Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1268
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA, J.
Ghanta Ranga Rao - Appellant
Vs.
Mukka Venkata Krishna Reddy - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 366 of 2019
Decided On : 07-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V Hari Haran
For the Respondent: B. Narasimhulu
The court held that an agreement of sale can be enforceable without witness testimony where complete payment and possession are established.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections relevant for specific performance of contract - The trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance due to non-examination of a witness for the agreement of sale. The appellant argued that the agreement, being non-compulsorily attestable, was valid despite lack of such testimony. (Paras 6, 10, 14)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 67, 68, and 69 - Interpretation - The dismissal of the suit was based on an erroneous interpretation implying a witness's necessity for validity. The court recognized that an agreement's validity can exist without witnesses when no counter-evidence is provided by the opposing party. (Paras 9, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement for a property in Medak District, claiming full payment and possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit citing lack of witness for the agreement of sale, despite no opposition from the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The agreement was not proven due to failing to demonstrate ownership clarity and the relationship of co-ownerships, although the dismissal rationale was flawed since the agreement was not a compulsorily attestable document requiring witness testimony.
Issues: The primary question was whether a witness was necessary for the enforceability of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that an agreement can be valid without witness testimony if other forms of proof exist, and the trial Court misinterpreted the requirements for validating the suit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the specific performance suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments addressing the necessity of witness for agreement validation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. clarity required in ownership for agreements. (Para 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 4. evaluation of suspicious elements in undated cheques. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. the appeal’s dismissal due to lack of merit. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
RENUKA YARA, J.
1. Heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.30 of 2018 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, wherein the Suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.10.2017, was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.10.2017 and for perpetual injunction against the respondent with respect to suit schedule property consisting of land admeasuring Acs.5.12 ½ guntas out of total extent of dry agricultural land admeasuring Acs.17.37 ½ guntas in Sy.Nos.1750 and 1751/2 situated at Pothireddipeta Village of Dubbak Mandal, Medak District. The respondent/defendant and three others have jointly purchased the land to an extent of Acs.5.12½ guntas out of total extent of Acs.17.37½ guntas in Sy.Nos.1750 and 1751/2 situated at Pothireddipeta Village of Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District under a registered sale deed document No.271/2008, dated 26.03.2008. The respondent offered to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and executed an agreement of sale dated 13.10.2017. The appellant paid total consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent and the same is acknowledged. Further, the respondent delivered physical vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the appellant and delivered registered sale deed No.271 of 2008 dated 26.03.2008. The respondent also issued four undated cheques bearing Nos.000029, 000030, 000031 and 000032 for Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively and also executed four undated promissory notes for the aforesaid amounts in favour of the appellant towards security enabling the appellant to hold the same till the date of registration of sale deed. The respondent has to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant within 60 days, however, postponed the same. In the circumstances, the appellant got issued legal notice dated 19.05.2018 demanding the respondent to execute registered sale deed but there was no reply from the respondent. The appellant learnt that the respondent is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties by suppressing agreement of sale. Hence, the appellant filed the suit for specific performance.
4. The respondent remained ex parte before the trial Court.
5. The appellant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.
6. The trial Court upon examining the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit on the ground that Ex.A1-agreement of sale is not proven, as the witness to the agreement of sale is not examined. It is held that mere marking of the document is not sufficient but the contents are to be proven. According to the trial Court since the entire sale consideration is paid and possession is delivered, the document becomes a compulsorily attestable document and to prove such a document, witness has to be examined. Therefore, the trial Court entertained doubt about legality and enforceability of the agreement of sale dated 13.10.2017. It is held that the remaining documents i.e. Ex.A2 original registered sale deed document No.271/2008, dated 24.03.2008, Ex.A3-original encumbrance certificate, dated 13.06.2018, Ex.A4-original undated cheques, Ex.A5-original undated promissory notes, Ex.A6-office copy of legal notice dated 1
