
-:i
i:l t-
O
1i' l JN I6
a
) i
,
,:.I r 'i1
i._
5
(
Y

T. Malkaiah v. K. Hanumantha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Malkaiah v. K. Hanumantha Rao

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

The Special Deputy Collector Vs Smt.Rajamoni Anjamma

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. Vs K.Satyanarayana

M/s. S.R. Technologies (Unit-Ii) Vs M/S. India Glycols Limited

K.Narayana Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K Lakshmi Sarada Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

D.Anuradha Vs D.Sarojini