SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1210

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
Sri Mirza Ahmed Baig - Appellant 
Versus
Sri Pavushetty Srinivas – Respondent
A.S.No.75 Of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig.

The court determined that agreements must be properly evaluated concerning repayment obligations and limitations, recognizing the creditor's rights while ensuring due legal process is followed.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 - Specific Relief Act - Sections 36 and 38 - Suit for specific performance of agreement and refund of loan - Plaintiff sought registration of property or repayment of loan amount Rs.23,70,333/-; defendant contended ownership of property and claimed suit as frivolous - Trial Court decreed payment of Rs.17,14,667/- with interest, rejecting specific performance - Appeal raised issues on trial court's findings and limitation. (Paras 2, 4, 22, 24)

(B) Limitation - Suit instituted beyond the prescribed period must be dismissed, but can be raised at appeal if grounds clear - Court clarified limitation issues can be adjudicated even if raised late. (Paras 20, 25)

(C) Evidence - Plaintiff proved loan agreement, while defendant's denial lacked substantiation - Reliance on agreement's terms for loan repayment was emphasized, with decisions based on presented evidence. (Paras 8, 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
This appeal concerns a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- advanced by the respondent to the appellant for house construction with a failed obligation for repayment by the defendant, leading to litigation after legal notices were exchanged.

Findings of Court:
The court directed remand to trial court for reassessment and proper adjudication of issues, especially regarding the calculations for the decreed amount.

Issues: The main issues include the validity of the agreement, entitlement to specific performance, and whether the suit is time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the trial court's error in failing to fully evaluate the limitation and evidence concerning the calculation of the awarded amount and directed a proper remand.

Result: Appeal allowed; matter remanded to trial court for fresh proceedings.

Table of Content
1. appeal against previous court's judgment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendant's claims and contentions. (Para 4)
3. trial court's issues and evidence presented. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. trial court's decree on loan repayment. (Para 8 , 12)
5. court's observations on trial procedure and limitation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. discussion on limitation and legal principles. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
7. conclusion on appeal ruling. (Para 28)

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.157 of 2015, dated 23.10.2019 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

2. The respondent-plaintiff has filed suit under Section 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 and under Sections 36 and 38 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT against the appellant-defendant with a prayer to direct the defendant to register the suit schedule property in his favour (respondent-plaintiff), in alternative the defendant (appellant herein) is directed to repay the amount of Rs.23,70,333/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Three Hundred and Thirty Three only) and to award costs of the suit.

3.1. Respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant are residing in Parkal Town and they are known to each other. Appellant-defendant approached the respondent-plaintiff on 09.04.2010 with a request to lend Rs.10,00,000/- stating that he wants to construct a house in the Plot purchased by him and he deposited his Deed of Agreement of Sale, dated 11.11.2009 with the respondent-plaintiff and promised to pay interest @ 2% per month on the loan amount and he will clear the same by 31.03.2013. Appellant-defendant undertook that in case of his inability in making the repayment of the loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- before 31.03.2013 with interest @ 2% which will be treated as the value of the house constructed. As per the recitals of the agreement, dated 09.04.2010, the appellant-defendant has to register the house property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff has paid the above said amount to the appellant- defendant in the presence of the witnesses. Appellant-defendant has obtained loan for construction of the house in the Plot purchased by him and got the Grampanchayath assessment number as 5-183/1/C.

3.2. Since more than 2 years and 8 months the appellant-defendant has not come forward to settle the issue and that the respondent- plaintiff is not a money lender, he made several requests to the appellant-defendant to repay his money back with interest but he did not care. Finally, the respondent-plaintiff got issued legal notice on 03.12.2015 calling the appellant-defendant to perform his part of contract either to pay the money or to get the house property and Plot register in his name within one week from the date of receipt of the notice. Appellant-defendant received the notice on 07.12.2015 and he got issued reply notice on 10.12.2015 with false allegations. The amount payable by the appellant-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff is as follows:

Agreement note date 09.04.2010 amountRs.10,00,000/ -
Interest @ 2% per month from 09.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 i.e., (68 months and 11 days)Rs.13,67,333/ -
Legal notice chargesRs.3,000/ -
TotalRs.23,70,333/ -

and prayed to decree the suit.

4. Appellant-defendant has filed his written statement and contended that he is the absolute owner, possessor of the suit property by virtue of Agreement of Sale executed in his favour by its erstwhile owner on 11.11.2009. Thereafter, he got the same mutated in the records of Nagar Panchayathi Parkal and the house stands in his name in the records, got constructed the house in the said Plot with his hard earned money and residing therein peacefully and enjoying the fruits of the property. Respondent-plaintiff is unauthroised money lender in Parkal and he is involving innocent people after developing relationship with them as money lender, obtaining their signatures of innocent p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top