The plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish the existence of a valid agreement, failing which claims for specific performance will be dismissed, as per evidentiary standards.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree in OS.No.394 of 2015, dated 12.10.2022 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.394 of 2015.

3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 25.08.2014 and the alternate prayer is to direct the appellant-defendant to refund the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of realization and to pay Rs.2 Lakhs towards compensation for the mental agony.

3.2. It is stated in the plaint that the appellant-defendant is the owner and possessor of Flat bearing No.402, Poornima Mansion with Municipal bearing No.1-9-295/32/5/A, Vidya Nagar Hyderabad, consisting of 830 square feets area along with car parking. Appellant-defendant has offered to sell the property to the respondent-plaintiff for an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs and Agreement of Sale is executed on 25.08.2014. Respondent-plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs towards part sale consideration on the date of Agreement of Sale. Appellant- defendant has informed the respondent-plaintiff that the property was mortgaged to one smt.Madhavi and on releasing the same she will execute the sale deed in favour of a respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff has approached the appellant-defendant on three occasions but she has postponed the same. Thereafter, he has got issued a legal notice on 24.10.2014 calling the appellant- defendant to come forward to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration within 7 days of receipt of the notice. As she failed to come forward, he filed the suit for specific performance of contract in alternate to refund the advanced amount of Rs.10 Lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum and also claimed compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs.

4. Appellant-defendant filed written statement and contended that Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2014 is created for the purpose of the suit and she never entered into agreement with the respondent-plaintiff and there is no part payment made by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant. One M.Krishna Reddy and the respondent-plaintiff are doing money lending business and running Private Chits, the appellant-defendant is one of the subscriber of the said Chits and during the said transaction, M.Krishna Reddy and the respondent-plaintiff have obtained blank signatures of the appellant-defendant on non-judicial stamp papers and also on pro-notes, cheques, white papers towards security of the money transaction. There was exchange of notices between the parties. In the year 2014, the market value of the suit property is more than Rs.40 Lakhs. Therefore, the execution of Agreement of Sale for an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs on 25.08.2014 is not reasonable and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25.08.2014 against the defendant as prayed for?

2. Whether the suit agreement was falsely created by the plaintiff by obtaining the signatures of the defendant on non-judicial stamp papers and white papers in connection with chit transaction?

3. Whether the suit property was undervalued and the Court fee is insufficient?

4. To what relief?

6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Exs.B1 and B2 are marked in the cross of PW.1. Appellant-defendant is examined as DW.1, got marked Exs.B3 to B6.

7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract and decreed the s