IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the decree for specific performance, emphasizing the validity of the agreement despite the defendant's denial and failure to provide evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.SURENDER

1. This Appeal Suit is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.722 of 2006 dated 23.11.2010 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein and whereby the suit filed by the defendant/plaintiff is decreed.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the trial Court. Suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit before the trial Court.

4. According to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant executed agreement of sale ExA1 dated 05.03.2005 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.1.11 gts in Sy.No.344/AA, land admeasuring 0.30 gts in Sy.No.349/A, totally admeasuring Acs.2.33 gts of Maheshwaram Mandal. The defendant agreed to sell the scheduled property at Rs.8,50,000/- per acre and the total consideration amount was arrived at 24,01,250/-.

5. Exs.A2 and A3 dated 05.03.2005 and 05.06.2005 were executed by the defendant and cheques were also issued which were encashed by the defendant. Ex.A4 is the original Bank statement filed by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff appealed to the defendant to get the land surveyed and receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,01,250/-,the defendant postponed the registration.

6. The plaintiff issued legal notice and the office copy of which is marked as Ex.A6. Since the defendant failed to respond to register the land, suit for specific performance of agreement dated 05.03.2005 was filed and also seeking delivery of possession of the schedule property.

7. Learned trial Judge, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,01,250/- within 30 days from the date of judgment and on failure by the defendant to register the property by executing regular sale deed, the plaintiff was at liberty to approach the Court to execute through the process of the Court.

8. Sri P.N.Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would submit that in the written statement filed by the defendant, there is total denial of execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale. Learned Senior Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of witnesses and argued that the respondent/plaintiff in his evidence admitted that Ex.A1 was in the process of a partnership deed for development of the property between the plaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff admitted that P.Ws.2 to 4 had contributed the amounts towards the suit land for development, as such, the question of maintaining suit for specific performance does not arise.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that when Ex.A1 agreement of sale could not be established, the trial Court erred in granting decree for specific performance. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.N.krishnamurthy (since deceased) through LRs. V. A.M Krishnamurthy AIR OnLine 2022 SC 998 and referred to paras 33 to 38. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Ayillyath Yadunath Nambiar v. P.Sreedharan AIR 2022 SC 3884 and relied on para 9 of the judgment.

10. Learned counsel further argued that the specific case of the defendant is that extent of the property is Acs.2.33 guntas. However, it was admitted during examination of witnesses that the extent is Acs.2.32 guntas. When the evidence relied on was contrary to indicate that the property to an extent of Acs.2.32 guntas and the claim was to an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas, the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the property was family property and since the defendant had suffered a decree filed by the family members, granting decree for specific performance is incorrect and has to be set aside. He relied on the following judgments; i) Pemmada Prabhakar v. Youngmen’s Vysya Assoc