IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.55 of 2020 Date: 06.02.2026 Between Anand Raj Jain and another …Appellants AND Vempaty Prabhu Das and 5 others …Respondents

JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the appellants under Section

96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.834 of 2012 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri S. Deepak Sancheti, representing Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

Perused the entire material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.2 is the tenant and the defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit scheduled shop since 2007. In the year 2007, the defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff No.1 of Rs.4 lakhs with interest. As a security, he also mortgaged his title deeds by way of executing a mortgage deed in favor of the plaintiff by way of deposit of title deeds of the suit scheduled shop. By executing a registered mortgage deed dated 22.03.2010, which was registered as document No.861 of 2010 before the Sub-Registrar Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the interest to the plaintiff No.1. The defendant again, in the month of July 2012, sought an additional hand loan amount along with interest and further offered to sell the said shop which was mortgaged to the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. It was understood that the said hand loan amount and interest would be adjusted from the sale consideration. The plaintiff, having accepted the same, entered into an agreement of sale on 21.07.2012. The plaintiff No.1 paid Rs. 7,50,000/- towards advance sale consideration and agreed to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 6 lakhs within one month and get the sale deed registered.

4. Further, it is contended that the defendant once again approached the plaintiff and sought Rs.50,000/- towards the balance sale consideration to meet his personal requirements, and the plaintiff paid the same. A receipt was also executed. When the plaintiff approached the Sub-Registrar office for enquiring about the title, stamp duty, and registration charges, he came to know about the prohibitory orders passed by the District Collector, Hyderabad, vide letter No.C3/5042/2007 dated 04.07.2011. He also obtained the encumbrance certificate and came to know that the defendant had created a mortgage of the suit scheduled shop along with flat No.101 of the first floor, measuring 830 sq. ft. with an undivided share of 25 sq. yards, in favor of Sri Srinivasa Padmavathi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited on 09.06.2010. The said mortgage was created subsequent to the mortgage created in favor of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff questioned the defendant about the same. As the defendant did not respond properly, a legal notice was issued seeking the defendant to perform his part of the contract. The said notice was received by the defendant on 21.08.2012. He also got issued a reply by denying the claim of the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiff also got issued a rejoinder to the said reply notice dated

24.08.2012, sent by the defendant on 29.08.2012.

6. Furthermore, there was another correspondence that the defendant got issued a reply notice to the said notice on 21.09.2012. It is contended that the said notice contains baseless and false allegations, and thereby the defendant denied the performance of his part of the contract. In view of the reply given by the defendant, the plaintiff came to the conclusion, doubting his bona fides in performing his part of the contract. This was also regarding the creation of a charge on the property and that the said property was under the prohibition list. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant, by his acts