Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1191
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
V.Shyam – Appellant
Versus
B.Raj Kumar – Respondent
City Civil Court Appeal No. 306 of 2019
Decided On : 10-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S R SANJEEV KUMAR
For the Respondent: CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the authenticity and execution of the sale agreement, leading to the dismissal of his claim for specific performance.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Agreement of sale - Plaintiff claims specific performance of an agreement dated 06.06.2011. However, the document's authenticity was disputed, with evidence indicating it was not proved - The trial Court dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal - The plaintiff's admissions raised doubts about the agreement's credibility and the evidence did not support his claims. (Paras 3, 8, 13, 15)
(B) Expert evidence - The plaintiff failed to obtain necessary expert analysis on the agreement, despite the defendant's willingness for examination of signatures - The plaintiff's failure to prove his case led to dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff alleges the defendant agreed to sell property for Rs.20,51,000/-; plaintiff paid Rs.20,00,000/- and sought registration but was denied. Defendant claimed the agreement was fictitious and never executed. Legal notice sent but ignored.
Findings of Court:
The agreement dated 06.06.2011 was not proven, leading to the dismissal of the suit and appeal.
Issues: Whether the agreement was valid? Whether specific performance can be granted? Whether trial Court’s judgment is sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to prove the agreement's validity; the document was viewed with suspicion; plaintiff failed to provide necessary evidence to support claims or to disprove the defendant's arguments.
Result: Appeal dismissed, trial Court's judgment upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims and defendant's counterclaims (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court issues and proceedings (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. appellant's arguments (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. respondent's arguments (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's analysis and conclusions (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. final order (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.87 of 2014 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “the trial Court”).
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of suit schedule property and that he agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.20,51,000/- out of which Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to the defendant in cash on the date of agreement of sale i.e. 06.06.2011 and the defendant has also handed over the original title deed of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It was agreed upon that the sale deed should be registered by the defendant as and when the plaintiff intends and that the plaintiff has been requesting the defendant to register the property in his favour by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.51,000/- but the defendant dodged away the matter and has not come forward to register the sale deed. He has also issued a legal notice dated 24.05.2014, inspite of which the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is further alleged that the agreement is a fictitious document which was not executed by the defendant at any time and that he never received any sale consideration and never negotiated with the defendant at any point of time. It is put forth by the defendant that the plaintiff was working in M/s.Rama Krishna Trading Company during the life time of late Sri B.Jagadeeshwaraiah, who took undue advantage of the faith and trust reposed by the defendant and other family members, has laid his hand over the property documents duly signed the blank stamp papers, cheques etc., and with a criminal intent, he has put the documents to his gain. He has also stolen the property documents of the sister-in-law of the defendant pertaining to Flat No.F-2, in Sai Enclave, bearing No.21-332 & 21-67/4/2, constructed on plot Nos.15 and 16 in Chittaraiah Colony, Venkatapuram, Ranga Reddy District and illegally grabbed it and is living therein and has also created a false document by contending that there is a purported loan transaction where under he is entitled to live in the said premises without rent and has also filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. It is his further case that his sister-in-law Sunitha has filed a suit for recovery of possession against the plaintiff vide O.S.No.1529 of 2013 and has also filed a transfer O.P.No.935 of 2013 which are pending adjudication. It is further contended that the plaintiff got filed a speculative suit with a view to grab the suit schedule property for no consideration by using fabricated document.
5. The defendant has also filed an additional written statement contending that the plaintiff has submitted an application dated 08.10.2012 to the Inspector of Police, Mahankali Police Station questioning about the action taken by the police against his complaint dated 05.09.2010 and that the police have issued a reply dated 27.10.2012 to the plaintiff stating that the investigation made by Sub-Inspector of Police revealed that the alleged dispute is of a civil nature and as such, no action was initiated.
6. The case of the defendant is that on 08.05.2007 he lost his origina
