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 notice, alongside issues surrounding undisclosed encumbrances.

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.Sattar and Plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 are their sons and daughters. The said late Mohammed Abdul Azeem was tenant of H.No.7-34, Shop No.3 (Mulgi), G+1 Floor in H.No.7-34, admeasuring 640 square feet situated at MRR Complex, Madhurapuri Colony, Dilshuknagar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘subject property’). Late Smt. Subhashani was the original owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 is the husband of said late Smt. Subhashani and Defendants No.2 and 3 are their daughters.

ii. During life time, late Mohamed Abdul Azeem, purchased the suit schedule property from Late Smt. Subhashini. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only). Having received an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakhs), late Smt. Subhashini had executed an agreement of sale on 08.10.2018 in which it is agreed to pay balance amount within 3 (three) months for execution of registered sale deed.

iii. Despite several requests made by said late Mohamed Abdul Azeem, for execution of registered sale deed, Smt. Mekala Subhashani postponed the same on one reason or the other. Meanwhile she died on 29.10.2019 leaving behind the defendants herein as her legal heirs. The said Mohamed Abdul Azeem, also died on 25.05.2020 leaving behind him the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Even after his death, in August/September 2021, the plaintiffs along with their uncle requested Defendant No. 1 to execute registered sale deed for which he refused and stated that there is mortgage over the schedule property and he would execute registered sale deed after releasing the mortgage.

iv. Instead of executing registered sale deed, the Defendant No.1 got issued legal notice dated 30.7.2024 cancelling the agreement of sale dated 08.10.2018 forfeiting amounts paid and also demanded to vacate the premises and pay damages. The Plaintiffs sent reply – cum – demand notice dated 14.08.2024 to the said notice, denying the allegations made by the defendants and called upon them to execute the sale deed in their favour by receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendants had issued a rejoinder notice dated 09.09.2024 with false allegations and also expressing to enter into agreement of sale and sale deed with third parties.

v. Even after notices and reply notices, on 05.05.2025, plaintiff No.2 along with his maternal uncle, requested Defendant No.1 to execute sale deed by receiving t