THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

The second defendant in OS.No.1112 of 2012 being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 13-11-2017, where under, though the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff, dismissed his counter claim on the ground that he did not issue mandatory legal notice for seeking specific performance, filed this First Civil Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) and assailed the finding of the trial Court against his counter claim.

2. Before adverting to the grounds on which this appeal is filed for the sake of convenience and clarity, it is just and necessary to refer the pleadings of both parties as well as impugned judgment dated 13-11-2017 in OS.No.1112 of 2012 on the file of XVII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. The parties will be referred to as they are shown in the original suit. The plaintiff has filed OS.No.1112 of 2012 with a prayer to declare the registered agreement of sale cum GPA (with possession) of the defendant No.2 bearing Document No.3319 of 2010 dated 16-09-2010 as null and void and cancel the same from operation in respect of schedule property bearing No.13-4-561/25/A on part of Plot No.132 and 139 admeasuring one 130.0 Sq.yrds out of 275.0 Sq.yrds at New Ganga Nagar, Jiaguda, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the second defendant his men etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession over the property.

4. As per the plaint filed by the plaintiff before the Court, it was specifically pleaded that he, being absolute owner and possessor of the above referred house property with a view to develop his existing business, approached the defendant No.1 and sought for financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- and considering the request, defendant No.1 agreed to provide the above said amount subject to condition of payment of Rs.900/- per day towards interest. The plaintiff has claimed that he has agreed to pay the above said interest and obtained money from the first defendant. He has invested the amount on his business and he was regularly paying interest to the first defendant.

5. When he was in need of another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- again he approached the first defendant and sought for Rs.2,00,000/- but defendant No.1 having expressed his inability to arrange the amount introduced his friend i.e., second defendant. The plaintiff has claimed that he has requested the second defendant to arrange Rs.7,00,000/- as a hand loan for which defendant No.2 agreed on condition of mortgaging the title document of the property as a security. The plaintiff agreed and mortgaged his document with defendant No.2 and received Rs.7,00,000/- from defendant No.2 on 16-09-2010. He agreed to repay the amount with interest @ 2% per month and since then he was paying interest of Rs.14,000/- to the second defendant.

6. He has also claimed that while arranging the amount, the second defendant obtained his signatures on some blank papers. The plaintiff put his signatures in good faith and he has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant No.1 and cleared the earlier loan, thereby, closed the transaction with the defendant No.1 on 16-09-2010.

7. The plaintiff has further claimed that he has received Rs.7,00,000/- from defendant No.2 by mortgaging the document with a hope that he will clear the loan and could obtain the documents. The plaintiff further alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 by colluding with each other played fraud against him and taking advantage of his signatures on blank papers prepared a document i.e., agreement of sale cum GPA with possession and he, being an illiterate does not know the contents of the document, got it registered in favour of defendant No.2.

8. The plaintiff has further claimed that he never offered the schedule property for sale, he did not execute any agreement of sale cum GPA. In the first week of May, 2012 and first week of June, 2012, the plaintiff approached defendant No.2 and offer