A judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can only be passed when there is a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional admission of facts by a party; if the alleged admission is part of contested settlement negotiations, such powers cannot be invoked.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govardhan Reddy Joundla, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.350 of 2021 in O.S.No.284 of 2019, wherein a petition filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC, to pass judgment and decree in his favour on the basis of admission of liability by the respondent/defendant, has been dismissed.

Case of the petitioner:

3. The petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) doctor and filed the suit for specific performance, cancellation of irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) and to declare registered documents, which are 23 in numbers as null and void. Alternatively, to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.2,66,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of realization.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent agreed to purchase land in Survey No.55 admeasuring Ac.4-32 gunths situated at Majipur Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, from the official liquidator High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Rs.2,93,00,000/-. The proposal was accepted for an offer price of Rs.2,96,00,000/-. The High Court directed K. Mahendar Reddy and K. Sudarshan Reddy to pay the balance sale consideration within 6 weeks. However, said two persons were unable to procure the money and therefore, approached the plaintiff with a proposal to purchase Ac.4-32 guntas in addition to Ac.2-18 guntas belonging to Smt. Pushpadevi Chowdary. There was an agreement to give Ac.4-32 guntas to the petitioner with access to road and the respondent to hold Ac.2-18 guntas with equal access to the road. With such agreement total sale consideration of Rs.2,66,00,000/- for land admeasuring Ac.4-32 guntas was fixed. On the basis of said oral understanding during August-September 2014, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.45,00,000/- on 09.09.2014 and Rs.2,21,00,000/- through Banker's Cheque No.17699 dated 08.10.2014. There was an oral sale contract between the parties and the same was reduced into writing and was attested by two witnesses. The agreement of sale is a recording of earlier oral agreement between the parties. The petitioner is a resident of USA and therefore, dependent on respondent for every update. The petitioner learnt that the respondent got sale deed in his name for land admeasuring Ac.4-32 guntas from the official liquidator while registering sale deed bearing document No.3709 of 2014 dated 18.11.2014. The respondent executed mortgage deed document No.307 of 2015 dated 29.01.2015 for an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas out of his share of Ac.2-18 guntas situated at Majipur Village. The respondent was supposed to purchase land admeasuring Ac.2-18 guntas from Pushpadevi Chowdary from his own funds, as Sudarshan Reddy had withdrawn from the project. However, the respondent, without any intimation or information, purchased said land along with S. Narasimha vide document No.1689 of 2016 dated 03.06.2016. Thereafter, there was no proper communication between the parties and the petitioner suspected foul play. The respondent cancelled the irrevocable GPA given to the plaintiff and alienated land admeasuring Ac.4-19 guntas through various sales to third parties. The petitioner's case is that the respondent was holding the property