Telangana High Court
G.Srinivas Reddy vs Smt.A.Aruna on 3 July, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
SECOND APPEAL No.82 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 13.09.2024, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in AS.No.242 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 in OS.No.108 of 2015 passed by the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was confirmed.
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal are that late A.Ramesh Reddy, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 and 3, was the owner of unit of house bearing No.2-2-1118/3/A/2/1, Ground floor, situated at New Nallakunta, Hyderabad (herein after referred to as the 'suit schedule property'); that the maternal grand father of plaintiff viz. A.Narasimha Reddy constructed building bearing No.2-2-1118/3/A and B consisting of ground and first floor in the year 1966; that A.Narasimha Reddy has three sons and two daughters i.e., Aga Reddy, K.Suguna, G.Vasumathi, 2 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 A.Purushotham Reddy and late A.Ramesh Reddy; that A.Narasimha Reddy allotted shares to his children; that the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of late A.Ramesh Reddy; that late A.Ramesh Reddy offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,88,000/-; that the plaintiff agreed for the same and the father of the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration in three installments in cash, through K.Buchiram Reddy; and the said K.Buchiram Reddy on behalf of late A.Ramesh Reddy, also issued receipts to that effect in favour of father of plaintiff for Rs.51,000/- dated 01.08.1996, Rs.49,000/- dated 05.08.1996 and Rs.88,000/- dated 31.08.1996. On receipt of payment from the plaintiff, the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff and original title deeds were also handed over to him. A memorandum of understanding dated 24.07.1996 was entered, in respect of suit schedule property and other two units, which was signed by all purchasers/sellers including late A.Ramesh Reddy to his unit conferring rights, title, interest and possession in favour of plaintiff.
4. It is further averred that from September, 1996 the plaintiff requested late A.Ramesh Reddy to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, however late A.Ramesh Reddy postponed the same and subsequently late A.Ramesh Reddy demanded the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,03,000/- to register 3 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 the sale deed in favour of plaintiff; that the plaintiff accepted his demand and then late A.Ramesh Reddy has executed notarized agreement of sale on 20.11.1997 in favour of plaintiff after receipt of the said amount and the same was acknowledged and mentioned in clause-6 of Sale Agreement; that, the plaintiff has paid a total consideration of Rs.3,91,000/- to late A.Ramesh Reddy during his life time; that inspite of several oral demands A.Ramesh Reddy did not execute sale deed and expired on 22.09.2003; that after the death of A.Ramesh Reddy, plaintiff demanded defendants 1 to 3 who are the legal heirs of late A.Ramesh Reddy, to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property and they promised to do the same, however, failed to fulfill the promise, and instead, they got issued a legal notice dated 09.01.2012 through their Advocate stating that the plaintiff is tenant of late A.Ramesh Reddy and also demanded to vacate the suit schedule property; that the plaintiff got issued reply notice dated 31.01.2012, denying the ownership of the defendants 1 to 3 and tenancy; that the plaintiff got issued corrigendum legal notice on 12.01.2015 through his counsel to correct some typographical errors in the reply notice dated 31.01.2012 and demanded the defendants to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale dated 20.11.1997, within a period of 4 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 seven days from the date of receipt of the said corrigendum notice, however, no reply was given despite receipt of the corrigendum notice.
5. It is further averred that the MCH authorities have introduced self assessment scheme in respect of property tax and plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.555/- in respect of suit schedule property towards self assessment tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 through cheque bearing No.264043 dated 25.01.2000 and plaintiff paid property tax for the assessment year 2000-2001 and thus the plaintiff has been in uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property from the year 1996 and the same has to be treated as adverse possession. Further, the plaintiff filed private complaint under Section 406, 418, 420, 506, 120B of IPC against defendants in CC.No.273/2012 on the file of IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for issuing notice for illegal eviction and he also filed complaint against K.Buchiram Reddy and others vide CC.No.526/2008 before the IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; that the said K.Buchiram Reddy filed Crl.P.No.7892/2009 before High Court; that the plaintiff also filed another private complaint against A.Purushotham Reddy in CC.No.525/2008 before the IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the said A.Purushotham Reddy filed Crl.P.No.8703/2009. Thus, the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract. 5
LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025
6. The defendants filed written statement contending that late A.Ramesh Reddy was the owner of the suit schedule property and that late A.Narasimha Reddy is the grand father of plaintiff, who has three sons and two daughters, however, it is denied that late A.Narasimha Reddy constructed building bearing No.2-2-1118/3/A consisting of ground and first floor, in the year 1996; and that he allotted shares to his sons and daughters and to his grand son K.Sudhir Reddy, by way of partition deed dated 20.09.1976 and settlement deed, dividing building into 6 units/parts. It is also denied that late A.Ramesh Reddy offered to sell suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1,88,000/- and that the entire consideration was paid in three installments through K.Buchiram Reddy and that the said Buchiram Reddy issued receipts on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy and that A.Ramesh Reddy delivered vacant possession to the plaintiff. It is also denied that a memorandum of understanding dated 24.07.1996 was recorded and that late A.Ramesh Reddy demanded a sum of Rs.2,03,000/- for execution of registered sale deed. The defendants contended that the plaintiff filed private complaint against them in CC.No.273 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and on application filed by them, they were discharged; that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the 6 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 defendants and the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.07.1996 and the notarized agreement of sale dated 20.11.1997, are all forged, fabricated and created for the purpose of false claim; and that late A.Ramesh Reddy had never executed any sale agreement in favour of plaintiff nor received any amounts through K.Buchiram Reddy, nor he authorized any person to receive any amounts on his behalf and that the alleged receipts are created and brought into existence for the purpose of a false claim. It is further contended that the plaintiff is abusing his status of being an advocate and is in the habit of filing false complaints to coerce the people; and that the plaintiff with the help of fabricated documents, is making false claim against the defendants; that the claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation and the suit is liable to be dismissed and the defendants are entitled for compensatory costs.
7. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:
"1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3. To what relief?7
LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A32 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined however, no documents were marked.
9. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2018.
10. The trial Court while dismissing the suit made the following observations:-
"Admittedly, in the present case, the defendants are contending that Late A.Ramesh Reddy, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, has not sold the suit property to the plaintiff, nor executed Ex.A31- Agreement of Sale in his favour and denying the signature of A.Ramesh Reddy on it, and their contention is that after issuance of Ex.A1-notice by them calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit property, which was let-out by their father A.Ramesh Reddy, the plaintiff created Ex.A31 Agreement of Sale and other documents for the purpose of this case. In view of the above specific case set up by the defendant, the burden is on the plaintiff to take steps to send the document i.e. Ex.A31 Agreement of sale, to the expert for comparison of the signature of late A.Ramesh Reddy, with his admitted signatures. However, the plaintiff did not take any such steps to discharge his burden by sending Ex.A31 to the expert 8 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 opinion. In the absence of any opinion of the expert regarding the genuinity of Ex.A31, the contention of the defendant that Ex.A31, is brought into existence, as a counter blast to Ex.A1 notice issued by them, also can be, ruled out. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it has to be held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case for the relief of specific performance of a contract, to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour.
".......as per the own version of plaintiff, the alleged Agreement of Sale, on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming the relief of specific performance is dated 20.11.1997. If really late A.Ramesh Reddy, the husband of D1 and father of D2 and D3 did not execute the registered in his favour, sale deed, nothing prevented him to issue a notice in writing to him during his life time, calling upon him to execute the sale deed. However, the plaintiff himself admits that, he did issue any legal notice during life time of late A.Ramesh Reddy for the reason best known to him. Further, the said A.Ramesh Reddy died in the year 2003. If really, late A.Ramesh Reddy, executed Ex.A31, the plaintiff ought to have issued a notice to the legal heirs of late A.Ramesh Reddy i.e. the defendants herein within one year from the date of his death. However, the plaintiff did not issue any such notice, calling upon him to vacate the suit premises. It is only when the defendants got issued Ex.A1 legal notice, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 reply notice denying the claim of defendants and calling upon them to execute the sale deed. Even after issuance of Ex.A3 reply, he kept quite and after a period of three years got issued Ex.A21, corrigendum notice and got 9 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 filed the present suit, so as to show that the suit is in limitation. From the above facts, it is clear that the suit is barred by limitation."
11. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal in AS.No.242 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The first Appellate Court re- appreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the appeal, vide Judgment and Decree dated 13.09.2024. In the impugned Judgment, the first Appellate Court made the following observations:
"It is important to note that when the plaintiff has specifically stated that one K.Buchi Ram Reddy undertook on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy or that they have paid the amount to the said K.Buchi Ram Reddy, in such circumstances, they must establish before the court that said K.Buchi Ram Reddy was holding any Power of Attorney on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy and that he was authorized to act on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not file any power of Attorney alleged to have executed in favour of K.Buchi Ram Reddy for deal with suit property."
"It is also important to note that the said K.Buchi Ram Reddy was examined before the trial court as PW.2, who deposed in the cross that during life time of A.Ramesh Reddy, he did not execute any GPA in his favour in order to give authorization to him to sell his property or to collect sale consideration. He further contended before the trial Court that he is not aware 10 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 as to whether said Ramesh Reddy let out suit property to the plaintiff during his life time or that as per agreement, plaintiff has to pay municipal taxes in addition to rent. The said K.Buch Ram Reddy even admitted that sale assessment tax under Ex.A16 does not contain his signature and he did not recognize signature of A.Ramesh Reddy under Ex.A31 on confronting. He further contended that the criminal case filed by plaintiff is quashed against him."
"It is seen that though PW.3, who is said to be brother of A.Ramesh Reddy was also examined as PW.3 before the trial court, but, in the cross, he also stated that he does not know the place and date, when he signed the affidavit and interestingly, he stated that he signed his chief affidavit in the year 1996 at the time of sale on three portions. It is important to note that in the year 1996, the suit was also not filed. Hence, in view of the said contention of PW.3, it has to be inferred that he signed on chief affidavit blindly on instructions of party or counsel without knowing the contents. It is important to note that he admitted that plaintiff prepared his chief affidavit and obtained his signature without his instructions which contention of PW.3 totally abrogated the sancrosanity of his chief affidavit. He even stated in his cross that the said K.Buchi Ram Reddy did not pass any receipts on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy as alleged by the plaintiff, which is also contrary to the contents of the plaint. PW.3 is said to be own brother of A.Ramesh Reddy, who further stated in the cross that plaintiff did not demnd his brother during his life time to execute any sale deed for the agreement under Ex.A31.11
LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 "It is seen that PW.4 is also said to be brother of A.Ramesh reddy, who deposed in the cross that Ex.A20 is MOU does nto belongs to his brother A.Ramesh Reddy and the signature in Ex.A20 did not belong to him. In the cross, he even admitted that he is giving evidence in this case on behalf of the plaintiff under the fear that plaintiff might file another criminal complaint against him if he did not head to his words."
"it is important to note that even the father of the plaintiff, who is PW.5 in the cross stated that he cannot say from which bank he has withdrawn Rs.1,88,000/- and his son only knows and it is important to see that he stated in the cross that during the life time of A.Ramesh Reddy, the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the plaintiff to execute Sale Deed which is contrary to the pleadings. He also admitted that receipts under Ex.A13 to A15 does not show that amount is received under those receipts was paid on behalf of the plaintiff and admitted that receipt obtained by the plaintiff for Rs.2,03,000/- is not filed by the plaintiff."
".............it is seen that thgouh there are certain controversies alleged to be consisting in the cross of DW.1, but it is to note that, it was the plaintiff, who approached the court seeking the relief of Specific Performance, as such, the burden was upon him to establish his own case on his own legs and he cannot seek to win over the case over any contradictions or omissions of the defence witness. Admittedly, it was for the plaintiff to establish that he was always willing and ready to perform his part of contract and was ready to get the registered sale deed. The plaintiff did not file any bank statements pertaining to the period 1996 or 12 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 1997 to establish that he was having sufficient bank balance for paying the alleged amount. Admittedly, those alleged amount of Rs.1,88,000/- was never handed over directly to the original owner A.Ramesh Reddy and no proof is filed before the Court to show that the said K.Buchi Ram Reddy is acting as authorized agent of said A.Ramesh Reddy with any GPA. Admittedly, plaintiff did not file any receipt for the alleged additional amount of Rs.2,03,000/- said to have paid in 1997. Admittedly, though it is alleged that the Agreement of Sale notarized is executed in the year 1997 and though the said A.Ramesh Reddy was said to have been alive till September, 2003, but the plaintiff herein did not choose to initiate any proceedings during the life time of said A.Ramehs Reddy for the reasons best known."
"It is seen that though the plaintiff was said to have issued reply notice to defendants under Ex.A6 on 31.01.2012, but, he waited up to January, 2015 for the reasons best known for filing the suit and issued alleged corrigendum notice after three years, alleging that there are certain typographical errors in Ex.A6 reply. It is to note that the alleged corrigendum notice does not confer any fresh cause of action or revival of cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and it is for the plaintiff to establish that the suit is filed within limitation. But, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit is within limitation and allegedly the Agreement of Sale which is he relied is of 1997 and during life time of A.Ramesh Reddy, plaintiff did not file any suit for Specific Performance."13
LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025
12. Heard the appellant/plaintiff who appeared in person.
13. The appellant contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse and that the First Appellate Court did not frame appropriate points for consideration in terms of Order-41, Rule-31 of CPC. He further submits that both the Courts did not follow the principles laid down under Sections 16 & 20 of the Specific Relief Act, while considering the claim of plaintiff for specific performance and further, the observations of both the Courts insofar as limitation is concerned are perverse and contrary to Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He further submits that though the evidence is adduced on his behalf as well as documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A1 to A3, both the Courts have not properly appreciated the same and thus came to perverse finding despite there being no evidence put forth on behalf of defendants and in fact the defendants/respondents failed to place on record even a single document in support of their contention. He also submits that in the agreement of sale dated 20.11.1997 no time limit was stipulated and he got issued legal notice on 31.01.2012 which was received by respondents on 06.02.2012. The limitation for filing suit commenced on 07.02.2012 and expires on 06.12.2015 and suit was filed on 24.01.2015, which is within limitation. 14
LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 This aspect was not properly considered by both the Courts and have come to erroneous conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, the appellant relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Madina Begum and another v. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey 1. Learned Counsel also relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in U.Sudheera and others v. C.Yashoda and others 2, in support of his contention that the second appeal cannot be rejected without properly appreciating the fact that whether substantial question of law is involved or not. Thus, he finally prayed to allow the Second Appeal.
14. A perusal of record would disclose that both the Courts concurrently held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and that Appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Both the Courts have concurrently held that though, it is the contention of appellant that agreement of sale on 20.11.1997, was executed by late A.Ramesh Reddy, the plaintiff did not take any steps during his life time for execution of sale deed in his favour and had issued reply notice dated 31.01.2012 only after issuance of notice dated 09.01.2012 by respondents seeking eviction of plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The trial Court has observed that 1 AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3554 2 2025 SCC Online SC 104 15 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 even after issuance of Ex.A3- reply notice, the appellant kept quite for a period of three years and got issued Ex.A27 corrigendum legal notice dated 12.01.2015 and filed suit so as to show that the suit is within limitation. It is relevant to note that the First Appellate Court has thoroughly examined the oral evidence adduced on behalf of appellant in the form of PWs.2 to 5 and observed that none of the witnesses supported the case of appellant and in fact, PW.4 who is brother of late A.Ramesh Reddy, specifically stated that Ex.A20 MOU does not belong to late A.Ramesh Reddy and the alleged signature in Ex.A20, also does not belong to him and further stated that he was giving evidence on behalf of appellant on fear that the appellant might file another criminal complaint against him, if he did not heed to his words. Further, PW.3 in his evidence specifically stated that K.Buchiram Reddy did not issue any receipt on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy as alleged by the appellant and that the appellant did not demand late A.Ramesh Reddy for execution of sale deed.
15. It is relevant to note that it is the specific case of the appellant that one K.Bhchiram Reddy was acting on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy and amounts were paid to K.Buchiram Reddy and receipts were also issued by the said K.Buchiram Reddy on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy. However, the appellant has not placed on record any authority executed by A.Ramesh 16 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 Reddy in favour of K.Buchiram Reddy authorizing him to act on his behalf and in fact in his evidence, K.Buchiram Reddy has specifically stated that during the life time of A.Ramesh Reddy, he did not execute any GPA in his favour authorizing him to sell the property and to collect the sale consideration. Therefore, the entire case as set up by the appellant that he paid amounts to A.Ramesh Reddy through K.Buchiram Reddy and the said K.Buchiram Reddy issued receipts on behalf of A.Ramesh Reddy, is untenable.
16. The appellant there upon relied on the Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Madina Begum's case (supra 1) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale has to be filed within a period of three years from the date specified in the agreement and if no time is fixed in the agreement, the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of notice of refusal.
17. In the present case, admittedly, agreement of sale was executed on 20.11.1997 whereas the suit was filed on 12.04.2015 which is about 17 years from the date of execution of agreement of sale. The contention of the appellant that the suit was filed within a period of three years from the date of refusal is untenable since admittedly A.Ramesh Reddy who 17 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 executed alleged agreement of sale on 20.11.1997, expired on 22.09.2003. Therefore, the appellant ought to have taken steps during the life time of A.Ramesh Reddy or immediately after his expiry. It is pertinent to note that neither the alleged agreement of sale dated 20.11.1997, nor the alleged payments made by the appellant were proved. Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances, the Judgment relied upon by the appellant has no application to the facts of the present case.
18. In considered opinion of this Court, the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature and do not qualify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.
19. It is well settled principle by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section of 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.
18
LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025
20. Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki 3, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration.
21. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellants are factual in nature and no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in this Second Appeal.
22. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Date:03.07.2025 tk 3 (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 19 LNA, J S.A.No.82 of 2025 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.82 of 2025 Dt.03.07.2025 tk