As per case facts, the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007 sought specific performance based on a sale agreement. Simultaneously, Defendants in that suit and other plaintiffs in connected appeals presented ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
****
A.S.Nos.527, 530, 623, 646 & 656 of 2013
A.S.No.527 of 2013
Between:
1. THOTA GOPAL, Died by LRs.4 & 5, S/o. Chennaiah, R/o. Thotaveedi,
Atmakur Village ampMandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Thota Lalithamma @ Lalitha,, W/o. Gopal, R/o. Thotaveedi, Atmakur Village
& Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Thota Sameera,, D/o. Gopal, R/o Thotaveedi, Atmakur Village & Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
4. Thota Sravanthi, W/o Singarapu Vijaya Chandrudu, Aged about 34
years,Occ Home Maker R/o Thota Street, Atmakur Town, Spsr Nellore District,
Andhra Pradesh.
5. Thota Sumar, S/o lat Gopal Gopaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ Employee,
R/o Thota Street, Atmakur Town, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh
Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are brought on record as LRs of deceased petitioner
No. 1 vide Court order dated 22.11.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.No.527 of
2013.
...Appellant/s
AND
1. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Madarajuguduru Village,
Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Tekya
Street, Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Mekala Venkatasuba Reddy, S/o. Penchala Reddy, R/o. Tekya Street,
Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
4. Mekala Siva Prathap Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Tekya Street,
Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
...Respondents
2
A.S.No.530 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Private
Employee, House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, ATmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Mekala Venkatasubba Reddy, S/o. P. Menchala Reddy, Agriculture, House
No. 13/64, Tekya Street, atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
3. Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy,, S/o. M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Private
Employee, House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, atmakoor Village, atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. P.Ramana Reddy, AGriculture, R/o.
MAdarajugudur Village, Nellore MAndal, Nellore District.
2. Thota Gopal, S/o. T.Chenchaiah, AGriculture, R/o. Thota Veedhi, aTmakoor
Village, atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
3. Thota Lalithamma Lalitha, W/o. T.Gopal, Household R/o. THota Veedhi,
Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
4. Thota Sameera, D/o. T.Gopal, Household, R/o. Thota Veedhi, Atmakoor
Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
...Respondents
A.S.No.623 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy, S/o M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Thota Lalithamma @ Lalitha, W/o T.Gopal, Occ: Household, R/o Thota
Veedhi, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District
3
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o P.Ramana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o
Madarajugudur Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District
...Respondents
A.S.No.646 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.P.Menchala Reddy Occ: Agriculture
R/o.H.No.13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor [V] & [M], Nellore District.
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Thota Gopal, S/o.T.Chenchaiah Occ: Agriculture R/o.Thota Veedhi,
Atmakoor [V] & [M], Nellore District.
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o.P.Ramana Reddy Occ: Agriculture
R/o.Madarajugudur [V], Nellore Mandal and District.
...Respondents
A.S.No.656 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy,, S/o. M Venkatasubba Reddy, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o. H.No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Thota Gopal Gopalaiah, S/o. T Chenchaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thota
Veedhi, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. P. Ramana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.
Madarajugudur Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District.
...Respondents
4
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 16.10.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No
________________________
JUSTICE D. RAMESH
______________________________
JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
5
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
+ A.S.Nos.527, 530, 623, 646 & 656 of 2013
% 16.10.2026
A.S.No.527 of 2013
Between:
1. THOTA GOPAL, Died by LRs.4 & 5, S/o. Chennaiah, R/o. Thotaveedi,
Atmakur Village ampMandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Thota Lalithamma @ Lalitha,, W/o. Gopal, R/o. Thotaveedi, Atmakur Village
& Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Thota Sameera,, D/o. Gopal, R/o Thotaveedi, Atmakur Village & Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
4. Thota Sravanthi, W/o Singarapu Vijaya Chandrudu, Aged about 34
years,Occ Home Maker R/o Thota Street, Atmakur Town, Spsr Nellore District,
Andhra Pradesh.
5. Thota Sumar, S/o lat Gopal Gopaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ Employee,
R/o Thota Street, Atmakur Town, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh
Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are brought on record as LRs of deceased petitioner
No. 1 vide Court order dated 22.11.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.No.527 of
2013.
...Petitioners
AND
1. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Madarajuguduru Village,
Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Tekya
Street, Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Mekala Venkatasuba Reddy, S/o. Penchala Reddy, R/o. Tekya Street,
Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
6
4. Mekala Siva Prathap Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Tekya Street,
Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
...Respondents
A.S.No.530 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Private
Employee, House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, ATmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Mekala Venkatasubba Reddy, S/o. P. Menchala Reddy, Agriculture, House
No. 13/64, Tekya Street, atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
3. Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy,, S/o. M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Private
Employee, House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, atmakoor Village, atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
...Petitioners
AND
1. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. P.Ramana Reddy, AGriculture, R/o.
MAdarajugudur Village, Nellore MAndal, Nellore District.
2. Thota Gopal, S/o. T.Chenchaiah, AGriculture, R/o. Thota Veedhi, aTmakoor
Village, atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
3. Thota Lalithamma Lalitha, W/o. T.Gopal, Household R/o. THota Veedhi,
Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
4. Thota Sameera, D/o. T.Gopal, Household, R/o. Thota Veedhi, Atmakoor
Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
...Respondents
A.S.No.623 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy, S/o M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District
...Petitioner
7
AND
1. Thota Lalithamma @ Lalitha, W/o T.Gopal, Occ: Household, R/o Thota
Veedhi, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o P.Ramana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o
Madarajugudur Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District
...Respondents
A.S.No.646 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.P.Menchala Reddy Occ: Agriculture
R/o.H.No.13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor [V] & [M], Nellore District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. Thota Gopal, S/o.T.Chenchaiah Occ: Agriculture R/o.Thota Veedhi,
Atmakoor [V] & [M], Nellore District.
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o.P.Ramana Reddy Occ: Agriculture
R/o.Madarajugudur [V], Nellore Mandal and District.
...Respondents
A.S.No.656 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy,, S/o. M Venkatasubba Reddy, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o. H.No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. Thota Gopal Gopalaiah, S/o. T Chenchaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thota
Veedhi, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. P. Ramana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.
Madarajugudur Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District.
...Respondents
8
! Counsel for
Appellant/s
: Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the
Appellants
^ Counsel for
Respondent/s
: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the
Respondents.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2009) 2 SCC 582
2. (1990) 3 SCC 1
3. AIR 2024 SC 3242 & (2024) 7 SCC 515
4. AIR 2006 Mad 242 & (2006) SCC OnLine Mad 406
5. (2006) SCC OnLine AP 34
6. (2005) SCC OnLine AP 289
7. (2020) 3 SCC 280
8. 2010 SCC OnLine AP 931
9. (2023) 11 SCC 775
10. AIR 2005 AP 260 & (2004) SCC OnLine AP 1004
11. AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 3361 & (2023) 11 SCC 775
12. (1996) 4 SCC 526
13. (1998) 4 SCC 539
14. 1976 AP 243 & (1975) SCC OnLine AP 139
15. (2024) 4 SCC 247
16. (2005) 4 SCC 370
17. (1998) 2 SCC 391
18. (2011) 8 SCC 249
19. (1977) 4 SCC 467
20. (2001) 5 SCC 289
21. (2005) 6 SCC 344
22. 2024 Supreme SC 1187
23. (1994) 1 SCC 1
24. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501
25. (2024) 20 SCC 140
26. (2010) 8 SCC 1
27. (2023) 13 SCC 1
28. (2012) 7 SCC 738
29. (2008) 7 SCC 144
30. (2005) 9 SCC 568
9
31. (2004) 8 SCC 488
10
Date of reserved for orders : 23.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 16.10.2026
Date of uploading : 16.10.2026
APHC010576122013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE 16
th
DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
A.S.Nos.527, 530, 623, 646 & 656 of 2013
A.S.No.527 of 2013
Between:
1. THOTA GOPAL, Died by LRs.4 & 5, S/o. Chennaiah, R/o. Thotaveedi,
Atmakur Village ampMandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Thota Lalithamma @ Lalitha,, W/o. Gopal, R/o. Thotaveedi, Atmakur Village
& Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Thota Sameera,, D/o. Gopal, R/o Thotaveedi, Atmakur Village & Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.
4. Thota Sravanthi, W/o Singarapu Vijaya Chandrudu, Aged about 34
years,Occ Home Maker R/o Thota Street, Atmakur Town, Spsr Nellore District,
Andhra Pradesh.
5. Thota Sumar, S/o lat Gopal Gopaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ Employee,
R/o Thota Street, Atmakur Town, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh
Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are brought on record as LRs of deceased petitioner
No. 1 vide Court order dated 22.11.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in A.S.No.527 of
2013.
... Appellant/s
11
AND
1. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Madarajuguduru Village,
Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Tekya
Street, Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
3. Mekala Venkatasuba Reddy, S/o. Penchala Reddy, R/o. Tekya Street,
Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
4. Mekala Siva Prathap Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Tekya Street,
Atmakur Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: P RAJASEKHAR,YADLAPALLI VENKATA
KALYANA CHAKRAVARTHI,.
Counsel for the Respondents: C SUBODH
A.S.No.530 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Private
Employee, House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, ATmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Mekala Venkatasubba Reddy, S/o. P. Menchala Reddy, Agriculture, House
No. 13/64, Tekya Street, atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
3. Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy,, S/o. M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Private
Employee, House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, atmakoor Village, atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. P.Ramana Reddy, AGriculture, R/o.
MAdarajugudur Village, Nellore MAndal, Nellore District.
2. Thota Gopal, S/o. T.Chenchaiah, AGriculture, R/o. Thota Veedhi, aTmakoor
Village, atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
3. Thota Lalithamma Lalitha, W/o. T.Gopal, Household R/o. THota Veedhi,
Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
12
4. Thota Sameera, D/o. T.Gopal, Household, R/o. Thota Veedhi, Atmakoor
Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.No.623 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy, S/o M.Venkatasubba Reddy, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o House No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Thota Lalithamma @ Lalitha, W/o T.Gopal, Occ: Household, R/o Thota
Veedhi, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o P.Ramana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o
Madarajugudur Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.No.646 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.P.Menchala Reddy Occ: Agriculture
R/o.H.No.13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor [V] & [M], Nellore District.
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Thota Gopal, S/o.T.Chenchaiah Occ: Agriculture R/o.Thota Veedhi,
Atmakoor [V] & [M], Nellore District.
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o.P.Ramana Reddy Occ: Agriculture
R/o.Madarajugudur [V], Nellore Mandal and District.
...Respondents
13
Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondents: C SUBODH
A.S.No.656 of 2013
Between:
1. Mekala Chandrasekhar Reddy,, S/o. M Venkatasubba Reddy, Occ: Private
Employee, R/o. H.No. 13/64, Tekya Street, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor
Mandal, Nellore District.
... Appellant/s
AND
1. Thota Gopal Gopalaiah, S/o. T Chenchaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thota
Veedhi, Atmakoor Village, Atmakoor Mandal, Nellore District.
2. Pandipati Gopal Reddy, S/o. P. Ramana Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.
Madarajugudur Village, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
Counsel for the Respondents:
14
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
A.S.Nos.527, 530, 623, 646 & 656 of 2013
The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Alapati Giridhar)
1. The Appeals are filed by the Defendants challenging the Common
Judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, dated 01.03.2013 in
O.S.Nos.49, 59, 62 and 78 of 2007, wherein the Suit in O.S.No.49 of 2007 filed
for specific performance by Pandipati Gopal Reddy is decreed with costs
against the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants and the other three Suits in O.S.Nos.59, 62 &
78 of 2007 filed for specific performance are dismissed with costs.
2. For brevity, the plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007 is referred to as the
Plaintiff. The 1
st
to 6
th
Defendants in this Suit are referred to as Defendants.
The 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants also filed Suits, O.S.Nos.59, 62 & 78 of 2007 for
specific performance, they are also referred to as 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants
respectively.
I. BRIEF CONTENTIONS
3. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for Appellant No.2, 4 and 5
in A.S.No.527 of 2013, Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for
Appellants in A.S.Nos.530, 623, 646 & 656 of 2013 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for
Respondent in all the Appeals, who is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007.
4. The learned counsel for the 2
nd
, 4
th
& 5
th
Appellants in A.S.No.527 of
2013, contends that the Trial Court erred in decreeing the Suit for specific
performance based on the Agreement of Sale though the same is not a valid
and enforceable agreement. That the Plaintiff paid a paltry amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- only, that even the agreement recitals show that there is a
15
condition to measure the property and to arrive at the balance of sale
consideration for the suit schedule property/Ac.31.28¼ cents @ Rs.2,10,000/-
per acre. That the agreement did not contain the boundaries but contains only
survey numbers, the Plaintiff issued a paper publication, which also did not
contain boundaries but strangely in the plaint he mentioned the boundaries,
which casts serious doubt on the case of the Plaintiff. That the evidence of
Scribe/PW.4 is not consistent, at one point he stated that the 1
st
Defendant
informed him about the case and asked him not to come to the Court, at the
other point, he says that the Court Staff informed him that he was summoned
by the Court and he accordingly attended the Court.
5. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel submits that the O.S.No.49 of 2007
was filed for specific performance against the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants, though the
1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property, the Plaintiff
could not prove the Suit agreement of sale and that he wasready and
willingness to perform his obligation under the agreement. Further, the case
of the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants is that they executed three agreements in favour
of the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants, but the Trial Court failed to appreciate the same
and dismissed the Suits/O.S.Nos.59, 62 & 78 of 2007 and prays to allow the
Appeals and to decree the Suits.
6. The learned Counsel fairly submits that they are not disputing the
agreement of sale/Ex.P.1, but contends that the Plaintiff could not prove that
he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract with the balance sale
consideration, but the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in this regard
and prays to allow the Appeals and dismiss the Suit filed by the Plaintiff in
O.S.No.49 of 2007.
7. The learned Counsel fairly submits that in the other three Suits, two
stamps contained the agreements of Sale in two Suits were ante dated i.e prior
to issuing of the stamps by the Registrar. These Appellants are supporting the
three agreements.
16
8. The learned counsel placed reliance on i) Veeramareddy
Nagabhushana Rao Vs. Jyothula Venkateswara Rao, ii) Mayawanti Vs.
Kaushalya Devi, iii) Pydi Ramana Vs. Davarasetty Manmadha Rao, iv) P.
Panneerselvan Vs.. A. Baylis, v) Penumatsa Narasimha Raju Vs. Valluri Jaya
Prakasa Babu, vi) Kota Rama Rao Vs. Kolli Rajeswaramma vii) U.N.
KrishnaMurthy (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives Vs. A.M.
Krishnamurthy, viii) B. Rajamani Vs. Mrs. Azhar Sultana and others, ix) U.N.
KrishnaMurthy (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives Vs. A.M.
Krishnamurthy, x) Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Shiv
Saraswti Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills, xi) Pudi Lazarus Vs. Rev. Johnson
Edward and others and HIS Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji Vs. Sita
Ram Thapar.
9. Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned Counsel for the Appellants in
A.S.Nos.530, 623, 646 and 656 of 2013 adopted the arguments of Sri P.
Rajasekhar and prayed to allow their Appeals duly setting aside the Common
Judgment and Decree and sought to decree the Suits in O.S.Nos.59, 62 and
78 of 2007.
10. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri
C. Subodh, learned Counsel for the Respondent (who is Plaintiff in O.S.No.49
of 2007 and the 2
nd
Defendant in O.S.Nos.59, 62 and 78 of 2007), contends
that the Counsel for the 2
nd
, 4
th
and 5
th
Appellants in A.S.No.527 of 2013, did
not dispute the agreement/Ex.A1, which is also adopted by the other
Appellants, but only disputing the Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness with
balance sale consideration to perform his part under the agreement. He
submits that the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendant are husband and wife and the 3
rd
Defendant is their daughter, they all agreed to sell the plaint schedule property
of Ac.31.28 ¼ cents, per acre @ Rs.2,10,000/-, the Plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000/-
to them on 20.01.2007 as advance and they jointly executed an Agreement of
Sale on the same day i.e on 20.01.2007/Ex.A.1 in his favour and agreed to
17
receive balance sale consideration on or before 15.04.2007, duly measuring
the property and execute a registered sale deed. The properties are in a village
and that the Defendants are villagers. The Plaintiff is also from the same village,
there is no dispute in identity of the property either in the pleadings or
throughout the trial though the boundaries are not mentioned in the Agreement
of Sale and paper publication, it is not of significance. Thus the contention that
non-mentioning of boundaries in the plaint is insignificant in the circumstances
of the case. The Plaintiff also filed copies of the bank statements to show the
balance sale consideration, the Plaintiff could prove the Agreement and that he
has been ready and willing to perform his part under the Agreement with the
balance consideration, the Trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and rightly decreed the Suit, whereas the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants fabricated the Agreements of Sale in favour of 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants
after filing the Suit only to evade his Agreement/Ex.A1. The Trial Court rightly
recorded the collusion between all the Defendants including the Agreement of
sale/Ex’s.B.1, B.15 & B.20, two of them are shown executed much prior to their
issuance by the Registrar’s Office, which clearly shows the collusion and
fabrication of the agreements, prayed to dismiss the Appeals.
11. The learned Senior Counsel also contends that this Court order is
violated and the Defendants have colluded and alienated the suit schedule
property and sought to take action as per law and that he will file a memo with
the registered sale deeds, for which the learned Counsel for the Appellant No.2,
4 and 5 fairly submitted that the property is alienated.
12. The learned counsel placed reliance on C.S. Venkatesh Vs. A.S.C.
Murthy (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Others and ii) Thangam and
Another Vs. Navamani Ammal.
13. Initially, A.S.No.527 of 2007 was filed by the 1
st
to 3
rd
Appellants/1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants by engaging a Counsel, during pendency of the Appeal, the
18
1
st
Appellant died, an application was filed and allowed impleading the 4
th
and
5
th
Appellants and the present counsel filed the Vakalat.
II. BRIEF PLEADINGS:
14. O.S.No.49 of 2007 was filed by P. Gopal Reddy/Plaintiff who is one
of the Respondents in A.S.No.527 of 2013 & A.S.No.530 of 2013. O.S.No.62
of 2007 filed by Mekala Siva Prathap Reddy who is the Appellant in A.S.No.623
of 2013. O.S.No.78 of 2007 was filed by Mekala Venkatasubba Reddy who is
the Appellant in A.S.No.646 of 2013. O.S.No.59 of 2007 was filed by Mekala
Chandrasekhar Reddy, who is the Appellant in A.S.No.656 of 2013.
i) Plaint in O.S.No.49 of 2007
15. The brief case of the Plaintiff is that 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants (Couple and
daughter) are the owners of the suit schedule property/Ac.31.28 ¼ cents and
they finally offered to sell the property for Rs.2,10,000/- per acre and he agreed
and paid Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance on 20.01.2007 and the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants executed the Agreement of Sale in his favour agreeing to execute
the registered Sale Deed by receiving the balance sale consideration on or
before 15.04.2007 by duly measuring the property. That the Plaintiff has been
always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of
Rs.63,68,525/-, he also filed bank statements. The Plaintiff has been asking
them to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale
deed, but they are postponing the same with dishonest intention and failed to
perform their part. That the Plaintiff issued a paper publication on 27.01.2007
in Eenadu Daily News Paper as abundant caution. As they were postponing
to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the registered sale
deed, so he issued a legal notice to them on 02.04.2007, calling them to receive
the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed within 7
days from the date of receipt of the notice, they/1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants received
the notice but they did not perform their part of contract but the 3
rd
Defendant
issued reply notice stating that she is not the owner of the property and she did
19
not execute the Agreement of Sale. Hence, the suit is filed for specific
performance.
ii) Written Statement dated 07.09.2007
16. The 1
st
Defendant initially filed the written statement dated
07.09.2007, and the 1
st
Defendant admitted that 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendant are the
absolute owners of the property, but denied that 3
rd
Defendant is owner of the
property, also denied offering the property and agreeing for Rs.2,10,000/- per
acre, the Plaintiff paying Rs.2,00,000/- as an advance on 20.01.2007 and they
jointly executing the Agreement of Sale and its conditions including to register
the property on or before 15.04.2007, and also that the Plaintiff is always ready
and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.63,68,525/- and they
denied postponing the registration. The 1
st
Defendant admitted issuing of legal
notice and reply by the 3
rd
Defendant. The 1
st
Defendant specifically pleaded
that at first instance, the Plaintiff approached the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants and
expressed willingness to purchase the property but the negotiations failed
regarding the fixation of sale price and other aspects. The Plaintiff is unable to
satisfy the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants to show the capacity to pay such huge
amount of the sale consideration, and they refused to sell. The Plaintiff
proclaimed that, if the property is not sold to him, he will make false litigation
and involve the property in litigation and that nobody will come forward to
purchase the property and he threatened. The Plaintiff fabricated the
Agreement of Sale and filed the Suit. That the Plaintiff has no capacity to pay
such huge amount and that the Agreement of Sale is not binding on the
Defendants and there is no need to execute any registered sale deed in favour
of the Plaintiff and that the Suit is vexatious and prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
20
iii) Adoption Memo by the 2
nd
and 3
rd
Defendants
17. A memo is filed by the 2
nd
and 3
rd
Defendants adopting the written
statement filed by the 1
st
Defendant.
iv) Additional Written Statement by 1
st
Defendant dated 26.04.2010
18. The 1
st
Defendant filed this additional written statement, pleading that
on 25.11.2006, he sold an extent of Ac.7.67 Cents under Agreement of Sale in
favour of one Mekala Chandra Sekhar Reddy for consideration of
Rs.11,50,500/- and received an advance of Rs.50,000/- from him. The said
Mekala Chandra Sekhar Reddy failed to pay the balance sale consideration
and failed to get the register sale deed, hence he filed the Suit O.S.No.59 of
2007 and the same is pending. That on 06.01.2007 he also sold an extent of
Ac.13.55 cents to one Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy under Agreement of Sale
for consideration of Rs.23,71,250/- and received an advance of Rs.50,000/-
from him. The said Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy failed to pay the balance
sale consideration and filed the Suit in O.S.No.78 of 2007 and same is pending.
v) Additional Written Statement by 2
nd
Defendant dated 26.04.2010
19. The 2
nd
Defendant filed this additional written statement, pleading
that on 29.11.2006 she sold part of the plaint schedule property to one Mekala
Siva Pratap Reddy under Agreement of Sale Rs.14,14,400/- and received an
advance of Rs.50,000/-. The said Mekala Siva Pratap Reddy failed to pay the
balance sale consideration, he filed the Suit O.S.No.62 of 2007 and the same
is pending.
vi) Written Statement of the 4
th
Defendant dated 26.04.2010
20. The 4
th
Defendant filed the written statement, pleading that the 2
nd
and 3
rd
Defendants are wife and daughter and they are the absolute owners of
the schedule property. Denied the agreement of sale dated 20.01.2007,
agreeing to sell the schedule property for Rs.2,10,000/- per acre in favour of
21
the Plaintiff/Pandipati Gopal Reddy and receiving advance of Rs.2,00,000/-
from him and executing the Agreement of Sale and its terms and conditions,
with stipulation on or before 15.04.2007 to receive the balance sale
consideration and register the property. Also denied that the Plaintiff is ready
and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.63,68,525/-, the Plaintiff
requesting to 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants to receive the balance sale consideration
and execute the registered sale deed, but they dishonestly postponing, filing of
Copies of the S.B accounts pass books in the name of his family members
issued by the Indian Bank. That this Defendant is not aware of the of paper
publication in Eenadu Daily News paper dated 27.01.2007. Denied that the
Plaintiff got issuing a legal notice to the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants on 02.07.2007,
calling the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and
execute registered sale deed, serving of the legal notice on the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants and issuing a reply notice by the 3
rd
Defendant.
21. The 4
th
Defendant specifically pleaded that on 25.11.2006, he
approached 1
st
Defendant to purchase the part of the plaint schedule property,
claiming that 1
st
Defendant is absolute owner and agreed to sell. After bargain,
it was settled and 1
st
Defendant sold the property for Rs.11,50,500/, as the
property valued @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, aggregating to Rs.11,50,500/- and
1
st
Defendant received earnest money of Rs.50,000/-, agreed to pay the
balance sale consideration within 3 months i.e., by 24.02.2007, he has to
execute registered sale deed, but the 1
st
Defendant did not come forward to
receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,00,500/-and execute the
registered sale deed. That the 4
th
Defendant is ready and willing to pay the
balance sale consideration but the 1
st
Defendant did not come forward to
perform his part of contract on some pretext or the others, hence he issued
legal notice on 17.02.2007 to receive the balance sale consideration of
Rs.11,00,500/- and to execute a registered sale deed, he received the notice
but did not perform his part of contract, that he came to know that 1
st
Defendant
is going to sell the property to third parties, he gave paper publication in
22
Prajashakthi Daily News Paper on 13.04.2007 stating that the 1
st
Defendant
executed Agreement of Sale in his favour.
22. That his father/Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy purchased an extent
of Ac.13.55 cents from the 1
st
Defendant under Agreement of Sale dated
06.01.2007 and his brother/Mekala Siva Pratap Reddy purchased an extent of
Ac.8.85 ¼ cents from 2
nd
Defendant under Agreement of Sale dated
29.11.2006, but they did not come forward to execute registered sale deeds by
receiving the balance sale consideration, hence he filed O.S.No.59 of 2007, his
father filed O.S.No.78/2007 and his brother filed O.S.No.62/2007 for specific
performance. That even prior to execution of the alleged agreement of sale in
this suit dated 20.01.2007 by the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff,
the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendant already sold the property to the 4
th
Defendant to 6
th
Defendant under the three agreements and that the agreement dated
20.01.2007 is fabricated.
vii) Written Statement of the 5
th
Defendant dated 26.04.2010
23. The 5
th
Defendant also filed his written statement on the same lines
of the 4
th
Defendant as stated supra, denying including the agreement of the
Plaintiff dated 20.01.2007 and the Plaintiff is always ready and willing to
perform his part under the agreement with the balance sale consideration.
Pleading that he and his 2 sons purchased the schedule property from the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants on 06.01.2007, 25.11.2006, 29.11.2006 under three
agreements, issuing of paper publication and legal notice, they are always
ready and willing to perform their part under the agreements with balance sale
consideration but the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants did not come forward to receive
the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deeds and they
filed three suits for specific performance, on the same lines as pleaded by the
4
th
Defendant as stated supra.
viii) Written Statement of the 6
th
Defendant dated 26.04.2010
23
24. The 6
th
Defendant also filed his written statement on the same lines
of the 4
th
Defendant as stated supra, denying the agreement of the Plaintiff
dated 20.01.2007 and the Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his
part under the agreement with the balance sale consideration. Pleading that
he, his father and his brother purchased the schedule property from the 1
st
and
2
nd
Defendants on 06.01.2007, 25.11.2006, 29.11.2006 under three
agreements, issuing of paper publication and legal notice, they are always
ready and willing to perform their part under the agreements with balance sale
consideration but the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants did not come forward to receive
the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deeds and they
filed three suits for specific performance, on the same lines as pleaded by the
4
th
Defendant as stated supra.
ix) Plaint and Written Statements in O.S.No.59 of 2007 (filed by the
4
th
Defendant in OS.49 of 2007)
25. The Plaintiff initially filed the suit against Thota Gopal for specific
performance of the agreement of sale dated 25.11.2006, subsequently on
19.04.2010 added Pandipati Gopal Reddy as the 2
nd
Defendant (who was the
Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007).
x) Plaint and Written Statements in O.S.No.78 of 2007 (filed by the
5
th
Defendant in OS.49 of 2007)
26. The Plaintiff initially filed the suit against Thota Gopal for specific
performance of the agreement of sale dated 06.01.2007, subsequently on
17.06.2010 added Pandipati Gopal Reddy as 2
nd
Defendant (who was the
Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007).
xi) Plaint and Written Statements in O.S.No.62 of 2007 (filed by the
6
th
Defendant in OS.49 of 2007)
24
27. The Plaintiff initially filed the suit against Thota Lalithamma for
specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.11.2006, subsequently
on 17.06.2010 added Pandipati Gopal Reddy as the 2
nd
Defendant (who was
the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007).
III. ISSUES:
28. The record reveals that as the case is not settled, the Trial Court has
initially framed the following issues;
i. Whether the agreement of sale, dated 20.1.2007 and payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- is true?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform the contract?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the
contract?
iv. To what relief?
29. It appears, after adding of the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants, filing of their
written statements, the Trial Court framed these Additional issues on 17.6.2010
:-
i. Whether the agreement of sale, dated 25.11.2006 alleged to have
been executed by the 1
st
Defendant in favour of 4
th
Defendant is true,
valid and binding on the plaintiff?
ii. Whether the agreement of sale, dated 06.1.2007 alleged to have
been executed by the 1
st
Defendant in favour of 5
th
Defendant is true,
valid and binding on the plaintiff?
iii. Whether the agreement of sale, dated 29.11.2006 alleged to have
been executed by the 1
st
Defendant in favour of 6
th
Defendant is true,
valid and binding on the plaintiff?
iv. To what relief?
On 17.6.2010, Additional Issue No.3, was recasted as follows :
25
Whether the agreement of sale, dated 29.11.2006 alleged to have
been executed by the 2
nd
Defendant in favour of 6
th
Defendant is
true, valid and binding on the plaintiff ?
30. The material on record reveals that the Trial Court recorded the
evidence of PWs.1 to 5 i.e., PW-1/Pandipati Gopal Reddy, PW-2/Mettu
Surendra Reddy, PW-3/P.Siva Kumar Reddy, PW-4/Gulam G.K.Nazeer and
PW-5/Gattupalli Srinivasa Murali and exhibited A-1 to A-8 on behalf of the
Plaintiff and also exhibited X-1, X-2 and Z-1 to Z-5 through PW.5. Recorded
the evidence of DWs.1 to 7 i.e., DW -1/Thota Gopal,DW-2/Mekala
Venkatasubba Reddy, DW-3/Mekala Sivaprathap Reddy, DW-4/Mekala
Chandrasekhar Reddy, DW-5/Challa Srinivaslu, DW-6/Giddaluru Narayana &
DW-7/Pasupuleti Vinaya and exhibited B-1 to B-24 on behalf of the
Defendants. Ex.X-1 is the certificate given by the Sub Treasury Officer, Kovur,
Ex.X-2 is the relevant entry at page No.21, dated 16-12-2006 relating to the
stamp issue register of Sub Registrar's Office exhibited through PW-5. Exs.Z-
1 to Z-5 are exhibited in the evidence of DW-7 relating to sale of the stamps by
the stamp vendor M. Balaji Singh to the Defendants 4, 6 and 5 respectively in
respect of the agreements of sales said to have been executed in favour of the
Defendants 4 to 6 who are the plaintiffs in O.S.59, 62 and 78 of 2007.
IV. DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE PLAINTIFF:
31. Ex.A-1/ Sale agreement dt:20-01-2007, Ex.A-2/ Relevant portion of
Eenadu daily news paper dt:27-1-07, Ex.A-3/ Office copy of lawyer notice dt:2-
4-07 with postal receipts, Ex.A-4/ Postal acknowledgment of 1
st
Defendant,
Ex.A-5/ Postal acknowledgment of 2
nd
Defendant, Ex.A-6/ Postal
acknowledgment of 3
rd
Defendant, Ex.A-7/ Reply notice dt:9-04-2007, Ex.A-8/
Postal acknowledgment dt:6-6-07. Documents exhibited through PW-5 :Ex.X-
1/ In the letter Dt:7-4-2012 issued by STO Office, Kovur, Ex.X-2/ In the relevant
entry at page 21 dt:16-12-06 relating to M.Balaji Singh.
V. DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANTS:
26
32. Ex.B-1/ Un-registered agreement of sale dated 6-1-2007, Ex.B-2/
Office copy of lawyer notice dated 17-2-2007, Ex.B-3/ Postal receipt dated 17-
2-2007, Ex.B-4/ Served acknowledgment card on the 1st Defendant, Ex.B-5/
News item published in the Praja Sakthi daily news paper dt:30-4-2007, Ex.B-
6/ Relevant entry in pattadar pass book of Chavate Bhimesvaran, Ex.B-7/
Pattadar pass book of Chavate Bhimesvaran, Ex.B-8/ Relevant entry in
pattadar pass book, Ex.B-9/ Memo filed by Defendant in OS.62/07 to refer the
matter to Lok-Adalath, Ex.B-10/ Adangal copy relating to Survey No:279-1
issued by Tahasildar Athmakur, Padakandla, Ex.B-11/ Adangal copy issued by
Tahasildar A.S.Pet dt:21-1-12 in Survey no:21-2-2 of Kondameda, Ex.B-12/
Adangal Copy in survey no:20-3-1 of Kondameda Kondur Village, Ex.B-13/
Adangal copy http://S.No:21-1-2 of Kondameda Konduru (V), Ex.B -14/
Adangal copy issued by Tahasildar Atmakur in S.No:240-1 of Nuvvurpadu
Village, Ex.B-15/ Agreement of sale dated 29-11-2006 in OS.62/07, Ex.B-16/
Office copy of notice dated:17-2-2007, Ex.B-17/ Postal receipt, Ex.B-18/
Served acknowledgment, Ex.B-19/ Publication in Prajasakthi, Ex.B-20/
Agreement of sale dt:25-11-2006, Ex.B-21/ Office copy of notice dt:17-2-2007,
Ex.B-22/ Postal receipt of Ex.B.21, Ex.B-23/ Acknowledgment Card & Ex.B-24/
Paper Publication.
33. Documents exhibited through LW-7 : Ex.Z-1/Stamp issuance register
of M.Balaji Singh stamps vendor of Kovur for the year 2006, Ex.Z-2/ Stamp
issuance register of M.Balaji Singh relating to the Kovur Sub-registrar's office
for the year 2007, Ex.Z-3/ Relevant entry dt:25-11-06 in Ex.Z-1, stamp
issuance register relating to selling of hundred rupee stamp in the stamp
vendor Balaji Singh, Ex.Z-4/ Relevant entry dt:29-11-06 in Ex.Z-1 stamp
issuance register evidencing the selling of the hundred rupee stamp number
B714594, Ex.Z-5/ Relevant entry dt:6-1-07 in Ex.Z-2 stamp issuance register
evidencing the selling of hundred rupee NJ stamp bearing C625169 to Mekala
Subbareddy (D-6).
27
VI. Issues and findings of the Trial Court in the Common Judgment
34. The Trial Court answered Issues Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the Plaintiff
in O.S.No.49 of 2007, but all other issues pertaining to O.S.No’s.59, 62 and 78
of 2007 are answered against the Plaintiffs in their respective suits and 4
th
to
6
th
Defendants in OS.49 of 2007.
35. The Trial Court held that the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007 could
prove the agreement of sale/Ex.A1 and also that the Plaintiff has been always
ready and willing to perform his part of contract with balance sale consideration,
decreed the suit for specific performance with costs.
36. The Trial Court held that the 1
st
to 6
th
Defendants in collusion with
attestors and scribe fabricated the suit agreements with ante-dates and
dismissed the suits in O.S.No’s.59, 62 and 78 of 2007 with costs, which are
filed for specific performance.
VII. Issues framed by this Court:
37. Thus, this Court, in view of the submissions, inclined to frame the
following issues for consideration;
i) Whether the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007 could prove the agreement
of sale/Ex.A.1, if so whether he could prove that he has been always
ready and willing to perform his part under the agreement with balance
sale consideration? If so to what relief ?
ii) If not, whether the Plaintiffs in O.S.No’s.59, 62 and 78 of 2007 could
prove the agreements of sale/Ex.B1, B.15 and B.20 for the same
schedule property, if so, whether they could prove that they have been
always ready and willing to perform their part under the agreements with
balance sale consideration? If so, to what relief ?
iii) If not, whether these agreements/Ex.B.1, B.15 and B.20 are
fabricated by Plaintiffs in OS.59, 62 and 78 of 2007 in collusion with
parties, attestors and scribe of the agreements to defraud the Plaintiff in
OS.49 of 2007 ? if so, what is the legal consequence ?
28
iv) Whether the Defendants sold the schedule property despite
undertaking dated 29.04.2022 before this Court, if so, what is the legal
consequence ?
VIII. ANALYSIS
38. The material on record reveals that the Plaintiff was resident of
Atmakur, the 1
st
to 6
th
Defendants are residents of Atmakur, the 3
rd
Defendant
is the daughter of the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants and the 5
th
Defendant is the father
of the 4
th
and 6
th
Defendants, which are not in dispute.
i) On the agreement/Ex.A1 dated 02.04.2007
39. The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 &
3/Attestors, and PW.4/Scribe, also the agreement/Ex.A1, Paper
Publication/Ex.A2, the legal notice/Ex.A.3 and reply notice/Ex.A.7, recorded a
finding in favour of the Plaintiff that he could prove the agreement/Ex.A1.
40. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are from the same village. Further,
DW.1 in his cross examination admitted that the plaintiff belongs to his village
and he did not have any disputes with PW.2 to 4.
41. The Court perused the agreement/Ex.A.1. It contains name of the
Plaintiff, 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendant signatures in first and second pages, also three
attestors signatures and scribe’s signature. It contains survey numbers for
Ac.31.28 ¼ cents in Peramana village, Atmakur Mandal, mentioning that they
have agreed rate @ Rs.2,10,000/- per acre, that the Defendants received
advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale
consideration and got for register sale deed on or before 15.04.2007.
42. The Court also perused their evidence, which is consistent on the
execution of the agreement/Ex.A1, though the Defendants cross examined
them at length, they could not elicit any material to discredit their version on the
execution of the agreement. Further, the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants did not
specifically deny their signatures on the Agreement/Ex.A.1, so also they did not
29
prefer to send their signatures on the agreement/Ex.A1 to hand writing expert
for examination.
43. The contention of the Appellants is that the evidence of Scribe/PW.4
is not consistent, at one point he stated that the 1
st
Defendant informed him
about the case and asked him not to come to the Court, at another point, he
says that the Court Staff informed him that he was summoned by the Court and
he accordingly attended before the Court. This is not inconsistent, these two
events might have happened. Further, even if this evidence is termed as
inconsistent, still the case of the Plaintiff is not effected, as the Appellants
admitted about execution of the agreement/Ex.A1. Thus, this evidence is no
away effecting the case of the Plaintiff.
44. The learned Counsel for the 2
nd
, 4
th
and 5
th
Appellants in the
arguments fairly conceded that they are not disputing the execution of the
agreement, but they are disputing on the ready and willingness and other
aspects. This argument is also adopted by the other Appellants. Thus, this
Court need not dwell more on the execution of the agreement/Ex.A1 in these
circumstances. Thus, the Court inclined to hold that the Plaintiff could prove
the agreement/Ex.A1.
ii) Non-mentioning of boundaries in the agreement/Ex.A1
45. The case of the 2, 4 and 5
th
Appellants is that in the agreement, there
is no mentioning of the boundaries but contains only survey numbers, also no
boundaries were mentioned in the paper publication, but strangely in the plaint
the Plaintiff has mentioned the boundaries, which casts serious doubt on the
case of the Plaintiff.
46. As per the Plaintiff, the properties are in Atmakur village, all the
Defendants are villagers, the Plaintiff is also from the same village, there is no
dispute in identity of the schedule property either in the pleadings or throughout
the trial or before this Court, though the boundaries are not mentioned in the
30
Agreement of Sale and paper publication, this is insignificant in the
circumstances of the case.
47. The law is well settled that even oral agreement is also enforceable
(see Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi & Others)
1
. The Court perused the
agreement/Ex.A.1. It contains signatures of the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants. It
contains survey numbers for Ac.31.28 ¼ cents in Peramana village, Atmakur
Mandal. The Paper publication also contains survey numbers and other
particulars, village name.
48. The Defendants did not plead even either remotely disputing the
identification of the schedule property, what they disputed is non-mentioning of
boundaries in the agreement/Ex.A1, when there is no dispute on identification
of the property, then non-mentioning of boundaries will not effect the case of
the Plaintiff in any manner in these circumstances.
49. Further, the 1
st
Defendant in his evidence affidavit stated that he and
his wife separately sold the schedule property in favour of 4
th
to 5
th
Defendants
under three agreements.
50. Further, the 1
st
, 2
nd
, 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants in their written statements
and evidence, specifically stated that the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants sold, the 3
rd
to
4
th
Defendants purchased the parts of the schedule property on different dates
under three agreements. Thus, these circumstances are also supporting the
case of the Plaintiff that the survey numbers mentioned in the
Agreement/Ex.A1 and in the Plaint tally with the schedule property and the
same is clearly identifiable by all the parties before the Trial Court and even
before this Court. The Trial Court rightly rejected this contention. Thus, this
contention of the Defendants is liable to be rejected in these circumstances.
1
(2009) 2 SCC 582
31
iii) On non-measuring the land
51. The case of the 2
nd
, 4
th
and 5
th
Appellants is that there is specific
mentioning in the agreement/Ex.A1 that the rate is fixed at Rs.2,10,000/- per
acre, the land to be measured and the balance is to be arrived as to proceed
with the agreement, whereas the Plaintiff disputed this contention on the
ground that though there is a clause for measurement, even in the absence of
the measurements, the agreement is enforceable.
52. The Court pursued the Agreement/Ex.A1, admittedly there is
mentioning of rate @ Rs.2,10,000/- per acre, the land is to be measured, the
balance is to be paid. But in the next para, there is schedule, where all the
survey numbers, village name and Mandal, total extent of 31.28 ¼ Acres and
the motors etc mentioned. The Plaintiff also issued a Paper Publication, a
Legal Notice and also mentioned in the Plaint on specific extent of 31.28 ¼ as
mentioned in the schedule of the Agreement/Ex.A1, thus the measurement of
the land is not mandatory to enforce the agreement in view of specific
mentioning of extent in the schedule of the agreement, paper publication and
legal notice. Further, the schedule of the agreement is in the conclusion para
of the agreement/Ex.A1.
53. The 2
nd
, 4
th
and 5
th
Appellants relied on Mayawanti Vs. Kaushalya
Devi
2
, contending that there was no valid and enforceable contract and no
consensus ad idem. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dealing
with Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, held that Ex.PW-11/A, there are various
aspects of uncertainty, render the terms specifically unenforceable. But in this
case the Defendants could not show any uncertainty in the agreement/Ex.A.1
to apply the Judgment.
2
(1990) 3 SCC 1
32
54. Also relied on Pydi Ramana Vs. Davarasetty Manmadha Rao
3
,
contending that when there is no demand for survey and measure the schedule
land, the case for specific performance is not maintainable, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while examining Section 16 (c) of The
Specific Relief Act, 1963, observed that, where the date is fixed for execution
was for one year, but the plaintiff has not taken steps for three years, the suit
is filed at the fag end of expiration of limitation and also held that recital in the
agreement to survey the land, as such the total consideration was agreed to
be settled after survey. But in this case, the facts are distinguishable, further,
the Plaintiff sought for specific performance of agreement, wherein it is
specifically mentioned the extent as Ac.31.28 ¼ cents, thus, the Defendants
cannot avail the Judgments in the circumstances of the case.
55. Also relied on P. Panneerselvan Vs. A. Baylis
4
, contending that
agreement cannot be enforced for want of material particulars, wherein the
Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court, while dealing with the rate per
cent, fixed earlier in draft agreement was struck off and words ‘rate mutually
agreed upon individual integrity’ were substituted, no consensus between the
parties on rate per cent and extent of land agreed to be sold. But in this case
as stated supra, rate and extent is specifically agreed and mentioned in the
schedule of the agreement, thus there is no ambiguity on the rate and extent,
thus the Defendants cannot avail the Judgment in these circumstances.
56. Also relied in Penumatsa Narasimha Raju Vs. Valluri Jaya
Prakasa Babu
5
, contending that the plaintiff must approach with clean hands,
wherein, the erstwhile High Court of A.P, held a party shall come to Court with
clean hands, the party who make false allegations and does not come with
3
AIR 2024 SC 3242 & (2024) 7 SCC 515
4
AIR 2006 Mad 242 & (2006) SCC OnLine Mad 406
5
(2006) SCC OnLine AP 34
33
clean hands is not entitled to equitable relief. But in this case, the Defendants
could not even specifically plead or establish what are the false contents taken
by the plaintiff to show that he did not come with clean hands. Thus, the
Defendants cannot avail this Judgment.
57. Also relied on Kota Rama Rao Vs. Kolli Rajeswaramma
6
,
contending that no responsibility fixed under the agreement for fixation of
boundaries. The erstwhile High Court of A.P, while dealing with the agreement,
nowhere mentioned it is the responsibility of the Defendants after land
demarcated, to inform the plaintiff about the fixation of boundaries and on such
fixation, the plaintiff has to pay the amount, the plaintiff did not reply to the
notice and suppressed the receipt of Ex.B.1 notice in the Suit. That
Ex.A.1/agreement indicates that the plaintiff took a plea that the Defendants
fail to get the land measured is to cover up his laches, but in this case no such
facts are there including suppression, the facts are distinguishable, hence the
Defendants cannot avail the Judgment.
58. Per contra, the Plaintiff placed reliance on C.S. Venkatesh Vs.
A.S.C. Murthy (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Others
7
, contending
that there is no para-wise specific reply by the Defendants pleading that in the
absence of measurement, the extent cannot be ascertained. However, in the
present case, the agreement/Ex.A1 specifically contains specific extent of
Ac.31.28 ¼ cents as stated supra. Further, argued that there is no denial of
the bank statements with balance amount in the Bank. A general or evasive
denial is not to be treated as sufficient, but the denial must be made in a
separate line or a paragraph. The general rule is that the facts admitted need
not be proved. In this case also, the learned counsel for the 2
nd
, 4
th
and 5
th
Appellants fairly agreed on the agreement, but disputed the agreement on the
6
(2005) SCC OnLine AP 289
7
(2020) 3 SCC 280
34
ground that plaintiff has to prove his case including boundaries, his readiness
and willingness.
59. The Court, in view of the pleadings, evidence and the law as stated
supra, is inclined to hold that even without measurement of the land, the
Plaintiff could enforce the agreement/Ex.A1 as in the agreement there is a
specific extent of 31.29 ¼ as mentioned in the schedule of the
Agreement/Ex.A1, which is in the conclusion para of the agreement, thus, the
measurement of the land is not mandatory to enforce the agreement in view of
specific mentioning of the extent and rate per acre in the schedule of the
agreement. Further, the Plaintiff also issued the Paper Publication and Legal
Notice with specific extent of land and the Plaintiff also mentioned the specific
extent of the land in the Plaint in terms of the Agreement. Thus, this contention
of the Appellants/Defendants is without merits in these circumstances.
iv. On readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff
60. As per the Plaintiff, he has been always ready and willing to perform
his part of under the agreement/Ex.A1 with the balance sale consideration of
Rs.63,68,525/-, he also specifically pleaded and filed copies of his and his
family members Bank Statements and Pass Books/Document No.3 to 9 along
with the Plaint to show his case, which are not even disputed by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff further submits that as the Defendants did not dispute
these Bank Statements, deemed as admitted, thus, he did not summon the
Bank Manager.
61. Whereas the Defendants contend that the Plaintiff only filed copies
of Bank Statements with the Plaint, he did not exhibit the bank statements in
his evidence and did not summon the Bank Manager to prove that he is ready
and willing to perform his part under the agreement with balance sale
consideration.
35
62. The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 &
3/Attestors, and PW.4/Scribe, also the agreement/Ex.A1, Paper
Publication/Ex.A.2 and the legal notice/Ex.A.3 recorded a finding in favour of
the Plaintiff that he could prove that he has been always ready and willing to
perform his part under the agreement/Ex.A.1 with balance sale consideration.
63. As stated supra, the Plaintiff and the 1
st
Defendant know each other,
they are also from the same village. The 1
st
Defendant specifically pleaded in
his written statement that at first instance, that the Plaintiff approached him and
his wife/1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants, he has expressed his willingness to purchase
the property but the negotiations failed regarding the fixation of sale price and
other aspects. Also pleaded that the Plaintiff was unable to satisfy them to
show his capacity to pay such huge amount of the sale consideration and they
refused to sell.
64. This version of the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants show that there were
negotiations to purchase the schedule property, but the later version of 1
st
and
2
nd
Defendants is that the negotiations were failed on sale price and other
aspects, also that the Plaintiff has no capacity to pay such huge amount of the
sale consideration, so they refused to sell. Thus, as they are known to each
other, who are from the same locality, generally after knowing the capacity only,
the negotiations will start. The execution of the agreement is also admitted as
stated supra.
65. The Plaintiff placed reliance on C.S. Venkatesh case supra,
contending that there is no para-wise specific reply by the Defendants on the
bank statements on balance amount in the Bank Accounts filed along with the
Plaint. A general or evasive denial has not to be treated as sufficient. The
denial must be made in a separate line or a paragraph. The general rule is that
the facts admitted need not be proved. In this case also the learned counsel
for the 2, 4 and 5
th
Appellants fairly agreed on the agreement as stated supra
36
but disputes the Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness with balance sale
consideration.
66. The 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants did not specifically deny in the Written
Statement on the Bank Statements and the balance amount with the Plaintiff
by those Bank Statements, except evasive denial.
67. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3/Attestors, PW.5/Scribe is
consistent that the Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part under
the agreement with balance sale consideration.
68. The Court perused the cross examination of PW.1 to PW.4, where
the Defendants put a general suggestion that he/Plaintiff is not ready and
willing to perform his part under the agreement with balance sale consideration,
which is denied. The Defendants cross examined them at length but could not
elicit any material remotely to discredit their version. The Defendants also did
not cross examine PW.1 to PW.4 either on the Bank Statements or on his
properties or on his resources to discredit his version either on his capacity or
not ready and willing to perform his part with the balance sale consideration..
69. The 2
nd
, 4
th
and 5
th
Appellants relied on Veeramareddy
Nagabhushana Rao Vs. Jyothula Venkateswara Rao
8
, wherein, the Hon’ble
Coordinate Bench of this Court, observed that the Defendant in the written
statement denied the plaint averments agreeing to sell the schedule property
and never executed the agreement and the Defendant has failed to prove the
suit agreement of sale and same is fabricated and all other defences taken by
him such as readiness and willingness, the suit cannot be refused and it is
otherwise legal and justified to do so. It relied on Sheikh Abdual Satta Vs.
Union of India, it was held that specific denial of the plaint averments will not
8
2010 SCC OnLine AP 931
37
be necessary if the plaint averments are adequately dealt within the additional
pleadings.
70. The proposition of law is not applicable to the present facts of the
case, as the facts are distinguishable, and in the arguments, the execution of
the agreement is admitted, there is no specific denial by the Defendants on the
balance amount in the bank statements, which are filed along with the Plaint.
71. Also relied on U.N. KrishnaMurthy (Since Deceased) through
Legal Representatives Vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy
9
, contending that plaintiff
has to prove sufficient funds or in a position to raise the funds in time to
discharge the obligation under the contract. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, observed that the plaintiff has to make specific averments in the
plaint and to adduce evidence and to show the availability of funds to make
payments in terms of the contract. Further, it is observed that the plaintiff’s
balance sheet did not have sufficient funds to discharge his part of contract,
deposit of balance consideration after lapse of seven years would not establish
that he is ready to discharge his part of contract and observed that the plaintiff
was possible to buy the time to discharge his part of contract.
72. Also relied on B. Rajamani Vs. Mrs. Azhar Sultana and others
10
,
contending that mere mentioning of words readiness and willingness in a
mechanical manner would not be sufficient. Wherein, the erstwhile High Court
of A.P, held that the discretion is to be exercised in reasonable and inarbitrary
manner and further observed that plaintiff choose to issue legal notice on or
about completion of three years from the date of agreement. But the Defendant
purchased the property under the Ex.B.1 on 31.10.1981 and he is in
possession and enjoyment of the property for the last more than 20 years.
9
(2023) 11 SCC 775
10
AIR 2005 AP 260 & (2004) SCC OnLine AP 1004
38
73. Also relied on U.N. KrishnaMurthy (Since Deceased) through
Legal Representatives Vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy
11
, contending that payment
of insignificant advance and readiness and willingness shall be proved by the
plaintiff. Wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, considered the payment
of Rs.10,001 out of sale consideration of Rs.15,10,000/-, depositing the
balance sale consideration after seven years. That the Plaintiff’s balance sheet
showing that he did not have sufficient funds to discharge his part of contract.
But the facts are distinguishable. In this case, plaintiff also filed bank statement
along with the plaint which are not disputed by the Defendants.
74. Also relied on HIS Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji Vs.
Sita Ram Thapar
12
, contending distinction between readiness and willingness.
75. The proposition of law as cited supra is not applicable to the present
facts of the case, as the facts are distinguishable, further, the Plaintiff could
prove his case, and further in the arguments, the execution of the agreement
is admitted, the Plaintiff’s case is consistent on ready and willing to perform his
part with balance sale consideration and further there is no specific denial by
the Defendants on the balance amount in the bank statements filed along with
the Plaint. Further, the Plaintiff immediately issued paper publication and
issued the legal notice and filed the suit. All these took place within months
from the date of the agreement. So, the facts are entirely different in the
present case. Thus the Defendants cannot avail the law stated supra in facts
and circumstances of the case.
76. Also relied on Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority
Vs. Shiv Saraswti Iron & Steel Re-Rolling Mills
13
, contending that the plaintiff
must succeed or fail in his own case, and cannot take advantage of weakness
11
AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 3361 & (2023) 11 SCC 775
12
(1996) 4 SCC 526
13
(1998) 4 SCC 539
39
in the Defendants case to get a decree. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
while dealing with Section 7 of Specific Relief Act, observed that no effort has
been made to explain what according to business terminology was meant by
supply of the steel weight to weight.
77. In this case, the Defendants could not demonstrate that the Plaintiff
relied on weakness of the case of the Defendants, the facts are distinguishable.
Thus, the Defendants cannot avail the said Judgment.
78. Also relied on Pudi Lazarus Vs. Rev. Johnson Edward and others
14
, contending that wrongful repudiation of contract by Defendant and that the
plaintiff not absolved from performing conditions precedent. But in this case,
no such repudiation taken place, the facts situation is entirely different in the
present case.
79. The Respondent relied on Thangam and Another Vs. Navamani
Ammal
15
, contending that the words ready and willingness implies that the
plaintiff was ready to carry out those parts of contract to their logical end. The
Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and
subsequent to filing of the suit along with attending circumstances. From the
date of execution of contract till the date of decree, he must prove that he is
ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
80. The Court, in view of the pleadings, evidence and the law as stated
supra, inclined to hold that the evidence of the Plaintiff as stated supra is
consistent, he could prove that he has been always ready and willing to perform
his part under the agreement with balance sale consideration. Thus this
contention of the Appellants/Defendants is without merit in these
circumstances.
14
AIR 1976 AP 243 & (1975) SCC OnLine AP 139
15
(2024) 4 SCC 247
40
IX. O.S.Nos.59, 62 and 78 of 2007, suits for Specific Performance
81. The case of the Plaintiffs in these 3 suits (who are the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2007), that they purchased the schedule property
by three agreements much prior to the agreement of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49
of 2007, they are always ready and willing to perform part of their contract with
balance sale consideration, they also issued Paper Publication and legal notice
to the 1
st
& 2
nd
Defendants in the three suits.
82. The case of the 2
nd
Defendant (who is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of
2007) that after his agreement of the sale/Ex.A.1 with the 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants,
the 1
st
to 6
th
Defendants, colluded and got fabricated three agreements i.e., the
1
st
Defendant fabricated two agreements in favour of the 4
th
and 6
th
Defendants
and the 2
nd
Defendant fabricated an agreement in favour of the 5
th
Defendant,
as to deprive his rights under the agreement/Ex.A1.
83. The 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants filed Written Statements initially on
07.09.2007 wherein they did not allege even remotely about alienation of the
schedule property in favour of the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants.
84. But the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2007, filed Additional
Written Statements dated 26.04.2010, wherein the 1
st
Defendant, first time
stated that on 25.11.2006 he executed an agreement of sale for an extent of
Ac.7.67 Cents in favour of one Mekala Chandra Sekhar Reddy for
consideration of Rs.11,50,500/- and he received an advance of Rs.50,000/-
from him. That the said Mekala Chandra Sekhar Reddy failed to pay the
balance sale consideration and failed to get the register sale deed, he also filed
the Suit O.S.No.59 of 2007 and the same is pending. The 1
st
Defendant also
pleaded that on 06.01.2007, he executed another agreement of sale for an
extent of Ac.13.55 cents in favour of one Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy for
consideration of Rs.23,71,250/- and he received an advance of Rs.50,000/-
from him. The said Mekala Venkata Subba Reddy failed to pay the balance
41
sale consideration and he also filed the Suit in O.S.No.78 of 2007 and same is
pending.
85. The 2
nd
Defendant filed the additional written statement on
26.04.2010, wherein the 2
nd
Defendant, first time pleaded that on 29.11.2006,
she executed an agreement of sale for part of the schedule property in favour
of one Mekala Siva Pratap Reddy for Rs.14,14,400/- and received an advance
of Rs.50,000/-. The said Mekala Siva Pratap Reddy failed to pay the balance
sale consideration, he filed the Suit O.S.No.62 of 2007 and the same is
pending.
X. On date of execution of the agreements and issuance of Stamps
86. The Plaintiff got examined, PW.5/Gattupalli Srinivasa Murali, the
Senior Account, Sub Treasury Office, he deposed that he received summons,
he can identify signature of Sub Treasury Officer in Ex.A.1. M. Balaji Singh is
the Stamp Vendor of Kovvur. He brought the Issuance Register of 16.12.2006.
The Office sold 300 stamps to M. Balaji Singh from C-625001 to C-625300
pertaining to Ex.B.15. Ex.X.2 is the relevant entry in Page No.21 dated
16.12.2006 in the name of M. Balaji Singh. The denomination of stamps issue
watch register from pages 1 to 100 is certificated by the Sub Treasury Office,
Kovur. The 1
st
to 3
rd
defendant cross examined, he deposed that he has not
connection with the branch of Sharabu and stamps issuance register. The 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants cross examined him and he stated that he brought the petition
filed by the Plaintiff under Right to Information Act but he did not bring the
indent as it was not summoned.
87. This evidence is very crucial, which is not even denied by the 1
st
to
6
th
Defendants. But their version is that agreement is dated 06.01.2007 on
stamp paper No.C625169/Ex.B.1, another agreement is dated 29.11.2006 on
stamp paper No.C625097/Ex.B.15 and agreement is dated 25.11.2006 on
stamp paper No.B714597/Ex.B.20. But as per the evidence of PW.5 and
Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2, Ex.B.15 and B.20 are ante dated 29.11.2006 and
42
25.11.2006 respectively i.e., prior to issuance of the stamps to the Stamp
Vendor on 16.12.2006 in the Registrar’s Office.
88. As per Ex.X.1/RTI information, Rs.100 stamps, C625169 & C625097
is issued on 16.12.2006 and B714597 is issued on 14.09.2006, infavour of M
Balaji Singh, Stamp Vendor. As per Ex.X.2, relevant entry in the register, on
14.09.2006 stamps from B714001 to B714600, 600 stamps and on 16.12.2006
stamps from C625001 to 625300, 300 stamps, are issued to M Balaji Singh.
The Defenants did not seriously dispute issuance of the stamps from the
Registrar’s Office on the said dates.
89. The Defendants examined DW.7/P. Vinaya Gopal, Senior Assistant,
Sub Registrar Office, Nellore District. He was summoned and he was
authorized to give evidence on behalf of Sub Registrar. Ex.Z.1 is the stamp
issuance of registrar relating to M. Balaji Singh, Stamps Vendor of Kovur for
the year 2006. Ex.Z.2 is the stamp issuance register relating to M. Balaji Singh,
Stamps Vendor of Kovur for the year 2007. Ex.Z.3 is the relevant entry dated
25.11.2006 in Ex.Z.1, stamp issuance register relating to selling of hundred
rupee stamp by the stamp vendor Balaji Singh to Makala Chandra Sekhar
Reddy (4
th
Defendant), contains the signature of 4
th
Defendant in Ex.Z.3. The
said stamp number B 714597 which tallies with Ex.B.20 stamp number. Ex.Z.4
is the relevant entry dated 29.11.2006 in Ex.Z.1 register evidencing the selling
of stamp number B 714594 to Mekala Siva Pratap Reddy/5
th
Defendant. It
contains the signature of the 5
th
defendant. Ex.Z.5 is the relevant entry dated
06.01.2007 in Ex.Z.2, stamp register selling of N.J stamp C 625169 to Mekala
Venkata Subba Reddy/6
th
Defendant. Ex.B.1 number date, name of the
purchaser are tallying with Ex.Z.5 entries.
90. In his/DW.7 cross examination, he stated that the above registers are
submitted by the M. Balaji Singh, stamp vendor, but Ex.Z.1 and Z.2 Registers
did not contain his signature, also no endorsement evidencing receipt of the
43
registers. Also stated that on Ex.B.1, B.15 & B.20, there is no seal, license
number and stamp vendor name.
91. This evidence clearly show that Ex.B.15 and B.20dated 29.11.2006
and 25.11.2006 respectively, they are ante dated i.e., prior to issuing of the
stamps in the Registrar’s Office on 16.12.2006, which is also fairly conceded
by the learned Appellant Nos.2, 4 and 5 in the arguments in A.S.No.527 of
2013, this argument is also adopted by the learned counsel for the Appellants
in other 4 appeals.
92. Further, the Defendants summoned DW.7, summoned on the
registers said to be submitted by the said M. Balaji Singh, Stamp Vendor, which
is self serving and will not have authenticity in view of Ex.X.2 Register,
maintained in the Registrar’s Office, the same will have authenticity and the
same shall be taken into consideration in these circumstanes, further the same
is not disputed by the Defendants in their cross examination as stated supra.
93. The 1
st
Defendant/DW.1 in his cross examination by the Plaintiff,
stated that the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants are from his village and they are one family.
This showsthat they are all from the same village. Further, DW.1 admitted in
his cross examination that the 4
th
Defendant used to attend the Court along
with him and that he and the 4
th
Defendant/Chandra Sekhar Reddy were
present before his/1
st
Defendant Advocate while preparing his written
statement. This shows that the 4
th
Defendant not only accompanied the 1
st
Defendant but also he was present before his/DW.1’s Advocate while
preparation of his/DW.1’s written statement. Further DW.1 his evidence stated
that the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants also saw the paper publication, which are not even
disputed by the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants in their cross examination of DW.1. When
the Paper Publication of the Plaintiff was seen by the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants, the
question of entering into agreements by them makes the case of the
Defendants is highly improbale. Further, this part of evidence of the 1
st
Defendant show that all the Defendants colluded and conducted the suits.
44
94. Further, DW.1 in his cross examination stated that the stamp vendor
of the three agreements belongs to their village. Also the attestors and scribe
of the three agreements in favour of 4
th
to 6
th
Defendant are also from same.
Further, DW.2 in his cross examination admitted that all the attestors in Ex.B.1
and other two agreements in favour of the 4
th
and 6
th
Defendants are the same
persons. This circumstance also supporting the case of the Plaintiff.
95. DW.2/Mekala Venakata Subba Reddy/5
th
defendant filed evidence
affidavit, denying the agreement/Ex.A.1 of the plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007,
stating that on 06.01.2007, he purchased Ac.13.55 cents under the agreement
of sale from Thota Gopal @ Gopalaiah/1
st
Defendant, for Rs.23,71,250/-, rate
per acre at Rs.1,75,000/-, he paid Rs.50,000/- as earnest money, the balance
to be paid within three months, he is ready and willing to pay the balance and
he also demanded the 1
st
Defendant, but he did not come forward and he got
issued legal notice on 17.02.2007 demanding him to receive the balance of
sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed but he did not
respond. He came to know that 1
st
Defendant was going to sell the property,
on 30.04.2007 he issued paper publication in Prajashakthi daily newspaper.
His son/Mekala Chandra Sekhar Reddy/4
th
Defendant also purchased an
extent of Ac.7.67 cents from the 1
st
Defendant by an agreement of sale dated
25.11.2006 and his younger son/Mekala Siva Prathap Reddy/6
th
Defendant
purchased Ac.8.85 ¼ cents from the 2
nd
Defendant by agreement of sale dated
29.11.2006. They filed three suits for specific performance. That prior to the
execution of agreement dated 20.01.2007/Ex.A.1 in favour of the Plaintiff by 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants, the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendants sold the schedule property to him
and his two sons. DW.4 and DW.5 also filed evidence affidavits on the same
lines.
96. The 1
st
to 3
rd
Defendants cross examined DW.2 just with a
suggestion, suggesting that he did not have balance sale consideration to go
for registration, he denied the same. Thus, this also suggests collusion.
45
97. The Plaintiff in OS.49 of 2007 cross examined him/DW.2, he stated
that Ex.B.1 stamp was purchased on in his name on 06.01.2007 and he
purchased the stamps in the name of his son (5
th
defendant) dated 29.11.2006.
He did not know whether the case was registered against Balaji Singh, Stamp
Vendor for selling stamps with anti date and the case also covered stamps
under their agreements. This version of DW.2 also supporting the case of the
Plaintiff.
98. DW.3/6th Defendant, who was doing Engineering Job, in his cross
examination stated that he did not know the writings in Ex.B.1, B.15 and
agreement/Ex.B20 dated 25.11.2006 are with one pen and executed at the
same time. This part of admitting in his cross examination is supporting the
case of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007 that on collusion, the three
agreements are executed at one point of time.
99. DW.3/6th Defendant in his cross examination admitted that he and
2
nd
defendant filed compromise memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalath. He
denied the suggestion that he, his brother and father colluded with 1
st
to 3
rd
defendant and got fabricated Ex.B.1, B.15 and agreement of sale dated
29.11.2006 subsequent to paper publication to defeat the plaintiff rights. This
compromise memo also suggests the collusion theory of the Plaintiff in
O.S.No.49 of 2007, when all these matters are pending, going for compromise
of this suit generally not permissible.
100. DW.3 in his cross examination stated that he was working as Junior
Engineer in the Central Public Works Department of Central Government
during 2005 to 2008. He is an income tax assessee and he did not show
purchase of lands in his I.T returns. Also he did not inform purchase of lands
under Ex.B.20 to his employer. Generally, when he was a public servant, he
would take permission, the purchase and payment will also reflect in his IT
returns. But he did not explain, why he did not show the transaction to his
46
employeer and in his I.T returns. This part of evidence is also supporting the
case of the Plaintiff in OS.49 of 2007 on collusion.
101. DW.3 in his cross examination stated that he was on leave on
25.11.2006 but he cannot produce any evidence to show that he was on leave.
This circumstances also suggesting in favour of the Plaintiff on collusion theory.
102. DW.4/4th Defendant in his cross examination stated that he
purchased the land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, his brother Siva
Prasad Reddy purchased at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre, his father
purchased at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per acre. This part of evidence is also
supporting the case of the Plaintiff in OS.49 of 2007 as his evidence is that he
purchased the land at Rs.2,10,000/- per acre, but under the alleged three
agreements, the sale consideration per acre is low, this circumstances is also
not explained by the Defendants.
103. DW.5/Challa Sreenivasulu Reddy and DW.6/Giddaluri Narayana
Rao, said to be attestor and scribe, they filed evidence affidavit stating that on
25.11.2006, the 1
st
Defendant executed the agreement in favour of the 4
th
defendant. That on 29.11.2006, the 2
nd
defendant sold a part of the schedule
property in favour of 6
th
defendant. That on 06.01.2007, the 1
st
defendant sold
part of the schedule property to the 5
th
defendant. That during these
transactions, they, the Defendants and G Krishna Reddy were present. The
evidence on record clearly suggests that these agreements are executed with
the same attestors and scribe on the same day with the same pen.
104. Thus, the evidence on record reveals that the agreements under
Ex.B15 and B.15 are fabricated with ante-dates of 29.11.2006 and 25.11.2006
respectively by the 1
st
and 2
nd
Defendant in the name of 4
th
and 6
th
Defendants
respectively i.e., much prior to even issuance of the stamps to the Stamp
Vendor on 16.12.2006 in the Registrar’s Office. The same is also fairly
conceded by the learned counsel for Appellants as stated supra. Further these
three agreements/Ex.B1, B15 and B20 are attested and scribed by the same
47
persons. The Plaintiff’s case is that these three agreements are executed on
the same day written with the same pen, as the DW.3/6th Defendant, who was
doing a high profile job as stated supra, in his cross examination specifically
stated that he did not know the writings in Ex.B.1, B.15, agreement/Ex.B20
dated 25.11.2006 are with one pen and executed at the same point in time.
This version also supporting the theory of the Plaintiff.
105. Further, the evidence on record clearly shows as stated supra that
the 4
th
Defendant not only accompanied the 1
st
Defendant, but also he was
present before his/DW.1’s Advocate while preparing DW.1’s written statement,
that the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants also saw the paper publication, these are not even
disputed by the 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants in their cross examination of DW.1. These
show that the Defendants, attestors and scribe are colluded and fabricated the
agreements as stated supra.
106. Thus, the suits in OS.Nos.59, 62 and 78 of 2007, suits for Specific
Performance are filed with false pleadings and fabricated agreements/Ex.B1,
15 and B20 as stated supra. Thus the suits are liable to be dismissed. The
Trial Court, rightly observed all the above circumstances and dismissed the
suits.
107. Thus, A.S.Nos.527 of 2013 and A.S.No.623 of 2013 are liable to be
dismissed with costs.
108. The Appellants in AS.Nos.530, 646 & 656 of 2013 did not take steps
to implead the legal representatives of 1
st
Defendant/T Gopal, who died during
pendency of the Appeal, as impleaded in A.S.No.527 of 2003, thus they are
liable to be dismissed as abated in these circumstances.
v. Law on making a false document etc.,
48
109. Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sec.335 of BNS),
which provides an illustration, to cover the issue of ante dating of an
instrument/document, which is extracted hereunder: -
“464. Making a false document: A person is said to make a
false document or false electronic record……….
(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A afterwards, in order
to defraud Z of his estate, executes a conveyance of the
same estate to B, dated six months earlier than the date of
the conveyance to Z, intending it to be believed that he
had conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to Z. A
has committed forgery.”
110. Section 467 of IPC, provides imprisonment for life or term which
may extend upto 10 years and fine, for forging valuable security (agreement,
deed etc), a Will, authority to adopt a son, transfer any valuable security, an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money or acquittance or
receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security etc..
111. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Iqbal Singh Marwah & another Vs Meenakshi Marwah
16
, held that
if any agreement, sale deed, Will, Valuable Security etc., is out of forgery or
forged document, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C would not
come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take
cognizance of the offence on the basis of the Report by Police/Complaint filed
by the Respondents.
112. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab Vs Raj
Singh and Another
17
, while examining powers of Court and Police, under
Section 154 and 195 of Criminal Procedure Code, held that statutory power of
police to investigate under the Code is not controlled or circumscribed by
16
(2005) 4 SCC 370
17
(1998) 2 SCC 391
49
Section 195 Cr.P.C which operates at a stage when a Court intends to take
cognizance of offence under section 190(1) Cr.P.C, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
accordingly quashed the Order of High Court for quashing F.I.R registered
under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C.
113. Thus, the Plaintiff in O.S.No.49 of 2007 is at liberty to prosecute all
the conspirators under Section 467 of IPC for fabricating the
agreements/Ex.B.15 and Ex.B.20 with ante dates, by lodging a report with
jurisdiction Police.
vi. The law on fling of suits with fabricated agreement and false
pleas:
114. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramrameshwari Devi &
others Vs Nirmala Devi & others
18
, dealing with suits for Partition and
Mandatory Injunction & mesne profits, held that the existing system can be
drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the Trial
Courts while dealing with the civil trials, also held how unscrupulous litigants
are harassing the innocent parties, extracted hereunder:
“This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the
picture of how the civil litigation moves in our Courts and how
unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity
harass the respondents and their children by abusing the
judicial system.
52. C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or
ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the
tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and
fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy
costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the
parties. In appropriate cases the Courts may consider
ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to
maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.”
18
(2011) 8 SCC 249
50
115. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T. Arivandandam v. T.V.
Satyapal & Anr
19
, while dealing with exercise power under order VII Rule 11
of the CPC, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it
in the bud, that an activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits, that
Chapter – XI of IPC (Chapter – XI, of false evidence and offences against public
justice, which include Giving or fabricating false evidence. Fraudulent removal,
concealment, transfer of property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in
execution. Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in
execution. Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due. Dishonestly making
false claim in Court, and Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due etc), is
resourceful to meet such men and must be triggered, that a Judge who
succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial
process, which are extracted hereunder: -
“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the
petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court
repeatedly and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement
of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is
perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First
Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the
mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif
must remember that if on a meaningful — not formal —
reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless,
in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should
exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to
see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip
it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the
answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist
imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that
bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The
Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.
XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the
learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw
19
(1977) 4 SCC 467
51
remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: “It is
dangerous to be too good.”
116. The Hon’ble three Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Re: suo moto proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate
20
,
while dealing with an affidavit with false averments in support of Writ Petition.
The Hon’ble Court observed the menace of perjury and ordered to file
Complaint U/s.193 of IPC, the same is extracted here under: -
“.............Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation
and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties
besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for
offences committed against the society. The courts are further
expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased
by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation
system would be-wrecked if statutory restrictions are hot
imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court
by filing and relying upon the false evidence particularly in
cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the
statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be
respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to
the extent possible in accordance with the truth: The purity of
proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by
a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or
relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous
considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his
opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and
protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements,
without any regard to accuracy.
In India, law relating to the Offence of perjury is given a
statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the
Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences
relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The
offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon
recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of
sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily
resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to
some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a
fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created
that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking
oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties
20
(2001) 5 SCC 289
52
calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken
for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose by
vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence
of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel
joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive
recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under
Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to
survive, effective action is the need of the time...”
➢
117.The Hon’ble three Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of
India
21
while dealing with amendments to Code of Civil Procedure, observed
on initiation of perjury in appropriate cases, they were extracted here under: -
“9. Proceedings for Perjury :
If the Trial Judge, while delivering the judgment, is of the view
that any of the parties or witnesses have willfully and
deliberately uttered blatant falsehoods, he shall consider (at
least in some grave cases) whether it is a fit case where
prosecution should be initiated for perjury and order prosecution
accordingly.”
118.Thus, when a Party or witness, who filed a forged or fabricated
document and makes a false statement or declaration or gives false evidence
or fabricates false evidence, they are liable under Section 193 of IPC (which
provides punishment, which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine) r/w 191 or 192 of IPC as per law depending on the facts of the case.
119.In view of the material and law as stated supra, the Court is opinion,
that the 1
st
, 2
nd
, 4
th
to 6
th
Defendants, DW.5 and DW.6 have fabricated the
agreements/Ex.B15 and B20 and submitted false pleas and evidence. Thus,
it is expedient in the interest of justice that they are liable for prosecution for
committing the Offence for producing the agreements and giving false evidence
21 (2005) 6 SCC 344
53
in the Suits and also asserting them in these Appeals. Thus, they are liable for
prosecution under Section 193 of IPC. As the 1st Defendant died during the
pendency of the Appeal, the prosecution against him is abated.
vii.The Appellants undertaking before this Court
120. The record shows that on 29.04.2022, the learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellants has submitted that the person who had executed the
mortgage is no more alive. However, it was submitted that till the next date,
the appellants shall not encumber the property in any manner.
121. The proceeding sheet dated 10.05.2023 shows that there was
undertaking that the property will not be alienated. However, it is admitted in
the affidavit that Document Nos.4821 of 2022 and 4800 of 2022 were already
executed.
122.The Memo filed by the Plaintiff along with the registered sale deeds
show, that the sale deed vide Doc.No.4800 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 was
executed by Thota Lalitha @ Lalithamma and Thota Sravanthi in favour of
Paidala Thirupathi Reddy and Paidala Balaram Reddy. Another registered sale
deed vide Document No.4821 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 was executed by
Thota Lalitha @ Lalithamma and Thota Sravanthi in favour of Paidala
Thirupathi Reddy and Paidala Balaram Reddy.
123. This Memo shows that the 2
nd
Defendant along with her son and
daughter sold the property, which is in violation of the Order. But the proceeding
sheet dated 10.05.2023 also shows that the Co-ordinate Bench, observed that
the issue of contempt is left out.
124. Still the issue survives in the final adjudication in the Appeal, as the
undertaking by the Appellants is that they shall not encumber the property,
which is breached as they sold the schedule property during pendency of these
Appeals, will be discussed and answered herein after.
54
viii. Law on fraud on the Court and lis pendency
125.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inCELIR LLP Vs MR. SUMATI
PRASAD BAFNA & others
22
, relied on Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy, (2006) 13
SCC 608, while dealing with contempt, observed that the Contempt Petitioner
was auction purchaser in SARFAESI proceedings by Union Bank of India, later
the Borrower filed Writ and the same is allowed to redeem the mortgage of the
secured asset, aggrieved by the Writ order the Auction purchaser filed SLP,
the Borrower redeemed the mortgage, created second charge over the secured
asset in favour of TATA Motors Financial Solutions Ltd for 15 crore, the
Borrower also entered into an Agreement of Assignment of Leasehold Rights
with a third-party viz. M/s Greenscape I.T. Park LLP i.e. the Subsequent
Transferee herein for the transfer of leasehold rights in the Secured Asset. Held
that no party can claim exemption of doctrine of lis pendens on the ground of
bona fide or good faith. Also relied on Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak
Builders and Investors Private Limited & others, (2013) 5 SCC 397, transfers
not render void, the transfer remains valid subject, of course, to the result of
the suit. The pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to or suffer the same
legal rights and obligations of his vendor as may be eventually determined by
the Court. The Court held in contempt jurisdiction, Court can reverse the
transaction or to proceed to pass appropriate directions to the concerned
Authorities to ensure the Contemnor or anyone claiming under him does not
continue to ensure the advantage. Also held the Assignment Agreement dated
28.08.2023 is hit by lis pendens and declared void, directed the Subsequent
Transferee to hand over the peaceful physical possession of the Secured Asset
along with its original title deeds to the Bank within a period of one week, also
directed the Bank shall take assistance of Police in the event of any further
hindrance or any obstruction that may be caused by the Borrower or the
22
2024 Supreme SC 1187
55
Subsequent Transferee while taking over the possession of the property etc.
and the Subsequent Transferee is at liberty to recover the amount paid by it
towards the Assignment Agreement dated 28.08.2023 and any other amount
from the Borrower by availing appropriate legal remedy as may be available
under the law, they are extracted hereunder: -
“180.Thus, although Section 52 of the Act 1882 does not
render a transfer pendente lite void yet the court while
exercising contempt jurisdiction may be justified to pass
directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by
declaring the said transactions to be void or proceed to pass
appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to ensure
that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor
does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor
or anyone claiming under him.
181.Since in the present case, the Assignment Agreement
dated 28.08.2023 whereby the Secured Asset was
transferred in favour of Greenscape / the Subsequent
Transferee herein was effected by the Borrower on the
strength of its right of redemption pursuant to the High Court’s
impugned order which was ultimately set-aside by this Court
in its judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 in the Main
Appeals, the same rendered Borrower’s right to transfer the
Secured Asset non-est and by extension the Assignment
Agreement void.
222.Similarly, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case
of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Dr. Vijay Mallya reported in
2022 SCC Online SC 826, in clear terms said that apart from
punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the
majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be
issued by the Court so that any advantage secured as a result
of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The
approach may require the Court to issue directions either for
reversal of the transactions in question by declaring said
transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the
concerned authorities to see that the contumacious conduct
on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the
advantage of the contemnor or anyone claiming under him.
223. In view of the aforesaid, we pass the following orders and
directions:
…………………………………………………………………….
iv) The Assignment Agreement dated 28.08.2023 is hit by lis
pendens and hereby declared void. The Subsequent
56
Transferee shall hand over the peaceful physical possession
of the Secured Asset along with its original title deeds to the
Bank within a period of one week from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment. In the event of any further
hindrance or any obstruction that may be caused by the
Borrower or the Subsequent Transferee while taking over the
possession of the property then in such circumstances the
Bank shall take the assistance of police.
(v) The Subsequent Transferee shall also withdraw the police
complaint dated 17.01.2024 lodged by it within a period of one
week from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
(vi) We clarify that the Subsequent Transferee is not entitled
to recover the amount paid by it towards redeeming the
second charge over the Secured Asset or any other dues or
amount paid in respect of the same from the petitioner herein.
(vii) The Bank shall refund the amount of Rs. 129 crore paid
by the Borrower towards the redemption of mortgage without
any interest only after the aforesaid directions have been
complied to the letter and spirit.
(viii) The Subsequent Transferee is at liberty to recover the
amount paid by it towards the Assignment Agreement
dated 28.08.2023 and any other amount from the Borrower by
availing appropriate legal remedy as may be available under
the law.”
126. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Inida in S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (dead) & others Vs Jagannath (dead) By L.Rs. and another
23
, (1994)
1 SCC 1,while setting aside the preliminary decree in a partition suit, held the
decree obtained by fraud on the Court is nullity, has to be treated as a nullity
by every court, can be challenged even in a collateral proceeding, withholding
a vital document amounts to playing fraud on the Court as well as on the
opposite party, observed how the Court process is abused by various
fraudsters, they are extracted hereunder: -
“1. "Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three
centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a
23
(1994) 1 SCC 1
57
judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is
a nullity and honest in the eyes of law. Such a
judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court -
has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior
or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral
proceedings.
7………………………………………….We do not agree with
the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the
plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by
true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be
pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an
engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts
of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.
One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands.
We are constrained to say that more often than not, process
of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders,
bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all
walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain
the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that
a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any
stage of the litigation.
8…………………………..A litigant, who approaches the court,
is bound to produce all the documents executed by him
which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital
document in order to gain advantage on the other side then
he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on
the opposite party.”
127. The Hon’ble Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Vishnu Vardhan @ vishnu Pradhan Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh &
others
24
, relied on Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 1
and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu case supra, observed nothing, obtained by
fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything, the growing trend of
abuse of the process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts, set
aside the impugned order of the High Court in Writ as vitiated by the fraud,
remanded the matter to High Court, direction to implead the Appellant and
another as Respondents and directed to dispose the Writ afresh. Also set aside
24
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501
58
the judgment and order in Civil Appeal, observing obtained by fraud and
recalled in exercise of inherent powers. Also recalled the order in MA in the
Civil Appeal in exercise of inherent powers.
128. Thus, in view of the law as stated supra, if any party fraudulently
alienates the property, violating the injunction order, status quo order, stay
order or undertaking etc, the mischievous party, not only liable for prosecution
including Section 206 of IPC (243 of BNS), (the scope and ambit of Section
206 of IPC (243 of BNS) is discussed herein after) for the fraudulent alienation,
in appropriate cases, the transaction may also be liable to be
canceled/reversed as per the law stated supra.
129. It is needless to mention, in the light of the law as referred to supra,
the other party has a duty to move an appropriate application through their
Counsel to attack the fraudulent transaction, the Counsel has a duty to assist
the Court in a comprehensive way to address the issues in the suit including
the fraud if any, by placing all relevant factual position/authorities. Even in the
absence of the application or assistance by the Counsel, the Court has a duty
to address the issues including the fraud if any, to render justice to the
victim/opposite party and to curb the recurring of frauds by sending the
deterrence of the law, which is seldom invoked, thereby the fraudsters could
do with their acts undeterred, which shall be handled with iron hands.
ix. The law on the principle of Lis pendens and allied aspects:
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted hereunder: -
“52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.—
During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the
limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or
established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government]
of [any] suit or proceeding [which is not collusive and] in which
any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in
question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt
with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the
rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order
59
which may be made therein, except under the authority of the
Court and on such terms as it may impose.
[Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the pendency
of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from
the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of
the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to
continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by
a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge
of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become
unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of
limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for
the time being in force.]”
130. The Hon’ble Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Katta Sujatha Reddy & others
25
, relied on Bellamy Vs. Sabine of Privy Counsel and on Jayaram Mudaliar
Vs. Ayyaswamiof Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held that Sec.52 bars
transfer of property during pendency of litigation, exception is under the
authority of the Court on terms, that the alienation defeats the purpose of the
suit, which is extracted hereunder: -
“47. In short, the doctrine of lis pendens that Section 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act encapsulates, bars the transfer
of a suit property during the pendency of litigation. The
only exception to the principle is when it is transferred
under the authority of the Court and on terms imposed by
it…….
49. The purpose of lis pendens is to ensure that the process
of the court is not subverted and rendered infructuous. In the
absence of the doctrine of lis pendens, a defendant could
defeat the purpose of the suit by alienating the suit
property…….”
131. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder
Bajaj and another
26
while dealing with a suit for Specific Performance, referred
to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and granted permission to the
25
(2024) 20 SCC 140
26
(2010) 8 SCC 1
60
Defendants under Section 52 of TP Act to deal with or dispose of the suit
property, which are extracted hereunder: -
“21. The principle underlying section 52 of TP Act is based on
justice and equity. The operation of the bar under section 52 is
however subject to the power of the court to exempt the suit
property from the operation of section 52 subject to such
conditions it may impose. That means that the court in which the
suit is pending, has the power, in appropriate cases, to permit a
party to transfer the property which is the subject-matter of the suit
without being subjected to the rights of any party to the suit, by
imposing such terms as it deems fit. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case where
the suit property should be exempted from the operation of
Section 52 of the TP Act, subject to a condition relating to
reasonable security, so that the defendants will have the liberty to
deal with the property in any manner they may deem fit, inspite of
the pendency of the suit........
26. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the
order of the Division Bench and Learned Single Judge
directing the plaintiff-appellant to file an affidavit undertaking
to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to defendants-respondents in the
event of failure in the suit. Instead, we permit the
defendants-respondents under Section 52 of TP Act, to
deal with or dispose of the suit property in the manner
they deem fit, in spite of the pendency of the suit by the
plaintiff, subject to their furnishing security to an extent
of Rs. Three lakhs to the satisfaction of the learned Single
Judge.”
132. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shivshankara & another
Vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char
27
, while dealing with a suit for Permanent Injunction,
referred to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and held section 52 of TP
Act prohibits, which are extracted hereunder: -
“33. …….There can be no doubt with respect to the
position that the prohibition by application of the
principles of the said doctrine would take its effect with the
institution of the suit……”
27
(2023) 13 SCC 1
61
133. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.Nawab John & another
Vs. V.N.Subramaniyam
28
, while referring to Jayaram Mudaliar case supra,
discussed the object of lis pendens and that no alienations pendente lite be
permitted, they are extracted hereunder: -
“..that it would plainly be impossible that any action or suit
could be brought to a successful termination, if alienations
pendente lite were permitted to prevail. The plaintiff would
be liable in every case to be defeated by the defendants
alienating before the judgment or decree, and would be
driven to commence his proceedings de novo, subject to be
defeated by the same course of proceeding...”
134.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Usha Sinha Vs. Dina
Ram&Others
29
, while dealing with Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act
and Rule 102 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, held the object of
Sec.52 of Transfer of Property Act, that prohibits a party from dealing with the
property, that a transferee is presumed to be aware of proceedings, that in the
absence of the principle, a Judgment Debtor or his transferee will go on
transferring the property, new transferee will offer resistance or obstruct
execution, to avoid such a situation, the Rule is enacted and also held that he
cannot seek benefit of Rule 98 or 100 of Order XXI, they are extracted
hereunder: -
“[12] Bare reading of the rule makes it clear that it is based
on justice, equity and good conscience. A transferee from a
judgment debtor is presumed to be aware of the
proceedings before a Court of law. He should be careful
before he purchases the property, which is the subject
matter of litigation. It recognizes the doctrine of lispendens
recognized by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. Rule 102 of Order XXI of the Code thus takes into
account the ground reality and refuses to extend a helping
hand to purchasers of property in respect of which litigation
is pending. If unfair, inequitable or undeserved protection is
afforded to a transferee pendente lite, a decree holder will
never be able to realize the fruits of his decree. Every time
28
(2012) 7 SCC 738
29
(2008) 7 SCC 144
62
the decree holder seeks a direction from a Court to
execute the decree, the judgment debtor or his
transferee will transfer the property and the new
transferee will offer resistance or cause obstruction. To
avoid such a situation, the rule has been enacted.
[16] Referring to statutory provisions and case law, the Court
negatived the contention, stating- If such contention of the
learned senior counsel for the appellant is to be accepted,
then we are closing our eyes regarding the intention of the
statute. It is obvious while interpreting the provisions of the
statute, the court must give due weight to the intention of the
statute in order to give effect to the provisions. If any narrow
interpretation is given and thereby the purpose of the
statute is being defeated, the courts must be careful to
avoid such interpretations. If we look at Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act and Rule 102 of Order 21 C.P.C, it
is very clear that the intention of the Parliament with which
the statute had been enacted is that the rights of one of the
parties to the proceeding pending before the court cannot
be prejudiced or taken away or adversely affected by the
action of the other party to the same proceeding. In the
absence of such restriction one party to the proceeding,
just to prejudice the other party, may dispose of the
properties which is the subject matter of the litigation or put
any third party in possession and keep away from the court.
By such actions of the party to the litigation the other party
will be put to more hardship and only to avoid such
prejudicial acts by a party to the litigation these provisions
are in existence. When in spite of such statutory restrictions,
for the transfer of the properties, which are the subject
matter of litigation by a party to the proceeding, the courts
are duty bound to give effect to the provisions of the statute.
[18] It is thus settled law that a purchaser of suit property
during the pendency of litigation has no right to resist or
obstruct execution of decree passed by a competent Court.
The doctrine of 'lispendens' prohibits a party from
dealing with the property which is the subject matter of
suit. 'Lis pendens' itself is treated as constructive notice
to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in
the pending suit. Rule 102, therefore, clarifies that there
should not be resistance or obstruction by a transferee
pendente lite. It declares that if the resistance is caused or
obstruction is offered by a transferee pendente lite of the
judgment debtor, he cannot seek benefit of Rule 98 or 100
of Order XXI.”
63
135. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Periyammal (dead)
thorough LR’s & others Vs V Rajamani & another
30
, referred to Hon’ble
Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Rajiv Trust and Anr. : 1998 (3) SCC 723, held on lis pendens and Order
XXI Rule 102 of CPC, which is extracted hereunder: -
“10. ………..No doubt if the resistance was made by a
transferee pendente lite of the judgment debtor, the scope
of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question
whether he is such transferee and on a finding in the
affirmative regarding that point the execution court has to
hold that he has no right to resist in view of the clear
language contained in Rule 102. Exclusion of such a
transferee from raising further contentions is based on the
salutary principle adumbrated in Section 52 of the Transfer
of Property Act.”
136. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maharwal Khewaji Trust
(Regd.) Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass
31
, while dealing with lis pendens, held that
generally the Court should not permit the nature of the Property being changed,
which includes alienation and transfer of property, the same is extracted
hereunder: -
“Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that
unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is
made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit
the nature of the property being changed which also
includes alienation or transfer of the property which may
lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may
ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of
proceedings. In the instant case no such case of irreparable
loss is made out except contending that the legal
proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the
respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled
property to better use. We do not think in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the lower appellate court and the
High Court were justified in permitting the respondent to
30
(2005) 9 SCC 568
31
(2004) 8 SCC 488
64
change the nature of property by putting up construction as
also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever
may be the condition on which the same is done. In the
event of the appellant's claim being found baseless
ultimately, it is always open to the respondent to claim
damages or, in an appropriate case, the court may itself
award damages for the loss suffered, if any, in this
regard. Since the facts of this case do not make out any
extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to
put up construction and alienate the same, we think
both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court
and the High Court erred in making the impug ned
orders. The said orders are set aside and the order of
the trial court is restored. The appeal is allowed.”
137. Thus, in the light of legal principles, it emerges clearly that the Law
prohibits/bars dealing with or alienating the property in any manner, from
presentation of a Plaint to final order or discharge or satisfaction of the decree,
as to effect the rights of the Parties, except under the Authority of the Court on
terms i.e., with the permission of the Court as envisaged under Section 52 of
the TP Act and the law as referred supra.
138. As the law prohibits/bars the parties transacting with the property
as stated supra while the matter is sub judice before the Court under Section
52 of the TP Act, any party seeking to alienate the property out of necessity
must approach the Court for permission, the Court may accord permission on
such terms or may not accord depending on facts of the case, thus a party
cannot keep on alienating the property at his whims while keeping the other
party and the Court in dark, which is against the object of Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act and the law referred supra. Furthermore, the parties
are duty bound to assist the Court in administration of justice by keeping the
property intact for adjudication of the Court, this is least expected from the
parties when the Subject matter is sub judice before the Court.
x.The Law on prosecution for fraudulent transfer etc., by
breaching the principle of Lis pendens
65
139. Where the Law prohibits/bars dealing with the property under
Section 52 of the TP Act, the question arises whether a party committing such
a prohibited act through a fraudulent transaction incurs any penal
consequences. The answer is affirmative, in view of Section 206 of IPC
(Section 243 of BNS), which penalizes fraudulent or mischievous act in both
civil and criminal proceedings, which is seldom neither agitated nor brought to
the notice of the Courts in the Districts by the parties by moving an appropriate
application for initiating prosec
140. For ready referenceution for doing a prohibited/barred act by a
fraudulent transfer etc.
141. For ready reference, Section 206 of IPC (Section 243 of BNS) is
extracted hereunder: -
“206. Fraudulent removal or concealment of property to
prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution.
Whoever fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers
to any person any property or any interest therein, intending
thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being
taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a
sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to
be likely to be pronounced, by a Court of Justice or other
competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a
decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to
be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
142. It appears the object of Section 206 of IPC (Section 243 of BNS) is
to prevent fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any
property, which was or may be subject matter of a Criminal or Civil proceeding,
further as per the second limb of Section 206 of IPC (Section 243 of BNS),
even if any Person fraudulently transfers or delivers property anticipating that
a Decree or Order is likely to be passed by a Court of Justice in a civil suit,
such person is liable for imprisonment for a term which may extent to two years,
or with fine or with both.
66
143. Thus, while Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act applies to
immovable properties in civil proceedings, Section 206 of IPC (Section 243 of
BNS) applies to movable and immovable properties in criminal as well as civil
proceedings, further even when Section 52 of TP Act i.e. lis pendens is not
applicable to a civil case, if there is fraudulent transfer, Section 206 of IPC
(Section 243 of BNS) may attract depending on the facts of the case.
144. However, a party cannot launch prosecution under Section 206 of
IPC (Section 243 of BNS) as it is the duty of the Court to examine the material
on record, record reasons and initiate prosecution under Section 206 of IPC
(Section 243 of BNS) for effecting fraudulent transfer while matter is pending
before the Trial Court by breaching the principle of lis pendens and for
harassing the other party in the civil proceeding, either upon an application or
otherwise/suo moto in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section
340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section
379 read with Section 215(1)(b)(i) of BNSS). This is one of the effective
measures to address mischievous parties, fraud in civil cases and the
multiplicity of proceedings in civil litigation. These are seldom invoked in the
Trial Courts, therefore fraud remains unchecked.
145. The principles on lis pendens and allied legal aspects stated herein
above are illustrative but not exhaustive, and are compelled to refer in the
circumstances of the case.
146. It is needless to mention, whether the suit in O.S.No.49 of 2007
survives on the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness or not, the prosecution still
goes against the Parties for fabrication of agreements and false evidence for
the reasons stated supra.
X. RESULT:
67
147. This Court, on re-appreciating the evidence on record and from the
foregoing discussion, inclined to hold that the Plaintiff in OS.No.49 of 2007
could prove the case as stated supra, Issue No.i is answered in favour of the
Plaintiff, issue No.ii to iv are answered against the Appellants/Defendants. The
Appellants could not demonstrate any material infirmity warranting interference
in the Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court.
148. Thus, in view of the material and foregoing discussion, AS.527 of
2013 and AS.623 of 2013 are dismissed with costs. And A.S. Nos. 530, 646 &
656 of 2013 are dismissed as abated.
149. The Plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 49 of 2007 is at liberty to prosecute all the
conspirators under Section 467 of IPC by lodging a report with the jurisdictional
Police.
150. In view of the material and law stated supra, the 1
st
, 2
nd
, 4
th
to 6th
Defendants, DW.5 and DW.6 are liable for prosecution under Section 193 of
IPC for producing the fabricated agreements and for giving false evidence
before the Trial Court as well as asserting the same before this Court. As the
1st Defendant died during the pendency of the Appeal, the prosecution against
him is abated.
151. In view of the material and law stated surpa, the 2
nd
Defendant is
liable for prosecution under Section 206 of IPC for selling the property on
12.12.2022 violating the orders of the Court as stated supra.
152. The Court observed on the prima facie case as stated supra, the
Jurisdictional Trial Court shall proceed as per law.
153. The Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure filing of the Complaint under
Sections 193 and 206 of IPC before the Jurisdictional Magistrate as per law.
154. The District Registrar, Nellore and Sub-Registrar, Kovur shall
ensure cancellation of the registrations dated 12.12.2022 on the schedule
68
property, also, they shall not permit any other registrations except under this
judgment. If any clarification is required, they shall move an application before
the Court.
155. The Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate the Judgment to the
District Registrar, Nellore and Sub-Registrar, Kovur.
156. This Court is compelled to comply with the law in the circumstances
of the case.
As a sequel, the pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE D. RAMESH, J
__________________________________
JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J
Dt: 16.10.2026
JKS
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....