Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Thaslima Azeem – Appellant
Versus
Mekala Ram Reddy – Respondent
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 property by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only). In the event of respondents - defendants fails to execute and register the sale deed, the Court to execute and register the sale deed on behalf of the respondents – defendants.
4. In the plaint, the plaintiffs contended:-
i. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of late Mohammed Abdul Azeem s/o M.A
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.
A sale agreement signed solely by the vendor is enforceable, and no fixed date of performance in an agreement allows suit filing within three years of notice of refusal.
Subsequent purchasers cannot assert defenses of the original vendor without seeking leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, especially when the original sale deeds have been canceled.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
