Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 26639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Lanka Venkata Ramanamma – Appellant
Versus
Malla Satyanarayana – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO: 609 OF 2005|FIRST APPEAL NO: 610 OF 2005|I.A.NO.8/2024 IN A.S.NO.610 OF 2005

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M S R SUBRAHMANYAM, C V MOHAN REDDY
For the Respondents: S SRINIVAS REDDY, P VEERA REDDY

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff bears the static burden of proving the authenticity of the agreement. Where execution is denied and the document is surrounded by unexplained suspicious circumstances and evidentiary contradictions, the suit must fail, rendering both main and alternative prayers untenable.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Suit for specific performance - Burden of proof - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, the initial burden casts upon the plaintiff to prove that the suit document is a genuine one. (Paras 16 and 19)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 to 104 - Burden of proof regarding execution of document - Once the execution of the suit document is specifically denied, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff, and this burden remains static. (Paras 19, 31 and 34(d))

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI, Rule 27 - Admission of additional evidence in appellate court - Discretion to receive and admit additional evidence is not arbitrary but judicial, circumscribed by limitations specified; appellate court should not travel outside the record of the trial court except in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 43 and 44(c))

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff alleged the existence of an agreement of sale signed by a deceased vendor involving the alienation of property. The plaintiff claimed payment of partial consideration but failed to obtain receipts or secure possession despite the recital in the document asserting otherwise. The legal heirs denied the execution of the document, characterizing it as forged and fabricated.

Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence supporting the agreement unreliable, noting major discrepancies between the pleadings and the testimonies of the witnesses. The court observed that the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of proof to establish the authenticity of the contested document, particularly noting that the alleged delivery of possession was not supported by reality.

Issues: The central issues were whether the unregistered agreement was true and valid, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform their obligations under the contract, and whether the trial court was justified in awarding an alternative relief of refund of the advance amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the very execution of the agreement is denied and the document is surrounded by suspicious circumstances—such as the absence of corroborating evidence for payments and a contradiction between the document's recitals and the plaintiff's own admissions regarding possession—the plaintiff fails to prove their case. Without proof of a valid agreement, neither the main relief of specific performance nor the alternative relief of refund can be sustained.

Result: Appeals of defendants allowed; appeal of plaintiff dismissed; original suit dismissed.

Common Judgment:

Appeal Suit No.609 of 2005 is filed by the defendants 1 to 8 against the alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest granted by the trial Court and Appeal Suit No.610 of 2005 is filed by the plaintiff for not awarding main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale by the trial Court.

2. Both these appeals A.S.Nos.609 and 610 of 2005 are filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31-3-2005, passed in O.S.No.44 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. Therefore, both these appeals are clubbed and common judgment is being pronounced in these appeals. It is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid any confusion and for better understanding of the matter.

3. The suit in O.S.No.44 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 8 for specific performance of the suit agreement by giving a direction to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed for the suit schedule property in terms of the said agreement and to register the same at the plaintiff‟s costs, and in case if the defendants failed to do so within the time prescribed by the Court, that the Court may be pleased to execute a sale deed on their behalf and get it registered or for an alternative relief of payment of Rs.9,00,000/- towards damages as compensation for the breach of contract with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for specific performance of sale agreement dated 18-11-1988. The 1^st defendant is the wife of late Lanka Venkatewarlu and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 8 are the daughters of late Lanka Venkateswarlu. The schedule property is of an extent of Ac.0-62 cents, which forms part of total extent of Ac.3-00 covered by Survey No.101/2 of Chinagantyada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal and the same was absolute property of deceased Lanka Venkateswarlu and the total land having been purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1961 from one Gonna Appanna, who is the original owner. Out of the said Ac.3-00, an extent of Ac.0-62 cents of land i.e. schedule property which forms the northern portion of Ac.3-00 of land covered by the sale deed dated 15-7-1961 was agreed to be sold by Lanka Venkateswarlu to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-.

(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was in look out for purchase of a suitable site around Gajuwaka and in February, 1987 or so, Lanka Venkateswarlu coming to know the said intention of plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule vacant land to an extent of Ac.0-62 cents representing to the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of total extent of Ac.3-00 of land mentioned supra and that it is his self-acquisition, purchased by him under the registered sale deed dated 15-7-1961 and he was in need of money for construction of a building. The bargain was settled between the parties and the sale price was fixed at Rs.3,75,000/- and a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in two installments was paid by the plaintiff to Lanka Venkateswarlu in the presence of his wife, the 1^st defendant herein. On both occasions i.e. in the month of February, 1987 when Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and when an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid for the 2^nd time in September, 1987, the 1^st defendant was present.

(c) It is further pleaded that thereafter, on the instructions of Lanka Venkateswarlu, the plaintiff purchased stamp papers in the year 1987 itself and handed over the same to Lanka Venkateswarlu, who promised to get an agreement of sale typed on the same acknowledging the total amounts received by him as advance. Finally, late Lanka Venkateswarlu got prepared a sale agreement styled as sale deed agreeing to convey

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 26639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIVenuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, JLanka Venkata Ramanamma – AppellantVersusMalla Satyanarayana – RespondentFIRST APPEAL NO: 609 OF 2005|FIRST APPEAL NO: 610 OF 2005|I.A.NO.8/2024 IN A.S.NO.610 OF 2005

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Lanka Venkata Ramanamma – Appellant
Versus
Malla Satyanarayana – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO: 609 OF 2005|FIRST APPEAL NO: 610 OF 2005|I.A.NO.8/2024 IN A.S.NO.610 OF 2005