Point of law: merely because Ex. P1-agreements of sale dated 21.11.2016 were prepared on stamp papers purchased in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, they cannot be held to be invalid in law because there is only a slight defect as to the form of, stamp, which is capable of being cured, by paying the requisite stamp duty as per Section 37 read with Rule 18 of the Rules, as applicable in the State of Telangana and a prima facie bona fide claim under the said agreements of sale, cannot be defeated by such a plea.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri V. Hariharan, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri M.V.S. Sridhar, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 4, Sri A. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. Rachana S. Waddepalli, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. The issues raised in both the appeals are interconnected, the respondents are one and the same and the appellant in CMA No. 188 of 2020 is the father of the appellant in CMA No. 189 of 2020. Also the evidence adduced in the Trial Court is almost identical. Therefore these CMAs are being disposed off by this common order.

The background facts

3. The 1st respondent is a Private Limited Company. Respondents 2 to 4 are its Directors. The 4th respondent is the daughter of the 3rd respondent and respondents 2 to 4 are related to each other.

4. The 1st respondent Company is engaged in real estate business.

5. The appellants filed the said suits on 10.5.2018 before the Civil Vacation Judge, Mahboobnagar during the summer vacation of May, 2018 for specific performance of agreements for sale dated 21.11.2016 and alternatively for damages of Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 80,00,000/- respectively. They were later transferred to the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar and numbered as OS No. 38 of 2018 and OS No. 39 of 2018.

6. Thus the appellants are plaintiffs in OS No. 38 of 2018 and OS No. 39 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar.

The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in the suits

7. In the suits, the appellants contended that the two agreements dated 21.11.2016 (both marked as Ex. P1 in IA No. 255 of 2019 in OS No. 38 of 2018 and also in IA No. 256 of 2019 in OS No. 39 of 2018), one in favour of the appellant in CMA No. 188 of 2020 and the other in favour of the appellant in CMA No. 189 of 2020, were executed for sale of a number of plots mentioned in the respective schedules to the plaints in Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District (previously Mahboobnagar District); the vendee in these agreements of sale was the 1st respondent Company represented by its Managing Director, the 2nd respondent; that prior to entering into the sale agreements, respondents 1 and 2 informed the appellants that the plots, which were subject-matter of the said agreements, were having approved layout issued by the competent authority; that the consideration for the purchase of plots in favour of the appellant in CMA No. 188 of 2020 was Rs. 80,31,600/-, of which Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent on 21.11.2016 at Hyderabad towards earnest money and advance out of the total agreed sale consideration; that the total agreed sale consideration for the plots which were subject-matter of the agreement in favour of the appellant in CMA No. 189 of 2020 is Rs. 33,87,200/- and the appellant therein had paid Rs. 10,00,000/- to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent on 21.11.2016 at Hyderabad towards earnest money and advance out of the total agreed sale consideration; that the balance of sale consideration under the said agreements was to be paid by the respective appellants to the 1st respondent by March, 2018 and sale deeds were to be got executed and registered in their favour or in favour of their nominees.

8. They alleged that though they offered to pay the balance sale consideration, the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent informed that certain development work was in progress and as soon as the same is completed, the agreements would be honoured; and that in January, 2018, the 2nd respondent informed the appellants that he was having certain disputes with respondents 3 and 4 and he had resigned from the 1st respondent Company, but assured that he would pursue the matter with respondents 3 and 4 and see that the suit agreements of sale were honoured.

9. The appellants contended that they are not con