Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12610

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Raja Velugoti Madana Gopala Krishna Yachendra – Appellant
Versus
Padidam Jayasree – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1251/2011

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M Ravindra
For the Respondents: Pathanjali Pamidigattam, P Sri Ram

The High Court in a second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or contrary to law. Specific performance is an equitable remedy granted based on the parties' conduct and proven compliance with contract terms, provided no statutory prohibition exists against the subject property.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal - Interference with findings of fact - High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate Court, which is final Court of facts, unless findings are erroneous, contrary to mandatory law, based on inadmissible evidence, or perversity exists. (Para 14)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Suit for specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Plaintiff must show continued readiness and willingness from date of contract to date of hearing; discretion in granting relief depends on facts and circumstances, dictated by principles of fairness and reasonableness. (Para 35)

(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption when party does not enter witness box - Where a party does not appear in the witness box to submit themselves for cross-examination, a presumption arises that the case set up by them is not correct. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs moved for specific performance of an agreement of sale, claiming full consideration was paid and possession was delivered. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement, alleging forgery and that the land was subject to statutory land ceiling restrictions, rendering the agreement void. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. The defendant appealed to the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence of the attestors and the scribe, corroborated by an expert opinion on signatures, sufficiently proved the sale agreement. Furthermore, the land ceiling proceedings were set aside by the appellate tribunal before the suit was filed, rendering the property free from restrictions. The court held that inter se, the agreement remained valid, and the defendant failed to prove the document was void.

Issues: Whether the agreement of sale was valid and enforceable despite land ceiling proceedings, whether the suit was barred by non-appearance of parties in the witness box, and whether the appellate court correctly exercised its discretion in granting specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance is a discretionary relief based on the conduct and good faith of the parties. When an agreement of sale is proven and the land in question is free from statutory ceiling restrictions, the court will enforce the contract, provided the plaintiff has acted in good faith and the opposition's arguments regarding the validity of the contract are based on misconceptions of law or incorrect factual premises.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of procedural history, plaint and written statement averments, and formulation of substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. standard of review under section 100 cpc and proof of agreement of sale execution (section 120 indian evidence act). (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. enforceability of sale agreements in relation to a.p. land reforms (ceiling on agricultural holdings) act, 1973. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. discretionary grant of specific performance based on party conduct and readiness/willingness under specific relief act findings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 31.03.2026

Pronounced on 15.04.2026

Uploaded on 15.04.2026

JUDGMENT:

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 07.06.2011 in A.S.No.05 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional District Judge (FTC) Nellore, (for short, 'the first appellate Court'), in reversing the decree and judgment dated 17.11.2004 in O.S.No.49 of 1994 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The sole-appellant died during the pendency of the second appeal and the appellant No.2 is added as the Legal Representative of the deceased sole-appellant.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.49 of 1994, on the file of the trial Court with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs basing on the agreement of sale dated 02.12.1991.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed A.S.No.05 of 2005 on the file of the first appellate Court. The defendant filed cross appeal No.05 of 2005 in A.S.No.05 of 2005, to challenge certain findings. By decree and common judgment dated 07.06.2011 in A.S.No.05 of 2005, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal suit by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the cross appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

6. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.49 of 1994, is as follows:

The plaintiffs pleaded that on 02.12.1991, the defendant agreed to sell the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,72,000/- and received the entire consideration on the same date and delivered possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiffs on the same date. The defendant inter alia agreed to execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs at their expense whenever demanded by them. The plaintiffs further pleaded that despite of repeated demands and after issuance of the registered notice dated 26.02.1994, the defendant failed to comply with the demand and on the other hand the defendant issued a reply notice dated 05.03.1994 by denying the execution of the said agreement and making other false allegations. Hence, the present suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

The defendant pleaded that the agreement of sale dated 02.12.1991 mentioned in the plaint is a rank forgery and the defendant did not receive any consideration from the plaintiffs and the defendant did not deliver the possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiffs. The defendant further pleaded that the market value of the plaint schedule property is about Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and as per t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12610

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHVenuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, JRaja Velugoti Madana Gopala Krishna Yachendra – AppellantVersusPadidam Jayasree – RespondentSECOND APPEAL NO: 1251/2011

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Raja Velugoti Madana Gopala Krishna Yachendra – Appellant
Versus
Padidam Jayasree – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1251/2011