HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 28.10.2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Kamareddy, in A.S.No.04 of 2022, whereunder and whereby appeal dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 03.12.2021, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, in O.S.No.73 of 2014.

2. The appellants are plaintiff Nos.2 and 4, plaintiff Nos. 3, 5 and 6 did not prefer appeal and respondents are defendants, before the Trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the O.S.No.73 of 2014 for specific performance of contract dated 23.12.1995 and perpetual injunction, against the defendants in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.185/15B extent Ac.0-02 gts; No.188/1E extent Ac.0-02 gts; No.188/2E extent Ac.0-04 gts; No.188/7A extent Ac. 0-06 gts; Sy.No.188/9E extent Ac.0-04 gts; Sy.No.188/10E extent Ac.0-03 gts; Sy.No.188/15B extent Ac.0-03 gts; Sy.No.188/17A/2 extent Ac.0-16 gts and Sy.No.190/11 extent Ac.0-06 gts all in total Ac.01-22 gts situated at Krishnajiwadi Village, Tadwal Mandal, Kamareddy District ( hereafter referred as ‘schedule property’). It is averred that plaintiff entered into contract dated 23.12.1995 with defendant No.1 and has paid entire amount. Defendant No.1, agreed to execute the sale deed, however, did not execute the sale deed. Hence, plaintiff filed O.S.No.73 of 2014 seeking perpetual injunction.

4. Defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and averred that he purchased the schedule property through registered sale deed bearing document No.3318 of 2010 dated 14.06.2010 from defendant No.2 and prior to that defendant No.2 purchased the same from defendant No.1. Therefore, defendant No.3 is the bonafide purchaser of the said schedule property and has been in possession of the same without any interruption and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. In view of the enormous increase of the land value, plaintiff with an ill motive to extract money from defendant No.3, filed the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

“(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the contract against the defendant No.1, basing on the agreement of sale deed 23-12-1995 in respect of the suit land as prayed for?

(3) Whether the defendant No.3 is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.2 through registered sale deed bearing document No.3318 of 2010 dated 14-06-2010?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 to 3 and their men as prayed for?

(5) To what relief?”

6. To substantiate his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and examined PW.2, PW.3 and got marked as Ex.A.1 to A10. Defendant No.3, herself examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to B6 were marked.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2021, with the following observations:

“ 38. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 herein filed OS No. 13 of 2007 against the plaintiff herein, when the plaintiff started demanding the defendant No. 1 to execute the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit land, filing of OS No. 13 of 2007 amounting to refusal of the contract by the defendant No.1. OS No. 13 of 2007 filed by the defendant No.1 on 5-1-2007. The limitation period for filing of suit for specific performance of the contract is ‘three years’ from 5-1-2007, but the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of contract in the year 2014 which is barred by limitation.

39. Further, it is appearing that Ex.B2 sale deed execut