Boyenepally Srijayavardhan VS V. Nirupama Reddy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, M. G. PRIYADARSINI
Boyenepally Srijayavardhan – Appellant
Versus
V. Nirupama Reddy – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Nizampur Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The Appeal arises out of an order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.162 of 2024 in O.S.No.414 of 2023.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent Nos.1-5/defendant Nos.2-6 (I.A.No.162 of 2024) for rejection of plaint in the Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff (O.S.No.414 of 2023).

3. The Trial Court was of the view that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaint lacked pleadings as to the maintainability of the relief for directing the defendant Nos.2-6 (the respondent Nos.1-5 in the first Appeal) to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court was also of the view that there was no pleading for justifying specific performance of Agreement of Sale.

4. The relevant facts pleaded by the parties and the views of the Trial Court will be discussed in the later part of this judgment.

5. The appellant filed the Suit against the respondents/defendants for a direction on the defendant Nos.1- 7 to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff or h