THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

APPEAL SUIT. No. 318 of 2013

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy

This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the

Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2013 in O.S. No. 31 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Sathupalli, Khammam, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

money was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as

arrayed before the trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No. 31 of 2008 against the sole defendant for recovery of Rs.5,70,500/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of this suit till realization and for costs. The Case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on

24.04.2007, which was paid by way of cheque bearing No.210234 drawn on Andhra Bank, Sathupalli, and the same was duly encashed. Thereafter, on 11.05.2007, the defendant once again borrowed a further sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, which was paid by the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.591236, and the same was also encashed by the defendant. Thus, in total, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Subsequently, when the plaintiff demanded repayment, the defendant, in discharge of part of the liability, agreed to sell his mango garden admeasuring Ac.5.20 guntas situated at Rejerla village to the plaintiff. The sale consideration was mutually fixed at Rs.13,29,325/- and accordingly, the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 10.07.2007. Thereafter, on 03.09.2007, the defendant and his son executed a registered sale deed dated. 03.09.2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sathupalli, in favour of the plaintiff. Out of the total borrowal, the sum of Rs.13,29,325/- was adjusted towards the sale consideration, leaving a balance amount of Rs.5,70,625/, still due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 04.12.2007 to both the present and permanent address of the defendant, but the same was returned unserved. As there is no hope of recovery otherwise, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit.

4. In reply to the plaint averments, the defendant filed written statement and contents that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.5.19 guntas in Sy. Nos.156/2/EE, 156/2/A and 147/A situated on the eastern side of the Mother Theresa Institute of Science and Technology College (for short ‘MIST’), of which the plaintiff is the Correspondent. The plaintiff, being well acquainted with the defendant, approached him in February 2007 and requested to purchase the said land, pursuant to which an agreement of sale was executed on 05.02.2007 for a total consideration of Rs.24,36,375/- at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre, under which the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.5,00,000/- and later issued two cheques for Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.7,00,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.5,00,000/-. The agreement was drafted by Varanasi Bhavani Sankar and attested by Bhimireddy Mutha Reddy and Mangapati Chenna Reddy. The defendant contends that the plaintiff suppressed material facts and, in collusion with the Sub-

Registrar and the scribe, managed to obtain a registered sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant lodged a complaint with the Sathupalli Police, resulting in Crime No.150/2008 dated 19.07.2008, and the District Registrar, Khammam, also initiated action regarding undervaluation of the document. The defendant also contends that the suit lacks cause of action and he is willing to refund the sale consideration and cancel the agreement. Further, by way of additional written statement, the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed the suit in his personal capacity for recovery of Rs.5,