*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY + Appeal Suit No.295 of 2012 Between:

Swargam Venkata Swamy, died per LRs … Appellants AND Eligeti Prabhakar … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No marked to Law Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to : Yes/No see the fair copy of judgment _____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _______________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Appeal Suit No.295 of 2012 % 07.10.2025 Between :

# Swargam Venkata Swamy, died per LRs … Appellants AND $ Eligeti Prabhakar … Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellants : Sri M. Rama Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri V. Hariharan < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE :

? Cases referred :

1. AIR 1962 SC 847 2. (1999) 6 SCC 337 3. (1994) 4 SCC 214

4. (2025) 7 Supreme Court Cases 456 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No. 295 of 2012 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1 assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2011 in O.S. No.29 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale was partly decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the schedule property, an industrial shed bearing No.E-5, Padma Nagar, Karimnagar, admeasuring 1300 sq. yards (approximately 11 guntas) with a plinth area of 229.27 sq. meters, for a total consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. An advance of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid under agreement dated 11.03.2003, followed by subsequent payments aggregating to Rs.7,00,000/-. A further sum of Rs.40,000/- was allegedly collected by defendant No.1 for remittance to APIIC Ltd., though the plaintiff later discovered that APIIC had already executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 23.03.2005.

4. Despite repeated demands, defendant No.1 avoided execution of the sale deed, and eventually, in collusion with defendant No.2, conveyed part of the property to defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 17.03.2006. The plaintiff, claiming continuous readiness and willingness, issued a legal notice dated 16.11.2006 and instituted the present suit.

5. Defendant No.1 admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- but pleaded that the plaintiff defaulted in paying the balance within the stipulated time of one month. He contended that time was the essence of the contract and that, due to the plaintiff’s default, he had to sell part of the property to defendant No.2.

II. ISSUES FRAMED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

6. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale on 03.11.2003 and received Rs.7 lakhs as consideration out of the total consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-?

2. Whether defendant No.1 received Rs.40,000/- on

27.09.2005 with a promise to secure a registered sale deed from APIIC Ltd.?

3. Whether the further sum of Rs.1,70,000/- alleged to have been received is unconnected to the contract of sale?

4. Whether defendant No.1 had clear title to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff?

5. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

6. Whether defendant No.2 had knowledge of the agreement of sale dated 03.11.2003 and whether it bound him?

7. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance?

8. To what relief?

III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

7. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himsel