2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 70743
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Gande Purushotham – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ahmed Khan – Respondent
CRP 1670/2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1670 OF 2025
ORDER:
Petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondent is defendant in O.S. No.1 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated
26.09.2020.
2. For convenience sake, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26.09.2020 for a direction to the defendant to perform the terms of the contract and to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas situated at Kurmedu Village of Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). In the plaint averments, the plaintiff pleaded that he entered into the agreement of sale with the defendant for purchasing the subject land for a total sale consideration of Rs.95,00,000/- (Rupees ninety five lakhs only). A sum of Rs.23,75,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs seventy five thousand only) was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant towards advance sale consideration. The balance sale consideration of Rs.71,25,000/- (Rupees seventy one lakhs twenty five thousand only) was agreed to be paid within four (4) months from the date of the agreement. Prior to registration, the subject land shall be measured, boundaries have to be determined and the defendant has to show all original title deeds and ‘No Protected Tenancy Certificates’ to the plaintiff. The balance sale consideration will be paid by the plaintiff as per the land available on ground after measurement and possession of the subject land will be delivered to make layout for the purpose of development. It was further pleaded that after making layout, a plot admeasuring 125 square yards will be registered in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff also pleaded that pursuant to the agreement of sale, he invested Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards development of the subject land for levelling the ground to draw a layout. The defendant committed breach of terms of agreement. The defendant failed to measure the subject land and no boundaries were fixed. Further, the defendant failed to show original title deeds including ‘no protected tenancy certificate’. As the defendant committed default in abiding by the terms of the agreement of sale dated 26.09.2020, legal notice dated 26.05.2023 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement. As there was no response to the legal notice, the suit was filed by the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff intended to mark the agreement of sale dated
26.09.2020. The trial Court having perused the contents of the agreement of sale, passed the impugned docket order dated 24.03.2025 by recording a finding that the agreement of sale dated 26.09.2020 includes transfer of possession, but has been executed on a Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper and it is insufficiently stamped. The agreement of sale is required to be impounded as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the office was directed to collect deficit stamp duty and penalty. In the impugned docket order of the trial Court, it is noted that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.23,75,000/- towards advance sale consideration out of the total sale consideration of Rs.95,00,000/-; the balance sale consideration of Rs.71,25,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff within four (4) months from the date of agreement; the penultimate second clause of the agreement specifically refers to delivery of possession of entire extent of Ac.1-20 guntas of the subject land for the purpose of development; additionally, it refers only a plot of 125 square yards shall be registered in favour of the defendant after the layout is finalised; the trial Court further noted that the said clause primarily refers to delivery of p