The court ruled that a specific performance claim requires the existence of valid foundational documents, particularly when minors are involved in property transactions, necessitating a retrial to properly evaluate evidence.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in OS No.1139 of 2007, dated 05.10.2018.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit.

3.1. Appellant-plaintiff has initially filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 26.07.2006 under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. The prayer in the suit and the schedule is as under:

“Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for performance of contractual obligation under the agreement of sale dated 26.07.2006 by directing the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the schedule of property by putting the plaintiff into actual physical possession of the Schedule of property or in the event if the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the concerned Sub-Registrar to register the schedule of property in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of the schedule of property in the interest of justice: (OR) in the event, if it is not possible to pass a decree for the entire schedule of property, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree against the defendant No.1 by directing her to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff towards her exclusive share of 30.5% which comes to 157.25 Sq. yards out of total schedule of property admeasuring 314.15 Sq. yards in the interest of justice.

B) Award the costs of the suit.

C) and pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

D) and also to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the said sale deed dated 08.04.2011 vide registered document No.1346 of 2011 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is sham one and null and void and not binding on the plaintiff”.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that open land in Plot Nos.65 & 66 (part) in Survey No.36/2 and 30/4-2 admeasuring 314.15 Sq.yards, i.e., 61% share out of total admeasuring 515 Sq.yards situated at Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, R.R. Dist., and bounded by:

North : 30' Road

South : Plot No.55 & Part of Plot No.66

East : Remaining portion of Plot No.65 & 66 in possession of the plaintiff/Plot No.100

West : Plot No.65 (part)

3.2. It is stated in the original plaint that late N.Balaji is his brother and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is the wife of late Balaji. Balaji died on 05.10.2003 leaving behind defendant No.1 and her children i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 5 as his sole legal heirs (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein). During the life time of N.Balaji, plaintiff along with defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) had purchased open land bearing plot Nos.65 and 66 (Part) in survey No.36/2 and 30/4-2 admeasuring 515 Sq.yards through a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1998 vide document No.187 of 1998. As per the recitals of the sale deed appellant-plaintiff is having 39% share and respondent No.1- defendant No.1 and her husband Balaji are having 61% share. After the death of N.Balaji, defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) have become the owners of the share of N.Balaji (30.5%). After the death of N.Balaji, appellant-plaintiff and respondent No.1-defendant No.1 have orally partitioned the property, as per the oral partition the Eastern side portion i.e., from North to South was allotted to the app