Telangana High Court
Mr. Pesearkayala Veera Basanth Reddy vs Mr. Burugu Rama Krishna Reddy on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.276 OF 2021
DATED: 6th MARCH, 2026
BETWEEN :
1. Mr.Pesearkayala Veera Basanth Reddy and Others
... Appellants-Defendants
AND
Mr.Burugu Rama Krishna Reddy,
S/o.Late Dhanam Reddy, aged 47 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District.
...Respondent/Plaintiff
JUDGMENT:
1. This Memorandum of First Appeal is filed under Section 96
r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC‘)
assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned XIV
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in OS
No.1038 of 2014 dated 24.09.2021.
2. Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff
in OS.No.1038 of 2014.
2/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit under Order 7 Rule 1 r/w
Section 26 of CPC for recovery of money of Rs.14,60,000/- against
the appellants-defendants.
3.2. The plaint states that the parties are known to each other for
more than 15 years. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 is the father,
appellant Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of
appellant No.1. Defendant No.1 (appellant No.1 herein) informed
the plaintiff (respondent herein) that he is the owner and possessor
of Acs.09-30 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.85/A and 89/A
situated at Mondigowrelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District and executed an Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 for a
total sale consideration of Rs.63 Lakhs. The plaintiff paid an
amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as advance and a separate receipt is
executed to that effect. Thereafter, the plaintiff (the respondent
herein) came to know that the property covered under Agreement
of Sale dated 01.10.2012 is under litigation in OS.No.36 of 1989 on
the file of Additional District Judge. So also in AS No.1110 of 1991
pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the same was
suppressed by the defendant No.1 (appellant No.1 herein). When
the plaintiff (respondent herein) questioned the defendant No.1
(appellant No.1) about the litigation, in turn he stated that the
suits are no way concerned with the suit land and insisted the
respondent-plaintiff to get the sale deed registered by paying the
3/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
balance sale consideration. Mediation was held between the parties
before the elders wherein the appellants-defendants executed
Settlement Deed on 12.03.2013 agreeing to return the advance
amount of Rs.10 Lakhs through a mediator by name Kotha
Manohar Reddy within a period of six months i.e., on or before
12.09.2013. Later, the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 with a
malafide intention to cheat the respondent-plaintiff got issued legal
notice on 29.07.2013 cancelling the Agreement of Sale dated
01.10.2012 as well as the Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 to
avoid the refund of advance.
3.3. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 again entered into an
Agreement of Sale dated 06.04.2013 with G.Mohan Reddy of
Injapur Village for a total sale consideration of Rs.57,50,000/- in
respect of the property covered by the Agreement of Sale and he
received Rs.2,50,000/- as advance. A publication was made to that
effect in Eenadu Telugu Daily calling for objections for which one
Gurram Bhasker Reddy got issued a reply notice raising objections
through his counsel. Reply notice goes to show that the litigations
are pending in Courts in respect of the lands and the appellant
No.1-defendant No.1 has again cheated and harassed not only the
respondent-plaintiff but also Kotha Manohar Reddy and Gurram
Mohan Reddy. Respondent-plaintiff has lodged a complaint before
Yacharam police against the appellants-defendants but they did
4/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
not act upon and advised him to approach the Court.Respondent –
plaintiff has also filed a private complaint before IV Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, the same was taken cognizance for the
offences under Sections 120B, 420 r/w 34 of IPC against the
appellants-defendants and a case in Crime No.187 of 2013 is
registered on 26.10.2013 and appellant No.1-defendant No.1 was
arrested and later he was released on bail, prayed to decree the
suit as prayed for.
4. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has filed his written
statement and admitted that he entered into Agreement of Sale on
01.10.2012 and received Rs.10 Lakhs as advance there under, the
property has a clear marketable title and there are no disputes
pending in any Court. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 is the
pattedar and possessor of the land and it is not the property of the
Trust. Respondent-plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale
consideration and he made false allegations in the plaint. Appellant
No.1-defendant No.1 has admitted that mediation has taken place
on 12.03.2013 for refund of advance amount to the mediator
namely Kotha Manohar Reddy and executed a letter on a non-
judicial stamp paper. As per the settlement, the respondent-
plaintiff has no cause of action. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has
got issued a notice on 29.07.2013 for cancelling the Agreement of
Sale dated 01.10.2012 as the respondent-plaintiff did not comply
5/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
the conditions thereon and the advance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs is
forfeited. Respondent-plaintiff did not choose to give reply to the
said notice. However, he got issued a legal notice on 10.11.2012
with false and frivolous allegations showing his readiness and
willingness to perform his part of contract. Respondent-plaintiff
remained silent till 12.03.2013 even after receiving the reply from
appellant No.1-defendant No.1. He admitted that he entered into
Agreement of Sale on 06.04.2013 with G.Mohan Reddy for a sale
consideration of Rs.57,50,000/- in respect of the property covered
by the Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 and received an
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as advance and it was only agreed
between the parties that G.Mohan Reddy will pay the remaining
sale consideration to the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 within 40
days. G.Mohan Reddy failed to comply with the agreement thereby
he got issued a notice on 29.07.2013 cancelling the Agreement of
Sale dated 06.04.2013. Prior to issuing the notice by the appellant
No.1-defendant No.1 G.Mohan Reddy got issued a lawyer notice on
29.04.2013 which was received by him on 07.05.2013 and he got
issued a reply on 09.05.2013 demanding G.Mohan Reddy to pay
the balance sale consideration and to come forward to get the sale
deed. Respondent-plaintiff has influenced police Yacharam and
got arrested the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 though the case is
of civil in nature. Suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties. Kotha Manohar Reddy, the mediator through
6/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
whom the respondent-plaintiff alleged that appellant No.1-
defendant No.1 has agreed to refund the advance amount, he is a
necessary party to the suit. Appellant Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2
and 3 are nothing to do with the suit and they are unnecessarily
sued by the respondent-plaintiff.
5. Appellant Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed their
separate written statement alleging that they have not executed the
Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 nor their names are reflected
and they are not necessary parties to the suit and prayed to
dismiss the same.
6. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money
of Rs.14,60,000/- with costs and future interest
against defendant Nos.1 to 3 (appellants herein) as
prayed for?
2. To what relief?
7. Respondent -plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also
examined PW.2-Annu Ram Reddy, got marked Exs.A1 to A15.
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 are examined as DWs.1 to 3 and got marked
Exs.B1 to B8.
8. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced
by the parties has decreed the suit directing the defendants
(appellants herein) to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest
thereon @ 12% per annum from 12.03.2013 with future interest on
7/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
the principal sum so adjudged @ 12% per annum till the date of its
realization against the defendants jointly and severally.
9.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the
learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper
perspective and Ex.A3 primarily states that the advance amount of
the Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 is to be returned to Sri
Kotha Manohar Reddy and Ex.A3 itself amounts to novation of
contract, the respondent-plaintiff ceased to have any claim against
the appellants-defendants. The learned trial Court failed to
appreciate the fact that the respondent-plaintiff in his deposition
admitted that the Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 was executed
in the name of Kotha Manohar Reddy and the appellant No.1-
defendant No.1 will pay the advance amount to him.
9.2. The learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that PW.2
has also admitted about execution of Ex.A3. The learned trial
Court ought to have contemplated that the appellant Nos.2 and 3-
defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to the Agreement of Sale
dated 01.10.2012 and the same is admitted by PWs.1 and 2 in
their respective depositions and they are also not necessary parties
to the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of
the parties. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that at the
time of entering into the Agreement of Sale, there was no litigation
pending over the suit property as alleged by the respondent-
8/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
plaintiff and the ownership of the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 is
not repudiated in any Court of law. Counsel to substantiate his
contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Moreshar
Yadaorao Mahajan Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) thr. LRs. and
Others 1 , (2) Madan Lal Sobti Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial
Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., 2 (3) Associated
Swichgear & Projects Ltd., Vs. Hind Electrician 3 , (4) Bajranglal
Agarwal Vs. Smt.Susheela Agarwal and Others 4.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that
the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the
case and rightly decreed the suit jointly and severally against the
appellants-defendants to pay Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of filing the suit till realization, no case is
made out and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
11. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, counsel for
the respondent, perused the material on record.
12. Counsel on record have filed their written submissions.
13. Now the points for consideration are :
(i) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties, if so?
1
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1307
2
2006 SCC OnLine Del 1352
3
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12177
4
CCCA No.62 of 2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, dated
20.08.2024
9/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial Court suffers from any perversity or
illegality? If so, does it require the interference of
this court?
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has raised the
following points in the written arguments. (A) Incorrect finding of
facts with respect to pendency of litigation (B) Incorrect finding of
facts which were not pleaded by the plaintiff and on which no
evidence was lead with respect to existence of loan on the suit
schedule property (C) Impermissibility on directing the defendants
to pay the amounts to the plaintiff by virtue of Section 62 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 (D) The suit is liable to be dismissed on
account of Non-joinder of proper and necessary parties (E) Lack of
any liability on defendant Nos.2 and 3 (appellant Nos.2 and 3
herein) to pay the amount (F) Acquittal in a Criminal Case (G) On
Interest part.
POINT NOs.1 and 2:
15.1. Ex.A1 is a certified copy of unregistered Agreement of Sale
dated 01.10.2012. The important Clauses of the Agreement are set
out as under:
“NOW THIS AGREEMENT OF SALE WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:-
The Vendor has agreed to sell and the purchaser has agreed
to purchase the Land in Sy.No.85/ , admeasuring Ac.9-08 Gts,
Sy.No.89/ , admeasuring Ac.0-22 Gts, totally admeasuring
Ac.9-30 Gts (on as is and where is condition) situated at
Mondigowrelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
10/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021which is schedule property described in the schedule hereto, for
a total sale consideration of Rs.63,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Three
Lakhs Only).
1. The Purchaser has today paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) by cash, to the Vendor towards part
sale consideration for sale of the above said property and the
Vendor does hereby admit and acknowledge the receipt of the
same.
2. And the balance sale consideration of Rs.53,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Three Lakhs Only) shall be paid by the purchaser to the
vendor subject to actual measurement of land available at site,
within a period of 40 (Forty) days from this day or at the time of
registration.
3. The Vendor shall have to deliver the vacant possession of the
said property to the Purchaser at the time of registration. At the
time of execution of sale deed, the Vendor shall clear all the dues
such as taxes viz., Property Tax if any.
4. The Vendor assures the Purchaser that there are no
encumbrances, charges, mortgages on schedule property and the
schedule property is not subject to earlier subsisting agreement
of sale or sale etc.,
9. The Vendor do hereby declare and state that the schedule
property is not subject to any charge or charges, surety, security,
lien and is subject to hypothecation to financial institution or
institutions including banks, corporations, society, local
authorities, government including legal person or persons. The
vendor further declare that the schedule property sold under this
deed is not declared as excess land under provisions of
agriculture land ceiling laws being in force from time to time. The
Vendor further states the schedule property is or part of it is not
surplus land being declared under the provisions of Urban Land
Ceiling Laws”.
15.2. Ex.A3 is the Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 executed
between the parties, the recitals of the document are important for
adjudicating the Appeal which reads as under:
” ఈ రో జు అనగా సరియగు తే ద ీ 12.03.2013 మంగళవా రమ ు రో జున
పె సరకా యల వీ ర బసంత రె డ ్డ
ి S/o.Late వె ంకట్ రె డ ్డ
ి ని వా సమ ు
మొ ండ ి గౌ రెల
్ల
ి వా స
్త
వ్య
ులు మరియు అతన ి కుమ ా రులు గణ ే శ్
రె డ
్డ
ి S/o. వీ ర బసంత రె డ ్డ
ి మరియ ు పా ండురంగా రెడ
్డ
ి S/o. వీ ర
11/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021బసంతరె డ ్డ ి అను మే మ ు వ్ రాయ ి ంచ ి ఇచ ్చ ు దస ్త ా వేజు సబబు ఏమనగా
మొ ండ ి గౌ రెల ్లి లో గలనా స్ వంత వ్ య వసా య భూమ ి Sy.No.85, 89 లో
గల భూమ ి న ి 9.30 తొ మ ్మ ిద ి ఎకరమ ు ల ముప్ఫై గుంటలు శ్ ర ీ బూర ్ గు
రా మకృష ్ణ ా రె డ ్డ
ి తండ ్ రి లే ట ్ దా న ్ రె డ ్డ ి ని వా సమ ు ఆద ిచ ే
గా రికి 63,00,000=00 అరవై మూడు లక్ష ల కు అమ ్మ ి యు ంట ిన ి . 1.1.2012
నా డు అట ్టి ధరలో 10,00,000=00 పద ి లక్ష లు అడ ్ వాన్సుగా తీ సుకొ న ి
యు ంట ిన ి . వి విధ కా రణా ల వల ్ ల అట ్ట ి అగ్ర ీమె ంట ్ రద ్దు అయ ి నద ి .
మీ కుఇవ్వవలసిన పద ి లక్ష లు ఈ రో జు నుండ ి ఆరు నె లల లో పు అనగా
సె ప ్ట ె ంబర్ 12.09.2013 నా ట ి వరకు శ్ ర ీ కొ త్త మనో హర్ రె డ ్డ
ి
తండ ్ రి కొ త్త మల ్లా రెడ్డ
ి ని వా సమ ు జి ల ్ల
ెల గూడ గా ర్కి
ఇవ్వటాన ి కి పద ి మంధ ి పె ద ్ ద మనుషులసమక్ష మ ు లో సె ట ిల్ మె ంట ్
చే సుకొ న ి ఇట ్ట
ి డబ్బు ఇవ్వటాన ి కి ఒప్పు కున్నామ ు . ఇద ి మా ఇష ్ట
పూర్వకమ ు గా వ్ రాయ ి ంచి ఇచ ్చి నద ి ని జం".
ఇట ్ల
ు
1. ఏ. రా మ ్ రె డ ్డ ి (i) పె సరకా యల
వీ రబసంతరె డ
్డ
ి
2. sd/- (ii) గణ
ే శ్ రె డ
్డ
ి
3. జంగా రె డ
్డ
ి (iii) పా ండురంగా రెడ
్డ
ి
15.3. There are two Eenadu paper publications in Ex.A4 dated
26.04.2013, one is issued by V.Satyanarayana, Advocate on behalf
of Gurram Bhasker Reddy, S.Kishtamma, P.Bikshapathamma and
another paper publication is issued by B.Venkat Reddy, Advocate
of Ibrahimpatnam on behalf of his client. The Publication reads as
under:
(i) కొ నుగోలుదా రులకు హె చ
్ చ
రిక / బహ
ి రంగ ప్ రకటన
నా క్ ల య ి ంట్లు శ్ ర
ీ గుర్రం భా స్కర్ రె డ ్డ
ి , S.కి ష ్ట
మ్ మ ,
P.భి క్ష పతమ ్ మ , అందరూ R/o.గుర్రంగూడ , బా లాపూర్ మరియ ు
అల ియ ా బా ద్ , రంగా రెడ ్డ
ి జి ల ్ల
ా /హై దరా బా ద ్ వా రి సూచనలమే రకు
సా ధా రణ ప్ రజా న ీ కా ని కి ఇందుమూలమ ు గా తె ల ి యజేయ ు నద ి ఏమనగా
పె సరకా యల వీ రబసంతరెడ ్డ ి అనబడ ే వ్ య క్త ి రంగా రెడ ్డ
ి జి ల ్ల ా ,
యా చా రం మండలం , మొ ండి గౌ రెల ్ల ి గ్ ర
ా మం వద ్ద సర్వ ే
నె ం.85/Aలో ఎక.9-08 గుం., సర్వ ే నె ం.189/Aలో ఎక.0-22 గుం., మొ త ్త ం
ఎక.9-30 గుం. వి స ్తీ ర్ణ ం మరియ ు ఇతరసర్వ ే నె ంబర ్ల
ు 10, 25, 99, 106,
109, 110, 119, 120 ల్ ల ోన ి మొ త ్తం ఎక.37-34 గుం. వి స ్త ీ ర్ణ
ంగల
వ్ యవసా య భూమ ు ల అమ ్ మ కం కొ రకు థర ్డ
్ పా ర ్ట
ీ లతో ఒక వి క్రయ
ఒప్ పందం కుదుర్చ ుకొ న్నారు . వా స ్తవా న ి కి సదరు భూమ ు లు ఉమ ్ మ డ ి
కుటుంబ ఆస ్త
ులు /భూమ ుల ై ఉన్నవి . గౌ రవన ీ య అదనపు జి ల ్ల ా జడ ్జి ,
రంగా రెడ ్డ
ి జి ల ్లా కో ర ్ట ుల యొ క్ క ఉత ్త
ర్వుల ప్ రకా రం మరియ ు
గౌ రవన ీ య ఆం.ప్ ర. ఉన్నత న్ య ా యస ్థ ా నం ప్ రకా రం కూడా ( పే జీ
12/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
వె ం.32 లో న ి లై న ్ నె ం.1 లో ) సదరు వీ ర బసంతరెడ ్డ ి కి పై న తె ల ి పిన
సర్వ ే నె ంబర ్లలోన ి భూమ ి లో ఎట ్ట
ి వి ద ి హక్ కులు మరియ ు
ప్ రయ ో జనం లే దు. కే వలం 1/4 వ వంతు అవిభా జ్య వా టాను మా త ్ రమ ే
కల ి గియ ు న్నారు . సదరు పె సరకా యల వీ ర బసంతరెడ ్డ
ి తో ఏమయ ి న
అమ ్ మ కం ఒప్ పందం లే దా ఒప్ పందా లు కుదుర్చ ుకున్న వా రికెవరికైనా
ఎట ్ట
ి హక్ కు మరియ ు టై ట ిల ్ లభించదు. సదరు వి క్ర ేత వా టా
దా రులలో ఒకరు మా త ్ రమ ే కా న ి సదరు భూమ ు లను వి క్రయ ి ంచటాన ి కి
లే దా కొ నుగోలుదా రులతో ఎట ్ట
ి అమ ్ మ కం ఒప్ పందం
కుదుర్చ ుకో వటాన ి కి అతన ి కి ఎట ్ట
ి హక్ కు లే దన ి ఇంకనూ
తె ల ి యజేస ్త
ున్నామ ు . ఎవరైనా అలా ంట ి వ్ య వహ ా రా లు సదరు
వ్ య క్త ి తో కుదుర్చ ుకున్న ట్ ల య ి త ే అద ి పూర ్తి గా చె ల ్ల న ి
వ్ య వహ ా రం అవుతుంద ి . ఈ హె చ ్ చ రికి ప్ రకటనను కా దన ి ఎవరై నా
వ్ య క్త ి /వ్ య క్తులు సదరు భూమ ు లకు సంబంధించ ి ఏవై న ఒప్ పందా లు
కుదుర్చ ుకొన్నట ్ల
ైత ే , అది చె ల ్ల న ి వ్ య
వహ ా రమ ౌ తుంద ి .
(V. సత్య
నా రా యణ ), అడ
్ వొకేట
్
(ii) బహ
ి రంగ ప్ రకటన
సమస ్ త ప్ రజా న ీ కా ని కి తె ల ి యజేయ ు నద ి ఏమనగా ! రంగా రెడ ్డి
జి ల ్లా , పె సరగా యల వీ రవసంతారెడ ్డ
ి S/o.వె ంకట ్ రె డ
్డ
ి , యా చా రం
తహసిల ్ , మొ ండ ి గౌ రెల ్ల
ి గ్ ర
ా మ పరిధ ి సర్వ ే నె ంబర ్లు : 85/అ ఎ. 9-
08 గుంటలు , మరియ ు 89/అ 0-22 గుంటలు మొ త ్త
ం వి స ్త
ీ ర్ణ ం 9-30 గుంటల
భూమ ి హద ్దులు ఉత ్త రం : మే ఘనా థ ్ రె డ ్డ
ి , దక్ష ి ణం :
K.రా ంచంద ్ రారెడ్డి , పడమర: M. అంజయ ్ య , మరియ ు తూర్పు :
జి .చె ంద ్ రయ ్ య భూమ ి న ి నా యొ క్ క క్ ల ై ం టు ఖరీదు చే య ు టకు
ఒప్ పందం కుదుర్చ ుకొ ని గణన ీ యమ ై న మూల ్ య ం చె ల్ల
ి ంచ ి నా రు .
ఇట ్టి భూమ ి పై ఎవరికైనా ఏ వి ధమ ై న ఆక్ష ే పణలు ఉన్నచో ఒక వా రం
గడువు లో పల నా చి రునా మ ా కు తె లుపగలరు. గడువు దా ట ి న పి దపఏ వి ధమ ై న
ఉత ్త ర ప్ రత ్యుత ్త
రమ ు లు స్ వ ీ కరి ంచబడవు .
Sd/- B.VENKAT REDDY, Β.Α., LL.B.
Advocate
H.No. 8-15, Opp. Tahsil Office,
Main Road, Ibrahimpatnam
Cell: 9441118458
15.4. Respondent-plaintiff has got issued reply notice under Ex.A5
on 27.04.2013 to B.Venkat Reddy, Advocate of Ibrahimpatnam
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the Paper Publication in Eenadu
Daily Newspaper, Ibrahimpatnam Edition, Ranga Reddy District on
26.04.2013 wherein he contended that he entered into Agreement
of Sale on 01.10.2012 with P.Veera Basanth Reddy, as he failed to
13/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021clear the title and remaining part of sale transaction was not
completed thereby Sale Deed is not executed in his favour and
Settlement Deed is executed on 12.03.2013 in his favour under
Ex.A3 in which P.Veera Basanth Reddy admitted about entering
into Agreement of Sale in respect of Acs.09-30 guntas in Sy.Nos.85
and 89, he undertook to repay the advance amount of Rs.10
Lakhs.
15.5. V.Satyanarayana, Advocate has issued legal notice (Ex.A6)
to B.Venkat Reddy for the paper publication dated 26.04.2013 on
behalf of his client by name Gurram Bhasker Reddy. It is stated in
the notice that P.V.Basanth Reddy is having 1/4th share only as
per the orders passed by Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District in AS.No.36 of 1989 and the same was confirmed by the
High Court in Second Appeal Nos.111 of 1991 and 676 of 1993
vide judgment dated 05.09.2008.
15.6. Ex.A7 is the Letter dated 22.11.2012 addressed by appellant
No.1-defendant No.1 to B.Venkat Reddy, Advocate resident of
Ibrahimpatnam stating that respondent-plaintiff agreed to
purchase the property and he has not come forward due to which
he sustained loss.
15.7. Ex.A11 is the legal notice got issued by Sri D.Venkat Reddy,
Advocate on behalf of respondent-plaintiff to appellant No.1-
14/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
defendant No.1 about the execution of agreement of sale dated
01.10.2012 (Ex.A1). It is contended in the legal notice that there is
a clear defect in the title of the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 and
litigations are pending before the Court filed by the cousins of
defendant No.1 in respect of the subject land which is suppressed
by him to the respondent-plaintiff and to get no objection letter or
to withdraw the suit from the concerned Court, then the
respondent-plaintiff will get ready to perform his part of contract
and that the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 is not only the legal
heir of late Rangamma who is none other than his grand-mother
and that the respondent-plaintiff is ready and willing to perform
his part of contract for which appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has to
fulfill and communicate all the required documents immediately
within 10 days from the receipt of the notice failing which
appropriate action will be taken.
15.8(i). Ex.A12 is a certified copy of the depositions of respondent-
plaintiff in CC.No.320 of 2014 wherein in chief-examination he
stated that on 12.03.2013 he along with his cast elders went to the
house of A1 (appellant No.1 herein) to ask him to return the token
amount or clear the title and hand over the possession to him in
respect of the agreement schedule property, on that date A1
(appellant No.1 herein) executed document on Rs.100/- stamp
paper by undertaking that he will return the token amount of
15/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021Rs.10 Lakhs within a period of six months in favour of one Kotha
Manohar Reddy. As per the agreement, A1 (appellant No.1 herein)
has to return the amount on or before 12.09.2013.
15.8(ii). In his cross-examination he stated that as per Ex.P4
(Ex.A3 in OS.No.1038 of 2014) A1 (appellant No.1 herein) agreed to
pay the amount within six months who is the elder of the
Panchayat and document is executed in presence of the elders. A2
and A3 (appellant Nos.2 and 3 herein) also agreed to pay the
money to one Kotha Manohar Reddy who is the elder and they also
signed on the document as witnesses.
16.1. Evidence of respondent-plaintiff is the same with that of his
plaint averments. In his cross-examination he stated that Basanth
Reddy (defendant No.1-appellant No.1 herein) is the brother-in-law
to his brother. Kotha Manohar Reddy and G.Mohan Reddy are
related to his cousin brother and he know about the civil cases in
respect of the land through his relatives and mediators but he do
not know whether the cases are pending against defendant No.1-
appellant No.1 herein and he has not deposited any amount in the
Bank before ending date of Sale Agreement. He did not file any
document to show that cases are pending against defendant No.1
(appellant No.1 herein) and he do not know whether defendant
No.1 has purchased the land in the year 2007 from Trust or not
and he do not know whether defendant No.1 has obtained the loan
16/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021from SBI, Adibatla Branch in 2009. He has not obtained the
signatures of the children of defendant No.1 on Ex.A1-Agreement of
Sale dated 01.10.2012 as they were not available. Suit land
belongs to defendant No.1 that is why he has not taken the
signatures of defendant No.1 children in Ex.A1-Agreement.
Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 (Ex.A3) is executed in the name
of Kotha Manohar Reddy, which says that defendant No.1 will pay
the advance amount to him i.e., K.Manohar Reddy. Ex.A3 original
is in the criminal case filed by him and he has not filed the
evidence given in CC.No.320 of 2014 before XXII Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Ibrahimpatnam. K.Manohar Reddy deposed in
criminal case and he do not know the contents of Manohar Reddy’s
cross-examination. He gave reply to the letter dated 29.07.2013
(Ex.B7) which was sent by defendant No.1. After settlement,
defendant No.1 entered into Agreement of Sale with one G.Mohan
Reddy which is mentioned in his reply notice. PW.1 denied the
suggestion that defendant No.1 need not pay anything to him in
person in pursuance of Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 (Ex.A3)
and the amount is liable to be paid to K.Manohar Reddy. PW.1
denied the suggestion that defendant No.1 never issued notice for
cancellation of Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013.
16.2. In the cross-examination done by defendant Nos.2 and 3
counsel (appellant Nos.2 and 3 counsel) before the trial Court,
17/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
PW.1 admitted that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to
Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013. Defendant Nos.2 and 3
are not the owners of Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012
property. PW.1 denied the suggestion that defendant Nos.2 and 3
are not responsible in any manner and they are unnecessarily
made as parties to the suit only to harass them.
17.1. PW.2-A.Ram Reddy deposed that negotiations have taken
place between the plaintiff (respondent herein) and defendant No.1
(appellant No.1 herein) and the parties have entered into an
Agreement of Sale on 01.10.2012 (Ex.A1) in his presence and the
plaintiff (respondent herein) paid an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs
towards part sale consideration out of Rs.63 Lakhs and the
remaining sale consideration has to be paid on the date of
registration as per the terms and conditions and he is the first
attesting witness to the Agreement of Sale and second attesting
witness is B.Venkat Reddy, resident of Adibatla Village. He came
to know that plaintiff has withdrawn to purchase the property as
the litigation was pending and the property covered under Ex.A1 is
mortgaged to Nationalized Bank at Adibatla and the parties have
compromised which took place between K.Manohar Reddy at his
residence and he came to know that defendant No.1 agreed to
return back the amount to K.Manohar Reddy within six months
but within one month defendant No.1 issued notice cancelling the
18/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
agreement of K.Manohar Reddy stating that the document was
obtained from him forcibly and they made a complaint to police
authorities subsequently, plaintiff filed criminal case as well as the
suit for recovery of amount.
17.2. In his cross-examination he stated that plaintiff and
B.Venkat Reddy are his distant relatives and he was the mediator
between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 while executing Ex.A1-
Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 and the period fixed is
40 days for payment of balance sale consideration and for
registration. Plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration to
the defendant No.1 within 40 days. After lapse of 40 days, plaintiff
and himself approached defendant No.1 twice for reminding to
refund of the advance amount. On 12.03.2013 his father Raghav
Reddy, P.Janga Reddy, the plaintiff, B.Venkat Reddy and himself
discussed and Ex.A3-letter of Settlement Deed was executed in his
presence and the contents therein are true. PW.2 denied the
suggestion that as per the Settlement Deed, defendant No.1 is due
amount to K.Manohar Reddy but not to the plaintiff.
17.3. In the cross-examination done by defendant Nos.2 and 3
counsel PW.2 stated that in Exs.A1 and A3, defendant Nos.2 and 3
are not parties. He denied the suggestion that the land mentioned
in the plaint is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and that
defendant Nos.2 and 3 have no right. He also denied the
19/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
suggestion that he acted as a mediator in the deal to get
commission from mediation, as he did not get commission from
defendant No.1 he is giving false evidence in favour of the plaintiff.
18.1. Ex.B1 is the registered sale deed of appellant No.1-defendant
No.1 dated 14.03.2006 executed by Sri Srivan shata Gopa Sri
Narayana Yateendra of Ahobila Mutt, Hyderabad through his GPA
holder P.Srinivasa Chary S/o. P.Narsimhachary. Schedule property
is as under:
Village Sy.No. Extent Per Acre Rate. Total Market Value
Mondigourelly 85/అ 9-08
99/ఉ 5-21 Rs.16,000/-
106/అ 1-04
109/అ 1-14 Rs.3,70,000/-
110/అ 2-06 Rs.26,000/-
89/అ 0-22
________________
Total Acs.19-35 gts
_________________
18.2. Ex.B2 is the Pattedar Passbook and Ex.B3 is the original
Title Deed of appellant No.1-defendant No.1.
18.3. Ex.B4 is the original letter issued by State Bank of India,
Baghlingampally, Hyderabad on 23.07.2018 to the appellant No.1-
defendant No.1 which states that his loan account bearing
No.36986099943 of Adibatla Branch has become NPA and they are
conducting Bank Adalath for resolution of the loan accounts. By
the date of Ex.B4, the total due to be paid by appellant No.1-
20/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
defendant No.1 to the Bank is Rs.2,54,345.3/- and the party to
appear on 31.07.2018 to settle the account.
18.4. Ex.B5 is the letter dated 23.07.2018 where under the
appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has another loan account vide
No.37203763312 of Adibatla Branch and Bank Adalath is
scheduled to be held on 31.07.2018. The amount due is
Rs.3,96,327.8/-.
18.5. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has got issued letter dated
29.07.2013 (Ex.B7) to the respondent-plaintiff cancelling the
Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012. It is stated in the letter that
he did not execute Settlement Deed on 12.03.2013 (Ex.A3) to
return the advance sale consideration as mentioned in the
agreement dated 01.10.2012 and that the amount is forfeited.
19. The evidence of appellant No.1-defendant No.1 is the replica
of his written statement. In his cross-examination he stated that
Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale was entered between him and the plaintiff
(respondent herein, herein after referred to as ‘plaintiff’) and he
obtained loan from State Bank of India, Adibatla Branch in
the year 2007 or 2008 and there is no reference of incurring loan
by him in Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale. He purchased the property
admeasuring Acs.09-30 guntas in Sy.No.85/A and 89/A another
lands in the year 2006 or 2007 from Ahobila Mutt and he do not
21/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
know that Ahobila Mutt is a Trust. Ex.A4 Publication was made in
the News Paper cautioning the public not to purchase the land
from him. Ex.A11-notice was issued to him and he received the
same, he gave reply to that effect. Three months thereafter
discussions between him and the plaintiff was held in the presence
of elders namely K.Manohar Reddy and others, it was decided in
the said meeting that he should return the advance amount of the
Agreement of Sale (Ex.A1) to the plaintiff and the same was
reduced into writing under Ex.A3. He did not return the said
advance amount to the plaintiff within the agreed period of six
months. Witness adds that he was not allowed by the plaintiff and
others to sell the land therefore he could not return the amount to
the plaintiff. After four months of Ex.A3, he issued Ex.A7-letter.
Ex.A9-FIR was registered against him and his sons and they were
tried in CC.No.320 of 2014 and convicted. Witness adds that they
filed Appeal Nos.191 and 192 of 2017 which is pending before the
V Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The contents of Ex.A7-letter are true and correct. Ex.B6-counter
foils relate to his loan account and he has four loan accounts in
the Bank. Ex.B6-counter foils do not show that the plaintiff has
paid the amount. DW.1 denied the suggestion that he issued
notice to K.Manohar Reddy only, he also denied the suggestion
that the amounts paid under Ex.B6-counter foils are not paid by
22/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
the plaintiff and that the documents filed by him are fabricated one
to avoid the payment to the plaintiff.
20.1. DW.2-P.Ganesh Reddy deposed that defendant No.1
(appellant No.1 herein) is the absolute owner of the property to an
extent of Acs.09-30 guntas in Sy.No.85/A and 89/A of
Mondigowrelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
and his father has entered into agreement with the plaintiff
(respondent herein) to sell the property. He did not enter into
agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property nor he
has received any advance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs. Property stands
in the name of defendant No.1 and it is not a Trust property. There
are no litigations pending against the suit property and he is not
connected with the same. The plaintiff with a malafide intention to
harass him has filed a complaint before IV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ibrahimpatnam under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and he
was in prison for 27 days, he was dragged into litigation though he
is no way concerned with the suit property.
20.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he knows that his
father has entered into transaction to sell the property and received
Rs.10 Lakhs from the respondent-plaintiff. Mediation was held in
the presence of K.Manohar Reddy and other elders and he was also
present in the meeting. Ex.A3-understanding deed bears his
signature. He do not know whether Rs.10 Lakhs was refunded to
23/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
Kotha Manohar Reddy as per Ex.A3 and he do not know whether
the plaintiff do not want to purchase the said land as it was found
to be a Trust property, after the suit was filed they got separated.
However, there is no partition deed between them. Ex.B1 is the
sale deed under which defendant No.1 has purchased the property
and he do not know that litigation is pending in the Courts. He
denied the suggestion that he acted as a party to Ex.A3, witness
volunteers that he signed as an attestor, also denied the suggestion
that his father did all the said transactions with their knowledge.
21.1. DW.3-P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, evidence is similar to that of
the evidence of DW.2, he further deposed that a false complaint is
lodged by the plaintiff (respondent herein) before IV Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 34 of
IPC and he was remanded to judicial custody, was in prison for
three days, he is unnecessarily dragged into the matter.
21.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he knows the
plaintiff since 2013, he also know that his father has entered into
transaction and received Rs.10 Lakhs. A meeting of mediators was
held in the presence of K.Manohar Reddy and other elders, he was
present at the meeting and Ex.A3-understanding deed bears his
signature. He signed as an attestor on it and he do not know
whether Rs.10 Lakhs was refunded to Kotha Manohar Reddy by
defendant No.1 as per Ex.A3. He do not know from whom the suit
24/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
schedule property is purchased by his father. After the suit is filed
their family members got separated. However, there is no partition
deed executed between them. He has seen the sale deed under
which his father has purchased the suit property. The property
purchased by his father is not the Trust property. He do not know
whether the land is in under litigation when plaintiff agreed to
purchase the same. He denied the suggestion that he signed on
Ex.A3 as a party to it and that all the defendants are jointly and
severally liable to return the amount to the plaintiff.
22. The respondent-plaintiff has got issued Ex.A11- legal notice
on 10.11.2012 i.e., within 40 days of Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale
dated 01.10.2012 stating that civil cases are pending before the
concerned Courts in respect of the agreement schedule property
and called upon appellant No.1-defenant No.1 to get no objection
letter or withdrawal of suit from the concerned Court then he is
ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Appellant No.1-
defendant No.1 has not done so and Ex.A3-Settlement Deed came
to be executed before the elders on 12.03.2013.
23. Entire case of the respondent-plaintiff is resting on Ex.A3-
Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013. Now, this Court has to see
whether Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 falls within the
ambit of novation of contract under Section 62 of the Indian
Contract Act.
25/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
24. It is apt to refer Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
which reads as under:
“62. Effect of novation, rescission and alteration of contract:-
If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new
contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original
contract, need not be performed”.
Illustrations
(a) A owes money to B under a contract. It is agreed
between A, B and C that B shall henceforth accept C as
his debtor, instead of A. The old debt of A to B is at an
end, and a new debt from C to B has been contracted.
(b) A owes B 10,000 rupees. A enters into an
arrangement with B and gives B a mortgage of his (A’s)
estate for 5,000 rupees in place of the debt of 10,000
rupees. This is a new contract and extinguishes the old.
(c) A owes B 1,000 rupees under a contract. B owes C
1,000 rupees B orders A to credit C with 1,000 rupees in
his books, but C does not assent to the arrangement. B
still owes C 1,000 rupees, and no new contract has been
entered into.
25. On perusal of the illustrations to Section 62 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, this Court understands that one of the
essential requirements of novation as contemplated by the above
said Section is that there should be complete substitution of a new
contract in place of the old, it is in that situation that the original
contract need not be performed. But if the terms of the two
contracts are inconsistent and they cannot stand together, the
subsequent contract cannot be said to be in substitution of the
26/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
earlier. Novation of contract comprises the elements of discharge of
one debt in substitution of a new debt. Substitution of a new
contract for the old one is in other words is the very essence of
novation and the parties concerned must consent to the same.
26. On close reading of Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013
which does not fit in the illustrations mentioned in Section 62 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It cannot be said that respondent-
plaintiff has rescissioned his contract with appellant No.1-
defendant No.1.
27. Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has admitted about the
receipt of Rs.10 Lakhs from the respondent-plaintiff and also about
the mediation held between the parties on 12.03.2013.
28. K.Manohar Reddy has only acted as a mediator to the
Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013. When there is a clear
admission of the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 about the amount
to be paid to K.Manohar Reddy and it cannot be said that
K.Manohar Reddy is receiving the amount in his individual
capacity. It is the respondent-plaintiff who has paid the amount
under Ex.A1- Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012, since the
appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has admitted about the receipt of
the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from the respondent-plaintiff, he is
liable to pay the same and the observation of the learned trial
27/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
Court in Para No.16 of the impugned judgment requires no
interference.
29. The other point raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants is that the suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of
necessary parties.
30. The Supreme Court in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan1 held at
Para Nos.17 and 19 as under:
17. This Court, in the case of Mumbai International Airport
Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels
Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417, has observed thus:
“15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to
have been joined as a party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a
“necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is
liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who,
though not a necessary party, is a person whose
presence would enable the court to completely,
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters
in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person
in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.
If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary
party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him,
against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a
person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit
property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff,
will not make such person a necessary party or a
proper party to the suit for specific performance.”
19. As already discussed hereinabove, the plaintiff himself has
admitted in the plaint that the suit property is jointly owned
28/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
by the defendant, his wife and three sons. A specific objection
was also taken by the defendant in his written statement with
regard to non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the suit
property was jointly owned by the defendant along with his
wife and three sons, an effective decree could not have been
passed affecting the rights of the defendant’s wife and three
sons without impleading them. Even in spite of the defendant
taking an objection in that regard, the plaintiff has chosen not
to implead the defendant’s wife and three sons as party
defendants. Insofar as the reliance placed by Shri Chitnis on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Kasturi Vs.
Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733 is concerned, the question
therein was as to whether a person who claims independent
title and possession adversely to the title of a vendor could be
a necessary party or not. In this context, this Court held thus:
“7. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are
to be satisfied for determining the question who is a
necessary party. Tests are” (1) there must be a right to
some relief against such party in respect of the
controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no
effective decree can be passed in the absence of such
party.”
31. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that if
the plaintiff has added K.Manohar Reddy as party to the
proceedings though no relief is sought against him, the suit would
have been bad for mis-joinder of party.
32. The twin test to be satisfied with regard to a necessary party
(1) That there must be a right to some relief against such party in
respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) No
29/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
effective decree can be passed in absence of such a party.
K.Manohar Reddy has acted only as a mediator/elder to Ex.A3-
Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013. The amount is paid by the
respondent-plaintiff to the appellant No.1-defendant No.1, when
there is a clear admission of receipt of the amount from
respondent-plaintiff by the appellant No.1- defendant No.1, adding
K.Manohar Reddy to the suit is not required and it cannot be said
that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder
of necessary party.
33. In sofaras the liability on defendant Nos.2 and 3 is
concerned, Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 is executed
in between the respondent-plaintiff with that of appellant No.1-
defendant No.1. As the Appellant No.1-defendant No.1 failed to
return the amount, a settlement is arrived before the elders under
Ex.A3 dated 12.03.2013.
34. On close reading of Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013
which specifically states that all the parties i.e., appellants have
agreed to pay the amounts. It is apt to note here that witnesses
have signed on the left side and the appellants have signed on the
right side. Ex.A3 speaks for itself that the appellants have
undertaken to pay the amount to K.Manohar Reddy who acted as
elder between the parties. Though there is an admission from the
respondent-plaintiff and PW.2 that they acted as a witness but the
30/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
document speaks otherwise. This Court is of the view that the
appellants-defendants have agreed to pay the amount in
pursuance of the Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 (Ex.A3).
35. It cannot be said that appellant Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2
and 3 are unnecessarily added as parties to the suit. If really the
appellant Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2 and 3 have acted as
witnesses to Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013, they ought
to have signed on the left side by giving the appropriate serial
number. But Ex.A3 shows that it was signed on the right side after
the signature of the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 by giving serial
Nos.1 to 3. This Court is of the view that the respondent-plaintiff
has rightly added appellant Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.2 and 3 in
the suit in pursuance of Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013.
Though the learned trial Court has not framed any issue about the
non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties, but has answered the
same in Para Nos.15 and 16 of the Judgment. Hence, the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the suit is not
maintainable in view of nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary
parties is negative in view of the reasons above.
36. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Moreshar
Yadaorao are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and
the ratio of the above said decision would not apply to the case on
hand.
31/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
37. In Madan Lal Sobti, the Delhi High Court held that “The
consideration is the forbearance to sue itself and, thus, it cannot
be said that the subsequent execution of security by the petitioner
is without consideration”.
38. Sections 126 and 127 of the Indian Contract Act do not help
the appellant’s case and the principles laid down in Madan Lal
Sobti2 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and
the ratio of the above said decision would not apply to the case on
hand.
39. Bajranglal Agrawal deals with rejection of plaint and the
cause of action in filing the suit.
40.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the
learned trial Court gave an incorrect finding of facts with respect to
pendency of litigations and with regard to existence of loan over the
suit schedule property.
40.2. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the appellant
No.1-defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of land
admeasuring Acs.09-30 guntas in Sy.No.85/A and 89/A situated
at Mondigowrelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
who has offered to sell the same for a total sale consideration of
Rs.63 Lakhs and entered into Agreement of Sale under Ex.A1 on
01.10.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs towards advance
32/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
sale consideration, to that effect Ex.A2-receipt is executed by
appellant No.1-defendant No.1. As per Clause 8 of Ex.A1,
appellant No.1-defendant No.1 declared that the schedule property
is not subject to earlier Agreement of Sale and there is no equitable
mortgage by deposit of title deeds and as per Clause 9 of Ex.A1,
the subject property is not hypothecated to Financial Institution or
institution including Banks, Corporation, Society, Local
Authorities. Respondent-plaintiff having coming to know about the
title dispute over the suit schedule property has got issued a legal
notice to the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 under Ex.A11 dated
10.11.2012 for which appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has got
issued a reply on 22.11.2012. Ex.B4 is the letter got issued by the
State Bank of India, Baghlingampally Branch dated 23.07.2018
wherein the appellant No.1-defendant No.1 is liable to pay an
amount of Rs.2,54,345.3 towards loan account, Ex.B5 is also the
similar letter of appellant No.1-defendant No.1 dated 23.07.2018 of
different loan accounts wherein he is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.3,96,327.8/- and he was called upon to attend Bank Adalath.
40.3. Though Exs.B4 and B5 are issued after Ex.A1-Agreement of
Sale dated 01.10.2012 there is no clarity whether the schedule
property is mortgaged with the Bank. Ex.A4 is the paper
publication dated 26.04.2013 which shows that some disputes are
pending with regard to property covered under Sy.Nos.10, 25, 99,
33/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
106, 109, 110, 119,120 total land admeasuring Acs.37.34 guntas
with that of land in Sy.No.85/A and 89/A. As stated supra, Ex.A4-
paper publication consists of two advertisements with regard to the
suit schedule property. Exchange of notices between the parties
coupled with Ex.A4 goes to show that the respondent-plaintiff
sensed that there is a litigation in respect of the property
purchased by him which caused him to issue legal notice under
Ex.A11 on 10.11.2012 i.e., after 14 to 15 days of execution of
Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012. Appellant No.1-
defendant No.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has
four loan accounts and Ex.B6 are the counter foils relating to the
same. The document speaks for itself that the schedule property is
in dispute. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are
negative in view of the reasons stated above.
41. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the
evidence produced by the respondent-plaintiff is hearsay and
barred by Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act with that of
Section 101 and Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC is also negative in view of
the facts mentioned above.
42. Another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants is that appellants-defendants have challenged the
conviction in CC.No.320 of 2014 dated 27.01.2017 (Ex.A13) by
filing an Appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2017 before the
34/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar and the appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.12.2021
was pleased to acquit the appellants-defendants for the offence
under Section 420 of IPC. It is settled law that findings of the
criminal Court do not bind on Civil Courts. The learned trial Court
has observed in Para No.18 of the judgment that “it is well settled
in law that an accused is presumed to be innocent until the guilt is
proved against him and therefore in view of the aforesaid
conviction, the said initial presumption of innocence of the
defendants in both the said criminal cases does not exist.
However, it is not true that in view of the pendency of the said
criminal appeals their conviction cannot be held as to have
attained finality”.
43. Acquittal of the appellants-defendants in the criminal appeal
No.192 of 2017 will not help their case in any manner.
44. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the
learned trial Court has granted interest from 12.02.2013 without
any basis or reasoning, the liability of the payment would arise as
per Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 wherein the
condition is that the amount to be paid on or before 12.09.2013.
Therefore, appellant No.1-defendant No.1 has time till 12.09.2013
to pay Rs.10 Lakhs, delay in payment would arise from 12.09.2013
and interest if any should have been calculated from the above said
35/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
date but not from 12.03.2013 which is the date of execution, the
trial Court erred in granting interest @ 12% per annum before
filing the suit and further 12% interest was granted from the date
of filing the suit till the date of realization. Senior counsel placed
reliance on Section 2(b) and Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978
with that of Section 34 of CPC, 1908.
45. In Associated Swich Gear and Projects Limited3, the High
Court of Delhi observed in Para Nos.5 and 6 as under:
“5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while the impugned
judgment of the trial court is sustained, the rate of interest is
modified and reduced by granting 6% per annum simple from
the date of the notice served by the respondent/plaintiff on the
appellant/defendant being 20.01.1998 and thereafter till
realization.
6. Therefore, this appeal is allowed to the limited extent and
the suit of the respondent/plaintiff will be decreed for a sum of
Rs. 3,45,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum simple
from 20.01.1998 till the filing of the suit and the same rate of
interest of 6% per annum simple pendente lite and future till
deposit of the principal amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- in this
Court”.
46. Ex.A3-Settlement Deed dated 12.03.2013 does not specify
any rate of interest to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff while
paying the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs on or before 12.09.2013.
47. Respondent-plaintiff in the plaint has claimed interest @
24% per annum on Rs.10 Lakhs principal plus Rs.4,60,000/-
36/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
interest. The interest awarded by the learned trial Court @ 12% per
annum from the date of Ex.A3 dated 12.03.2013 is exorbitant and
on higher side.
48. In Associated Swich Gear and Projects Limited, the High
Court of Delhi observed that granting interest should be
reasonable. The rate of interest awarded by the learned trial Court
is 12% per annum from 12.03.2013 till the date of filing the suit
and thereafter with future interest on the principal sum so
adjudged @ 12% per annum till the date of its realization is
modified and the interest rate is reduced at 6% per annum from
the date of Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012 till the date
of filing the suit and 6% per annum pendente lite till realization of
the amount. To the above said extent the judgment of the learned
trial Court is modified.
49. Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the
learned XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar in OS.No.1038 of 2014 dated 24.09.2021 is sustained
and the rate of interest is modified and reduced by granting 6% per
annum from the date of Ex.A1-Agreement of Sale dated 01.10.2012
till the date of filing the suit and 6% per annum pendente lite till
the realization of the amount without costs.
37/37 BRMR,J
AS.No.276_2021
Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
6th March, 2026
PLV
[ad_1]
Source link
