The court ruled that the alleged transaction was a loan, not a sale agreement, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property upon repayment.

JUDGMENT :

G. Radha Rani, J.

A.S.No.105 of 2020 is filed by the appellant - defendant aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.9 of 2013 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.13.00 lakhs within one month and on such deposit, the appellant shall hand over the possession of the property.

2. A.S.No.107 of 2020 is filed by the appellant - plaintiff aggrieved by the same common judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2011 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, in dismissing the suit filed by him for specific performance of agreement of sale and perpetual injunction.

3. The facts of the case filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) in O.S.No.9 of 2013 (old O.S.No.167 of 2010) were that the defendant (appellant herein) was none other than his elder brother. The plaintiff was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.9-10 guntas in Survey No.132/AA situated at Ramalingampally Village, Bommala Ramaram Mandal, Nalgonda District. He purchased the said property vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3334 of 1999 from his vendors for a consideration of Rs.1,38,800/-. Subsequently, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiff also obtained pattadar passbook from the revenue officials. The defendant i.e. his elder brother also purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.9-00 guntas adjacent to the plaintiff's land from the same vendors. The defendant was doing contract works and was financially sound when compared to the other brothers. The plaintiff was doing wholesale rice and pulses business. He was having a wholesale shop situated opposite to Andhra Bank, Seethaphalmandi Branch, Secunderabad. While so, the plaintiff intended to purchase a house at West Maredpally, Secunderabad and asked the defendant for financial help of Rs.13.00 lakhs. The defendant agreed to pay the same and gave the amounts periodically on various dates. The payments made to the plaintiff were written on a piece of paper by the defendant and the plaintiff endorsed the said payments. Except the payment endorsement, there was nothing written on the said paper. The original paper was kept with the defendant. After all the amounts were paid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff insisted for a copy of the said paper. But the defendant stated that there was no need to keep a copy with the plaintiff. The plaintiff believed his brother. The payments were made as follows An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid on 12.08.2004, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on 20.09.2004, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid on 02.10.2004, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the defendant on 27.12.2004. The total would come to Rs.13,00,000/-. But in the legal notice dated 31.06.2009, it was mentioned as Rs.11,00,000/- by mistake. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendant mutually agreed that the re-payment would be made by the plaintiff without interest and that the plaintiff should re-pay the same whenever demanded by the defendant or whenever the plaintiff was having money. The defendant agreed to receive the yield from the agricultural produce of the land and adjust the same towards interest of the amount. Since then, the defendant was taking the yield from out of the said land. The defendant as a security to the said amount asked the plaintiff to keep the original sale deed (title deed) and also the original pattadar passbooks of the said property with him. The plaintiff agreed for the same and kept the original sale deed bearing registered No.3334 of 1999 dated 30.07.1999 with the defendant on 12.08.2004 and the original pattadar passbooks. The plaintiff had handed over the physical possession of the said property to the defendant on 27.12.2004. Since then, the defendant was cultivating the said land and receiving the yield. The pla