IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Thaslima Azeem – Appellant
Versus
Mekala Ram Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the agreement and litigation (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants seek to dismiss the suit (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. plaintiffs argue against trial court's findings (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. legal principles regarding plaint rejection (Para 10 , 15 , 24 , 36) |
| 5. case facts regarding mortgage and litigation timeline (Para 14 , 31 , 38) |
| 6. final decision on the appeal (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Lakshman, J.
1. Heard Sri M. Laxman Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri P. Amarender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed challenging order dated 11.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.527 of 2025 in O.S.No.258 of 2025 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar.
3. The appellants herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.258 of 2025 against respondents to declare the action of the respondents –defendants in cancelling the agreement of sale dated 08.10.2018 executed by Late Mekala Subhashini in favour of Mahammed Abdul Azeem in respect of the suit schedule property by issuing legal notice, dated 30.07.2024, as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to execute and register sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule
Khatri Hotles Private Limited Vs. Union
Dahiben vs. Aravindbhai Kalyanji Bhansusali (Gujra)
Vasumathi H Shah Vs Pushpa Raj
Kamala Kumar v. Premlata Joshi
Bhargavi Constructions vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy
Mohinder Kaur vs. Sant Paul Singh
R. Kandasamy (since dead) v. T.R.K. Saraswathy
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal
The court ruled that both declaration of termination and specific performance can be sought together. The suit was within the limitation period as the cause of action arose from the cancellation noti....
The court determined that a suit for specific performance may not be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 if a valid cause of action is pleaded, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the plaint as time-barred, emphasizing the necessity of timely enforcement of agreements and the court's duty to examine plaints for cause of action.
The suit was filed after a delay of 28 years and no genuine cause of action was found from the plaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.