Konda Satyanarayna Vs M.Radhika

¶1

132171

¶2

li ri rl

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH^DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 639^{OF 2025}

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of^{lhe Constitutionof lndia, aggrievedby the} order dated 13-2-2025^{passed in 1.A.No.330 of 2023 in O.S.No.56/2022on the} file of the Court of the Principal^{District Judge, Narayanpet.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Konda Satyanarayna, S/o K.Nagappa,^{aged 42 years Occ Business,R/o} House No^q-A-+Ot4l, Gopalpet^{Street,Narayanpettown, NarayanpetDistrict.}

¶11

...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

M.Radhika, Wo MekalaSuryanarayana^{Aged 50 years Oocc Housewife, R/o} House No 5-55, Hanumah^{Templeroad, Marikal villageandMandal,} Naryanapet District

¶14

Y.santhosh Kumar, S/o^{Baburao,aged 49 years,Occ Business,R/o House} No 4-3-53, Ram Nagar,^{tvlahabubnagar}

¶15

Venkoba, S/o Ramulu,^{aged57 years, Occ.Agriculture, Rio House No 3-1-50'} Pali Bazar, Narayanpet town^{and District.}

¶16

...RESPON DENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} stay all further^{proceedings in suit os No 5612022on the file of the court of the} Principat District Judge, Narayanapet,^{pending disposal of civil RevisionPetition.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.RAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{NONE APPEARED}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.639 OF 2025

¶24

ORDER

¶25

I have heard lVlr.Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition is fited by the petitioner/ptaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in 1.A.No.330 of 2023 in O.S No.56 of 2022 on the fite of the learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpet.

¶27

The revision petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter 'the petitioner') had filed suit vlde O.S.No.56 of 2022 seeking specific relief of performance of agreement of sale daled 27.07.2020 by respondent No.1/defendant No.'l (hereinafter'the respondent No.'l').

¶28

4 (a). ln the suit, the petitioner asserts that respondent No.1 offered to sell the suit schedule property, comprising Ac.10-00 guntas in Sy.No.229lAA, located in Vallampally Village Shivar, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District, for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Pursuant to an agreement of sale, the petitioner paid an earnest sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on the execution date, with Jhe^{balance to be paid} on or before³¹ .12.2020.

¶29

\

¶30

ATR,/ C-P'P.No.69 af 2025

¶31

2

¶32

(b). Subsequently, the petitioner, the respondent No.1, and a private surveyor^jointly visited the^property to demarcate boundaries. During this exercise, it was discovered that only Ac.6-20 guntas of the agreed land was^physically available, the remaining^portion having been encroached upon by third^parties. Despite this, the respondent No.1 executed registered sale deeds, transferring Ac.6-20^guntas to respondent No.2 and^{Ac.3-20 guntas} to respondent No.3, thereby alienating the entire extent of the landⁱⁿ q uestion.

¶33

(c) ln this context, the petitioner filed the present application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil^{Procedure, 1908,} seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.^The petitioner requested that the Commissioner, with assistance from the Additional Director, Survey and Settlement Department, Narayanpet, conduct a survey to demarcate the suit schedule land, document^its physical features, and particularly identify the characteristics of the Ac.3-20 guntas

¶34

ln counter, the respondent No.1 contested the^petition while acknowledging ownership of the^property and the execution of^the agreement of sale. She contended that time was of the essence^and, upon the petitioner's failure to^pay the^{remaining consideration by} t v...? l

¶35

N7R,/ C.kP.No.6)9 of 2025

¶36

3

¶37

,,I

¶38

the stipulated deadline, got issued a legal notice dated 07.12.2022, calling for payment by 31 .12.2020. Upon the petitioner's default, she lawfully alienated the property to respondents No 2 and No.3 for valuable consideration and delivered possession. Respondent No.1 argued that the present petition was filed at the argument stage solely to gather evidence and therefore sought its dismissal.

¶39

Upon evaluating the petition and the material available on record, the trial Cou( dismissed the application. Aggrieved by said dismissal, the petitioner has filed this revision.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in properly appreciating the purpose and necessity of the application. The petitioner filed the application solely to establish that the portion of land measuring Ac.3-2O guntas was not in the possession of respondent No.1 at the relevant time. This fact, it is submitted, was crucial in explaining the petitioner,s inability to pay the balance sale consideration by the stipulated date.

¶41

The alleged failure on the part of respondent No.1 to fulfill her contractual obligation, namely, to deliver possession of the entire agreed extent of land is a material issue. Learned counsel argues that this failure can be substantiated only through a proper survey and demarcation of the suit schedule property, which would reveal

¶42

A',j-R,/ C.kP.No.6)9 of 2025

¶43

4

¶44

the actual physical status of the land and conflrm that a^portionwas under third-party occupation. Such evidence, the^{petitioner submits,} would also suppo( his contention that^{he was ready and willingto} perform his part of the agreement, including^payment of the remaining consideration, had the land been^{fully availableas agreed.} It is further submitted that the trial Court^failed to^exerciseits jurisdiction judiciously by dismissing the application at the argument stage, thereby depriving the^petitioner of an^{opportunity to bring} relevant facts on record through a^{lawful proceduralmechanism.} Hence, learned counsel^prays that this Court^{may interferein} revtston

¶45

I have perused the materials on record

¶46

As per the averments in the^{plaint,it is not in disputethat the} suit has been filed seeking specific^{performanceof the agreement of} sale dated 27.07.2020. The^{petitioner specificallypleaded that} subsequent to the execution of^{the said agreement, he, alongwith} the respondent No.1 and a^private surveyor,^{visited the suit schedule} land and discovered that an extent of^{Ac.3-20 guntas was underthe} occupation of third^{parties. However,it is significantto note that no} specific date or detailed^{particulars regarding this alleged discovery} have been pleaded.

¶47

/

¶48

\r?R,/ C.P-P.No.639 o[2025

¶49

5

¶50

''''**----F ., ,, ./..

¶51

Furthermore, the contents of both the plaint and the petitioner's reply notice dated 16.12.2022 clearly reveal that the petitioner's primary contention was that respondent No.1 was responsible for fixing the boundaries, setting a date and time for registration of the sale deed, and duly informing the petitioner. The petitioner also asserted in both documents that he was aware of the non-availability of the entire extent of land, specifically Ac.3-20 guntas, and maintained that respondent No..l had assured him she wor.rld resolve the issues, fix the boundaries, and notify the date for execution of the regular sale deed. lt was also pleaded that no further documentation was necessary to extend the time for performance of the agreement.

¶52

Be that as it may, the plaint further reveals that, by the time the suit was instituted, respondent No.1 had already alienated the entire extent of Ac.10-00 guntas to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The sale transactions, on their face, reflect the availability of the entire suit schedule property. ln this context, and in light of the clear pleading by respondent No.'l that possession of the land had been delivered to the respective vendees, it is evident that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are now in possession of the property.

¶53

NIR,/ C.B-P.No.6)9 of 2025

¶54

6

¶55

Even assuming the^{petitioner's versionis taken at face value,} a survey to demarcate^{boundariesand identify physical features at} this stage would^{merely confirm that as of 27.07.2O2O,third-party} occupation existed^{with respectto Ac.3-20 guntas.However,the} petitioner has not explained his^{prolonged inaction, specifically'his} failure to seek such relief^{from the date of suit until the matter had} progressed to the stage of final arguments.

¶56

.l 3. Given these circumstances, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the^{purpose of conducting asurvey and} demarcation in a suit^{for specific performanceappears misdirected.} The critical issue in such^{a suit is the enforceability of the agreement} itself, rather than the^{present physical condition of the land} Therefore, the^{petitioner's attempt to secure the appointmentof a} Commissioner at^{this advancedstage amountsto an impermissible} effort to reopen enquiry^{and procurefavourable evidence regarding a} factual situation^{that allegedly existed in2020.}

¶57

For these reasons, this^{Court finds no error or impropriety in} the trial Court's exercise of^{its discretionin rejectingthe petition'} Accordingly, in^{the absence of any merit or substantial grounds for} interference, the^{impugned order is confirmed. This civil Revision} I ,

¶58

,\1RJ

¶59

7

¶60

C.P-P.No.6 )9 o;f 2025

¶61

t.Bi6GFi:qarPr. . "1-

¶62

Petition is, therefore, devoid of tenable grounds for admission and is

¶63

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.