IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN APPEAL SUIT No.78 OF 2023 DATE: 17.04.2026 Between:

Alugubelli Venkat Reddy ….Appellant And Kondri Reddy Somi Reddy ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet (for short, “trial Court”) in O.S.No.13 of 2016. The said suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.09.2014 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.30 Gts in Sy Nos.301 and 302, situated at B. Madharam Revenue Village, Suryapet Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property”). By the impugned judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit, directing the appellant/defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the respondent within one month, failing which the respondent was granted liberty to have the sale deed executed through due process of Court.

3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2016.

4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity they were arrayed before the trial Court.

Plaint Averments (Respondent/Plaintiff's case)

5. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded before the trial Court in O.S.No.13 of 2016, was that the defendant, who is closely related to him, had offered to sell the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, fixing the total sale consideration at Rs.45,00,000/-.

6. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that he paid the entire sale consideration to the defendant on various occasions on or before 25.09.2014, and on the said date, the defendant executed an agreement of sale (Ex.A1) at Suryapet in the presence of attesting witnesses, agreeing to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee. It was further pleaded that the defendant, at the time of execution of Ex.A1, had also handed over photocopies of his pattedar passbook and title deed, which were marked as Exs.A10 and A11.

7. The plaintiff averred that due to paucity of funds, he could not immediately pursue registration of the sale deed. Subsequently, whenever he approached the defendant requesting execution of the registered sale deed, the defendant evaded performance on one pretext or the other, initially stating that the original pattedar passbook and title deed were misplaced and assuring that the same would be executed upon tracing the documents.

8. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 16.02.2015 (Ex.A2) calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. Though the defendant received the said notice, he failed to comply and only sought time. As there was no progress, the plaintiff issued a second legal notice dated 03.02.2016 (Ex.A6). In response thereto, the defendant caused an interim reply notice dated 05.03.2016 (Ex.A8) demanding a copy of the agreement of sale, which was duly furnished by the plaintiff under the cover of a rejoinder notice dated 30.04.2016 (Ex.A9). Despite receipt of the same, the defendant failed and neglected to perform his part of the contract and, on the contrary, demanded an additional amount of Rs.15,00,000/-

on the ground of escalation in land value.

9. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 03.05.2016, he, along with village elders including PW2 i.e., one Tarala Saidulu, approached the defendant and requested him to honour the agreement and execute the registered sale deed; however, the defendant categorically refused to do so unless the additional amount was paid, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit.

Written Statement (Appellant/Defendant’s ca