APHC010139642014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3365]

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR

FIRST APPEAL NO: 486/2014

Between:

Puli Varalakshmi ...APPELLANT

AND

Puli Govinda Reddy ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. P RAJKUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. VELIVELA VEERARAGHAVAIAH

2

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to Yes/No

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

________________________

Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

3

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

* HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

+ FIRST APPEAL NO: 486/2014

% 23.04.2024

# Between:

Puli Varalakshmi ...APPELLANT

AND

Puli Govinda Reddy ...RESPONDENT

! Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Sri P. Raj Kumar

^ Counsel for Respondent(s) : Sri P. Veera Raghavaiah

And

Sri K. Srinivas

4

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2022 SCC Online SC 840

2. 2022 SCC Online SC 71

3. (2020) 3 SCC 280

The Court made the following Judgment:

5

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

APPEAL SUIT No.486 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. Defendant in O.S.No.226 of 2008 preferred this appeal

under section 96 CPC impugning the judgment dated 02.07.2014

of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. Respondent

herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. O.S.No.226 of 2008 is a suit

for specific performance of an agreement for sale with an

alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration along

with interest and for costs and such other reliefs.

2. The appellant has been owning 2,222 square yards of

vacant site in Chinagantyada Village. Her husband is Sri P.

Satyanarayana Reddy. The respondent/ plaintiff Sri P.Govinda

Reddy is the younger brother to Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy and

thus is brother-in-law for the appellant/ defendant. The

controversy revolves around 1,111 Square Yards of the vacant

site along with an office room situated therein alleging that his

sister-in-law executed an agreement for sale dated 16.10.2003 in

his favour and thereafter failed to execute registered sale deed,

the respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit. Defendant filed a written

statement and resisted the claim raising various contentions.

Learned trial court settled the following issues for trial: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of

contract of sale or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.

6,73,666/- with 6% interest per annum towards interest?

6

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

2. To what relief?

Plaintiff testified as PW.1. One of the attestors to the

agreement for sale testified as PW.2. The scribe of the document

testified as PW.3. The agreement for sale is Ex.A1. Earlier to the

institution of the suit, plaintiff got issued notice dated 01.09.2008

as per Ex.A2 and it came returned unserved with a postal

endorsement that the “addressee/ appellant refused to receive it”

as per Ex.A3. As against the above evidence, defendant/

appellant testified as DW.1 and her husband testified as DW.2.

No documents were exhibited for defendant.

3. On considering the entire evidence on record and the

contentions raised on both sides, the learned trial court recorded

its findings that Ex.A1 was executed by defendant/ appellant in

favour of plaintiff/ respondent and the vendor received the entire

sale consideration under Ex.A1. It further held that even on

assessment of equities, it found that the primary relief for specific

performance is deserved. Accordingly, it decreed the suit in

favour of the plaintiff in the following terms: -

“In the result, plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific

performance of agreement of sale dated 16.10.2003. It is

shown that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration of

Rs.5,00,000/- and it is also shown the plaintiff is ready and

willing to come for registration. The defendant is ordered to

execute a regular sale deed within 45 days of passing of

decree upon the plaintiff duly informing the defendant the

7

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

suitable date for getting the sale registered. The suit

decreed with costs.”

4. Aggrieved by it, the defendant filed the present appeal. Sri

P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri P. Veera

Raghavaiah and Sri K.Srinivas, the learned counsel for

respondent submitted their respective arguments.

5. The principal contentions of appellant are that the

respondent/ plaintiff was a minor and had no source of income

and had never paid the alleged sale consideration of

Rs.5,00,000/- and that there have been disputes between the

respondent/ plaintiff and his father on one side and the husband

of the appellant on the other side and that the appellant had other

assets and thriving business and there was no need for her to sell

the property covered by Ex.A1. The learned counsel further

contended that by the averments in the written statement and by

her evidence as DW.1, the appellant denied execution of Ex.A1

agreement for sale and denied signature on it attributed to her

and that she has always been subscribing her signature in

English language whereas the impugned Ex.A1 agreement for

sale contains signature in Telugu language which does not

belong to her and the respondent/ plaintiff failed to produce any

evidence contrary to that. Learned counsel further argued that the

evidence led by respondent/ plaintiff is mired in inconsistencies.

That the agreement for sale is of the year 2003 and the suit was

filed in the year 2008 and that is also indicative of the fact that the

respondent/ plaintiff has not been ready and willing to obtain a

registered sale deed and that as the prices of landed properties

8

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

have been increasing manifold and in the backdrop of disputes

among family members, the respondent/ plaintiff along with his

father got Ex.A1 fabricated and sued this appellant without any

reason. Learned counsel submits that the learned trail court

totally failed in assessing the relative merits of the evidence and

prays this court to set aside the judgment that is impugned in this

appeal.

6. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff

argued that the parties to the litigation are so closely related and

that the respondent/ plaintiff did not and had no reason to

fabricate Ex.A1. That the evidence on record would show that the

appellant is an educated person and is capable of putting her

signature in Telugu language and only to avoid her obligations

she has been disputing the agreement for sale. That the disputes

that are alleged among family members were not there by the

time Ex.A1 was executed. The respondent/ plaintiff did business

along with his father and therefore had capacity to pay the sale

consideration which in fact was paid and is evidenced by Ex.A1

and that the learned trial court appropriately considered the

evidence on record and rightly reached to correct conclusions

and there is no warrant for interference and seeks dismissal of

the appeal.

7. On 23.02.2024 and 07.03.2024, the learned counsel on

both sides argued this appeal. It is at that stage appellant filed

I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking for reception of additional evidence in

the form of five documents.

9

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

8. For respondent a counter was filed. The documents that

are sought to be introduced are to show that the appellant in her

earlier transactions subscribed her signature in English language

and to probabalize that contention these documents are sought to

be filed. In the counter affidavit filed for respondent strong protest

is raised stating that no reason is made out for not filing these

documents earlier.

9. The learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments in

the appeal as well as the application for additional evidence. The

following points fall for consideration: -

1. Whether evidence on record wa s improperly

appreciated by the trial court and it committed an error

in its finding that Ex.A1 agreement for sale was

proved?

2. Whether a case is made out in terms of Order XLI Rule

27 CPC by the appellant for reception of additional

evidence?

3. Whether the judgment of the trial court is riddled with

incorrect and perverse observations leading to wrong

conclusions?

POINTS: -

The appellant is vendor and the respondent is purchaser.

Ex.A1 agreement for sale is at the center of controversy. The

descriptive particulars of parties as mentioned in this document

indicate that the vendor is a resident of Gajuwaka and the

10

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

intending purchaser is a resident of Amaravilli. The property that

was transacted was situated in Autonagar of Visakhapatnam

town. This Ex.A1 consists of two sheets of stamp papers

purchased by the intending purchaser and they were purchased

from a stamp vendor at Tuni. It was made on 16.10.2003. It is an

un-registered non-possessory agreement for sale. The sale

consideration is mentioned as Rs.5,00,000/- and it is recited that

the intending purchaser paid the entire sale consideration and the

vendor received the entire sale consideration and this payment of

sale consideration occurred simultaneously at the time of making

of Ex.A1. The cause of sale is mentioned as family needs and

business investment. It further recites that as and when the

intending purchaser seeks registration of a regular sale deed, the

vendor would do it at the expenses of the intending purchaser.

On both the papers, there is signature of the vendor in Telugu

language both for surname and body name. It bears the signature

of two attesting witnesses and that of the scribe of the document.

The recitals in this document show that the vendor acquired this

property and has been in possession and enjoyment of this

property and that the property had no encumbrance and was

never mortgaged. There is no mention about the source of title of

the vendor. It does not contain any recitals about furnishing of

necessary documents indicating title by the vendor to the vendee

either at the time of the document or earlier to it and that it also

does not mention about any promise to hand over such

documents at the time of execution of regular registered sale

deed.

11

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

10. Though the entire sale consideration is stated to have been

paid on 16.10.2003 at the time of making Ex.A1, it is clear that

soon thereafter the deal did not translate itself into execution of

any registered sale deed. For the first time, on 01.09.2008, which

is nearly after five years, the intending purchaser issued Ex.A2

notice to the vendor demanding for execution of registered sale

deed. As evidenced by Ex.A3, the vendor refused to receive it.

That prompted the intending purchaser to present his plaint on

29.09.2008. It is in the backdrop of these physically verifiable

material, the evidence on record required its consideration.

11. At the trial as well as in this appeal, one of the contentions

raised was that the respondent/ plaintiff was a minor by the time

of execution of Ex.A1. An agreement for sale creates obligations

on both sides and a minor, in the eyes of law, is incapable of

consenting and therefore a transaction through a contract should

always be attended by the guardian. Thus, the contention raised

has legal ramifications. Therefore, whether the respondent/

plaintiff was a minor or not is a matter of some importance.

Appellant as DW.1 and her husband as DW.2 did not furnish the

date of birth of the respondent/ plaintiff. Respondent/ plaintiff

testified as PW.1 and it was elicited from his mouth that he was

born on 13.02.1982. Ex.A1 agreement for sale is of the year

2003. If the date of birth furnished is correct, the respondent/

plaintiff was aged 20 years plus. It was suggested to PW.1 that

he was born in the year 1984 which the witness denied. Even if it

is taken that he was born in the year 1984, he was aged about 19

years by the time of Ex.A1 which was made in the year

12

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

2003.Therefore respondent/ plaintiff was not a minor by the time

of Ex.A1 and therefore he was capable of entering into a contract

for purchase of immovable property.

12. Another principal contention raised at the trial through

pleadings and evidence as well as in this appeal is that the

respondent/ plaintiff was only a student by the time of Ex.A1 and

had no assets and no earnings and was incapable of paying the

alleged sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and Ex.A1 is devoid

of consideration. The respondent/ plaintiff who deposed as PW.1

was accepted to speak on these aspects since such allegations

were made in the written statement itself. While deposing as

PW.1 in his examination in chief affidavit he did not advert to

these aspects and did not disclose any facts to meet those

contentions. While cross-examining him, the appellant elicited the

following facts from PW.1/ respondent/ plaintiff.

• In the year 2003, I was studying intermediate.

• During that period, I did not have any property fetching any

income.

13. Thus, PW.1 made it clear that it was during his student-

hood days Ex.A1 transaction took place and by then he for

himself had no assets and no revenue earned from any such

assets. That brings out the question as to how he collected

Rs.5,00,000/- and paid it to vendor. As mentioned earlier, he did

not positively give a statement in his examination in chief about

this aspect. During cross-examination, he volunteered a

statement saying that he along with his father did prawn

13

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

business. He admitted that he did not have any document to

show that he ever participated in such prawns business. He also

admitted that except this Ex.A1, he had no other material to

indicate he had Rs.5,00,000/- and he had paid that to vendor.

Learned counsel for respondent/ plaintiff contended that the

father of respondent furnished the sale consideration to the

respondent and that was paid to the appellant/ vendor. There is

no merit in this contention since the said contention has no basis

in the pleadings and evidence. Plaint had no reference to source

of money for plaintiff/ respondent/ purchaser. Before the trial court

the suit was pending for more than five years and nothing

prevented him from furnishing necessary details about his prawns

business and from examining his father or others in proof of his

source of funds for the alleged payments allegedly made at the

time of entering into Ex.A1 agreement for sale. He did not do it.

Therefore, from the material on record it seems reasonable to

conclude that the respondent/ plaintiff did not have necessary

funds and Ex.A1 agreement for sale is devoid of consideration.

There is clear lapse on part of the learned trial court in paying any

attention on this vital aspect of the case.

14. One of the contentions raised before the trial court as well

as here is about absence of any need for vendor to sell this

property at that time to this plaintiff. That was spoken to by DWs.1

and 2. By cross - examining PW.1, it was elicited that his brother/

husband of appellant/ DW.2 was possessed of properties at

Gajuwaka even by the year 2003 and that DW.2 was doing

business at Gajuwaka. Thus, the relative probability of the above

14

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

facts do indicate that the appellant and her husband had a

business giving rise to regular income and they also had

immovable properties and thus the need to meet family expenses

as recited under Ex.A1 may or may not have been in existence at

that time. On the other hand, it is already seen that the

respondent/ plaintiff was only a student and did not have assets

yielding any revenue and there is no evidence showing that his

father had given him Rs.5,00,000/- to pay to his sister-in-law to

enable her to meet her financial needs.

15. Coming to the actual execution of Ex.A1 and exchange of

sale consideration on the date of Ex.A1, there is evidence of

PWs.1 to 3. All the three witnesses stated that in their presence,

the vendor/ appellant received Rs.5,00,000/- from the

respondent/ plaintiff and then she subscribed her signature on

Ex.A1. Learned trial court considered those pieces of evidence

and recorded its finding that Ex.A1 is a truthful document and

under that document full consideration was received by the

appellant. In the opinion of this court, these findings of the

learned trial court cannot be supported for various reasons which

are to be narrated now. The recitals in Ex.A1 show that

consideration was passed simultaneously at the time of execution

of Ex.A1. Where was this document made and executed is not

mentioned in Ex.A1. PW.2/ the attestor said in his evidence that

plaintiff is his friend and the defendant’s husband is also his

friend. He said that he attested Ex.A1 at Tuni. PW.1/ respondent/

plaintiff in his cross-examination stated that one of the attestors is

Sri V.Pratap Reddy. The said Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri

15

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

Satyanarayana Reddy (DW.2/ brother of respondent) came to

Gajuwaka and obtained the signature of the defendant/ appellant

herein on Ex.A1. Thus, according to him , this appellant

subscribed her signature on Ex.A1 at Gajuwaka. This stands in

conflict with the evidence of PW.2 who said that he witnessed this

appellant signing this Ex.A1 at Tuni. Thus, there is no unanimity

from the evidence led by plaintiff/ respondent about the place of

execution of Ex.A1.

16. PW.2 stated that the sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-

was paid in cash and it was through currency notes of the

denomination Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- and he saw it. PW.3/ the

scribe in his cross-examination stated that he saw physical cash

being passed from plaintiff to defendant in the denomination of

the currency notes was Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- in bundles. Thus,

both have seen it differently. Both of them said that this physical

consideration was passed on the date of Ex.A1. Whereas, PW.1

in his cross-examination made the following statement: -

“two months prior to the date of Ex.A1 I paid consideration

amount to the defendant. I did not obtain any receipt at that

time. It is not mentioned in Ex.A1 that consideration amount

was received two months prior to the date of this

execution”.

Thus, the very person who sued the vendor said on oath

that two months earlier to execution of Ex.A1 itself he paid the

entire sale consideration to vendor. If that is accepted, the

evidence of PW.2 and 3 that they witnessed cash being

16

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

exchanged at the time of Ex.A1 cannot co-exist. Therefore, there

is no unanimity in the evidence led by plaintiff/ respondent about

the date of passing of consideration.

17. It is not that the trial court did not notice all these vital

discrepancies. At paragraph No.26 in the impugned judgment the

learned trial court mentioned that there is such variance in the

evidence of PW.1 to 3 with regard to payment of consideration

and execution of Ex.A1 and then narrated those discrepancies.

Then at paragraph No.27, it made its assessment and said that it

is not the stand of the defendant that the signature in Ex.A1 is not

her signature. Then it went on to say that once it is her signature

that is there on Ex.A1 then nothing else is required to be

considered. It is in that manner, it did not give any value to those

pitfalls in the evidence. To say the least, it is a perverse way of

deciding the lis on part of the trial court. Paragraph No.9 of the

written statement reads: -

“The defendant further submit that the defendant never

executed any sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff at

any point of time.”

At paragraph No.11 of her examination in chief affidavit as

DW.1, she reiterated the same. All that is enough denial of

execution of Ex.A1. In every suit for specific performance of a

contract, the court is required to pose un-toe itself - whether there

is a valid agreement for sale between the parties to the

agreement. The approach of the learned trial court in finding

answer to such question went on the assumption that Ex.A1 is a

17

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

true and genuine document. It grossly erred in not

comprehending the actual defence raised by the defendant/

appellant. It did not furnish proper reason as to how the vital

discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses could be said to have

probabilised the case of intending purchaser. It seems to have

understood the principle that one who has taken the defence that

agreement for sale is fabricated must prove that it is fabricated

and on failing to prove that contention it must be accepted by the

court that the document in question is proved. Such an approach

of the trial court is incorrect.

18. One of the attestors is Sri V. Pratap Reddy. He is junior

paternal uncle to the vendor. Thus, he is related to both parties to

the suit. He did not testify in court. At paragraph No.27 of its

judgment, the learned trail court observes that such a close

relative would not subscribe his signature to a document if the

document is false. Thus, without the said witness testifying on a

fact, the court concluded on vital facts based on no evidence.

Could it not be said that plaintiff withheld the evidence of such a

relative since he was afraid that the relative would not support his

case based on Ex.A1. That is also an equally possible dimension

to the issue. Learned trial court did not feel to consider for a

moment the various possibilities. At paragraph No.27, the learned

trial court also made an observation that execution of Ex.A1 has

to be believed because PW.1/ plaintiff is younger to DW.2/

husband of appellant. To say the least, it is atrocious. It is

unfortunate that the learned trial court concluded to believe the

disputed agreement for sale because the intending purchaser is

18

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

younger to the husband of the vendor. It suits neither common

sense nor logic nor law. Paragraph No.34 of the impugned

judgment makes one wonder whether the learned trial court

appropriately comprehended the evidence or not. For benefit, a

few sentences are required to be extracted here: -

” It is pleaded and deposed by PW.1 that the plaintiff

purchased 2,222 square yards of property for consideration

of Rs.7,00,000/-. It is shown that the plaintiff has sold the

property for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-…..It is shown

that the date of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is

dated 22.11.2002. Suit agreement for sale is dated

16.10.2003. It is shown that the plaintiff was getting higher

returns within one year.”

19. The above pieces of material from the impugned judgment

speak about plaintiff in the suit as the owner of the property which

is totally incorrect and perverse since it is the defendant in the

said suit who was owner of the property. The discussion in other

paragraphs and paragraph No.33 of the impugned judgment is

that when the defendant failed to show that her signature was

fabricated, her defence that she did not receive any consideration

pales into insignificance. Thus, the trial court held the opinion that

even when there are specific assertions in the written statement

that the vendor neither received the consideration nor executed

agreement for sale, the trial court did not think it fit to examine

these two aspects separately and then arrive at respective

conclusions.

19

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

20. It has been the law that the intending purchaser must plead

and prove his readiness and willingness. Readiness means the

capacity of the purchaser to perform the contract which would

indicate his financial position. Willingness relates to the conduct

of the plaintiff. For a period of limitation of three years that is

provided by the statute, does not mean that a purchaser can wait

for one or two years and file a suit and obtain specific

performance. That the time is made essence of the contract or

not, the court may infer that it is to be performed in reasonable

time and that has to be assessed from the surrounding

circumstances vide U.N.Krishnamurthy V. A.M.Krishna

Murthy

1

. The foundation of a suit for specific performance lies in

asserting whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean

hands and has, through his conduct, demonstrated that he has

always been willing to perform the contract. The readiness, which

is the legal requirement to be proved casts obligation on the

intending purchaser to show his financial capacity to pay the

consideration. He must disclose to the court how he mustered

the funds or how he would collect the funds. In cases of total

inaction for years together, the relief of specific performance does

not augur well while prices of the properties have been galloping

vide Shenbagam V. K.K.Rathinavel

2

. A suit for specific

performance requires attention to the conduct of the plaintiff prior

1

2022 SCC Online SC 840

2

2022 SCC Online SC 71

20

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

to and after the filing of the suit along with other attending

circumstances vide C.S. Venkatesh V. A.S.C Murthy

3

.

21. Scrutinizing the material on record through the above highly

cherished principles of law makes the matter very clear that the

respondent/ plaintiff during his student-hood had no assets and

revenue and had no business giving rise to income and had not

shown minimum evidence that he was possess ed of

Rs.5,00,000/- and failed to show any evidence that his father

supported him for that money and the evidence brought on record

is totally discrepant as to the passing of consideration and the

place of execution of the document. Learned trial court committed

gross errors in appreciation of facts as well as in application of its

logic. In the considered opinion of this court Ex.A1 agreement for

sale is not proved to have been executed by the appellant and is

not proved to have been supported by consideration. Total

inaction on the part of the respondent/ plaintiff for incurring

necessary registration charges for about five years is indicative of

the fact that he is not ready and willing to perform his part of the

contract. Learned trial court delivered the judgment which is

perverse and could not be supported.

22. One of the contentious issues between the parties was

about the language in which the appellant subscribes her

signature. According to appellant, she signs in English language.

Ex.A1 bears the signature in Telugu language. The attestor and

3

(2020) 3 SCC 280

21

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

the scribe/ PW.2 and PW.3 stated that they saw her signing

Ex.A1. In that way, plaintiff/ respondent proved the disputed

signature. During trial, it was well within the competence of the

appellant/ defendant to adduce necessary evidence showing that

she has always been subscribing her signatures in English

language and not in Telugu language. She did not bring on record

any such evidence. However, it is at this appellate stage, she

intended to bring such evidence and for that purpose, she filed

I.A.No.1 of 2024 to bring on record the following documents.

1. Registered sale deed dated 30.07.2008

2. Registered lease deed dated 15.05.2010

3. Income tax return verification form for assessment year

2020-2021

4. Memorandum for extension of equitable mortgage by

deposit of title deeds dated 26.02.2011

5. Housing loan closure letter issued by the State Bank of

Hyderabad dated 01.06.2016

The proposed documents bear her signature in English

language. Plaint in the suit was filed on 29.09.2008 as seen from

the copy of the decree available on record. Many of the proposed

documents came into existence after filing of the suit as they

pertain to the years 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2021. Therefore, they

cannot be taken into consideration. One document is dated

30.07.2008 which is earlier to the date of institution of the suit.

That document was very much available for the appellant to

22

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

produce in evidence during trial. She did not file it during trial. She

has not explained the cause of her failure to file the same during

trial. Thus, in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, no case is made

out for reception of such additional evidence. Therefore, I.A.No.1

of 2024 stands dismissed.

23. That the material on record makes it clear that Ex.A1 is

devoid of consideration and its due execution is not proved.

Therefore, neither primary relief of specific performance nor the

alternative relief of refund of money could have been granted by

the trial court.

24. Thus, points 1 and 3 are answered in favour of the

appellant. Point No.2 is held against the appellant.

25. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There shall be no order

as to costs. Consequently, judgment dated 02.07.2014 in

O.S.No.226 of 2008 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka is set aside and O.S.No.226 of 2008 stands dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________

Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

Date: 23.04.2024

Dvs

23

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

24

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.486 of 2014

APPEAL SUIT No.486 of 2014

Date: 23.04.2024

Dvs