Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 238
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
D. Shivakumar – Appellant
Versus
S. Shyamsunder …Respondent
City Civil Court Appeal No.222 Of 2004
Decided On : 07-01-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MANJARI S GANU
For the Respondent: N V ANANTHA KRISHNA
An agreement of sale executed amidst disputed alterations can still support a recovery claim; however, without proper notice service and readiness for performance, specific performance cannot be granted.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Specific Performance - This appeal concerned an agreement of sale wherein the plaintiff claimed specific performance after making part payments of Rs. 3,75,000/- for the property, while the defendant contended the agreement was not executed, citing material alterations. The court noted: 'In the absence of reliable proof of service of notice and without granting sufficient time to the defendant... a valid cause of action... cannot... arise.' (Para 36) Findings indicate that while the agreement was executed, specific performance was denied; however, the plaintiff was granted recovery of the payment made. The trial court's judgment was set aside with 'the plaintiff... entitled for the recovery of said amounts under the agreement of sale along with interest.' (Paras 43, 44)
(B) Equity - Clean Hands Doctrine - Emphasized that the plaintiff must approach the court with clean hands, and failure in this regard precludes equitable relief. (Para 22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal jurisdiction (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of the agreement and dispute (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. trial issues framed by the court (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 4. evidence of signatures and alterations (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. service of notice and its validity (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. defendant's arguments against agreement's authenticity (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. requirement for 'clean hands' in equitable relief (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. plaintiff's burden to prove allegations (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. forensic evidence on signatures and alterations (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. timing and readiness in execution of sale (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. cause of action and legal notice requirements (Para 36 , 37) |
| 12. final judgment on specificity and recovery (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 13. resolution of appeal with judgement outcome (Para 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Court, 1908, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.07.2004 passed in O.S.No.329 of 1996 by the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and set aside the suit with costs.
2. Heard Mrs. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant under Ex.A4, which was duly attested by DW-2. It is contended that there was a clear agreement between the parties whereby the defendant agreed to sell the subject flat for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further contended that on 11.01.1995, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to the defendant towards part payment of the sale consideration, for which the defendant executed a receipt marked as Ex.A1. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid Rs. 75,000/- in cash on 31.01.1995 as evidence under Ex.A2 and a further sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 22.03.1995, as evidence under Ex.A3. On the same day, the defendant executed the agreement of sale dated 22.03.1995, marked as Ex.A4, wherein the defendant has admittedly received a total sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- towards the sale consideration and it was agreed that the balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- shall be paid on execution of sale deed. When the plaintiff approached the defendant with the balance sale consideration, the defendant postponed the issue on one or other pretext. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant was trying to sell away the property to third parties and got issued legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to register the suit property, but the defendant failed to do the same. Hence, the suit is filed.
4. Basing on the said pleadings the learned Trial Judge has framed the following issues for Trial:
Issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of specific performance as prayed for?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief for recovery of Rs.3,75,000/- as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
5. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and one K.R. Dayashanker was examined as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked. The handwriting expert was examined as CW1 and Ex.C1 was marked. 6. The learned Trial Judge after going into entire record and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the Judgment and Decree vide O.S.No.329 of 1996 dated 19.07.2004.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed on the following grounds:
“The Court below failed to properly appreciate the handwriting expert’s report (Ex.C1), which categorically confirms that the defendant has signed each page of Ex.A4, including all corrections and the questioned signatures marked as Q4 to Q7 tally with the admitted signatures of the defendant. Desp
