B. Narasimha Reddy VS T. Seshikanth Reddy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
B. Narasimha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
T. Seshikanth Reddy – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The Appeal Suit arises out of a judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in a Suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for specific performance.

2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs sought for a direction on the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.3 and the appellant herein respectively) to execute a registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 after receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs in terms of an Agreement of Sale dated 22.03.2006.

3. The Trial Court decreed the Suit by the impugned judgment and directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration within 45 days from the date of the judgment and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants were given the liberty to withdraw the amount of the balance sale consideration deposited before the Court. The impugned judgment further provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to execute the Sale Deed through the process of the Court and be put in vacant posses