A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Srinivasa Builders – Appellant
Versus
A. Janga Reddy – Respondent
1. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in OS No.94 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobnagar. The said suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of 30 plots in an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., in the layout plan in Survey Nos.13, 14 and 15, situated at Kalwakurthy town.
2. The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3. The fifth defendant filed a separate written statement.
3. During the course of evidence, Exs.A1 and A2 we re marked by PW.1 apart from other Exs.A3 to A28 on 15.10.2014. Ex.A1 was the agreement of sale dated 19.05.1999 and Ex.A2 was the agreement of sale dated 25.06.1999.
4. The defendants in the suit filed IA No.27 of 2015 in the said suit to de-exhibit the said Exs.A1 and A2 and collect proper stamp duty and penalty stating that in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 it was specifically stated that the said two agreements were not properly stamped as there was a recital in the said agreements that the possession of property was delivered to the plaintiff and thus, they are inadmissible in evidence. However, when the Court directed the of
Boggavarapu Narasimhulu v. Sriram Ramanaiah (2014 (1) ALT 577) – Relied.
C. Prithvi Raj Reddy v. M/s GPR Housing Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its M.D.
G. Sukender Reddy v. M. Pullaiah (2015(3) ALT 575) – Relied.
Isra Fatima v. Bismillah Begum
S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) 5 SCC 401) – Referred.
Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar Agarwal (2006) 11 SCC 331 – Referred.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.