Telangana High Court
V.Shyam vs B.Raj Kumar on 10 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.306 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.87 of 2014 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the trial Court").
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of suit schedule property and that he agreed to sell the same for a total consideration of Rs.20,51,000/-, out of which Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to the defendant in cash on the date of agreement of sale i.e. 06.06.2011 and the defendant has also handed over the original title deed of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. It was agreed upon that the sale deed should be registered by the defendant as and when the plaintiff intends and that the plaintiff has been requesting the defendant to register the property in his favour by ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 2 receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.51,000/- but the defendant dodged away the matter and has not come forward to register the sale deed. He has also issued a legal notice dated 24.05.2014, inspite of which the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is further alleged that the agreement is a fictitious document which was not executed by the defendant at any time and that he never received any sale consideration and never negotiated with the defendant at any point of time. It is put forth by the defendant that the plaintiff was working in M/s.Rama Krishna Trading Company during the life time of late Sri B.Jagadeeshwaraiah, who took undue advantage of the faith and trust reposed by the defendant and other family members, has laid his hand over the property documents duly signed the blank stamp papers, cheques etc., and with a criminal intent, he has put the documents to his gain. He has also stolen the property documents of the sister-in-law of the defendant pertaining to Flat No.F-2, in Sai Enclave, bearing No.21-332 & 21-67/4/2, constructed on plot Nos.15 and 16 in Chittaraiah Colony, Venkatapuram, Ranga Reddy District and illegally grabbed it and is living therein and has ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 3 also created a false document by contending that there is a purported loan transaction where under he is entitled to live in the said premises without rent and has also filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. It is his further case that his sister-in-law Sunitha has filed a suit for recovery of possession against the plaintiff vide O.S.No.1529 of 2013 and has also filed a transfer O.P.No.935 of 2013 which are pending adjudication. It is further contended that the plaintiff got filed a speculative suit with a view to grab the suit schedule property for no consideration by using fabricated document.
5. The defendant has also filed an additional written statement contending that the plaintiff has submitted an application dated 08.10.2012 to the Inspector of Police, Mahankali Police Station questioning about the action taken by the police against his complaint dated 05.09.2010 and that the police have issued a reply dated 27.10.2012 to the plaintiff stating that the investigation made by Sub-Inspector of Police revealed that the alleged dispute is of a civil nature and as such, no action was initiated.
ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 4
6. The case of the defendant is that on 08.05.2007 he lost his original gift document and other documents and thus, he lodged a complaint with the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad on 08.05.2007 enclosing a copy of the police complaint with the Chikkadpally Police Station along with a notarized affidavit of the defendant and a paper publication was also made by the defendant about his lost documents vide document No.1869 of 2006 dated 05.09.2006 along with other documents in Andhra Prabha News Paper, Secunderabad Zone and requested the Sub-Registrar to stop registration of plaint schedule property and in reply to the said petition, the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad passed orders dated 08.05.2007 stating that registration of the document cannot be stopped on the grounds mentioned in the petition and that the party may seek redressal in a Court of law.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:
"1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to direct the defendant to execute and register sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property after receipt of balance sale consideration?
2) Whether B.Sunitha is absolute owner of suit schedule property as mentioned in the written statement?
ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 5
3) Whether this suit is a counter blast to the suit O.S.No.1529/2013 on the file of PSCJ, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District?
4) To what relief?"
8. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Es.A1 to A14. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B17 were marked. On appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri S.R.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.S.Suneel, learned counsel representing M/s.Chandrasen Law Offices, for the respondent.
10. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the plaintiff got entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 06.06.2011 which is proved by Ex.A1. He submitted that they have also filed a link document i.e. the gift deed by the mother of the defendant under Ex.A2. Thus, they could prove their case that the vendor had derived his title from his mother and that he has entered into an agreement of sale. Having received the considerable amount towards advance sale consideration, the defendant cannot ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 6 deny the execution of sale deed. He further argued that the defendant has invented a story by saying that he lost the documents in 2007 and also denied the execution of agreement of sale. It is falsely alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff worked under the father of the defendant and the trial Court has erroneously believed the version of the defendant and dismissed his suit. The judgment of the trial Court suffers errors apparent on the face of it. If they have lost the documents in 2007, the suit is filed in 2014, then how could the defendant be silent for a period of seven years not taking any action with regard to the documents lost by him. As the defendant has denied the execution of Ex.A1, he has submitted the documents for the expert opinion but the FSL has returned the same saying that the signatures obtained in contemporary to his signature of 2011 are required for analysis. When they have requested for the old signatures pertaining to 2011, the defendant has not furnished the same and hence, the report could not be obtained. The trial Court has held that Ex.A1 document to be suspicious but on what basis did he raised suspicion is not explained by the trial Court. He further argued that the defendant has taken different stands in his written statement and that the conduct of the defendant is not fair and the defendant ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 7 contended that the stamp paper is purchased in 2006 and that the document is executed in 2011 and has disputed the same but that there is no embargo to use the stamp paper at a subsequent date and thus, the said contention is not tenable. He further submitted that the plaintiff has been running his own business and has enough source of income and the contention of the defendant that he was working under his father is false. He has paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and was due to pay only Rs.51,000/- and that the defendant has received the said consideration but is taking a false plea that he has never received any amounts. He further argued that the plaintiff has performed his part of contract and his case is proved by Exs.A1 and A2 and he has also got examined PW2 who is the attestor to the document and thus, he could prove his case but the trial Court has failed to decree the suit, therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the DW1 has admitted the place where the plaintiff runs his business, thus, he could prove his contention that he has his own source of earnings and had enough money to pay for the advance sale consideration. He further argued that though the defendant contends that he has lost ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 8 the original document it was never lost and Ex.A1 is the genuine document executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
11. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the date of stamp paper on Ex.A1 is 27.06.2006 while the agreement of sale is dated 06.06.2011 and has contended that how the plaintiff could visualize that he is going to purchase a property few years later and thus, has purchased the stamp paper well in advance. He argued that the purpose for which it was brought cannot be foreseen by any individual. Thus, they disputed the very authenticity of the document and that the defendant contended that it is a fabricated document. Therefore, the plaintiff could not prove his case that it is a genuine document, hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. He further argued that though the plaintiff contends that he has paid Rs.20,00,000/- in advance, no proof is filed in this regard. Ex.A2 is the Gift Deed under which the defendant acquired the title on 05.09.2006. Ex.B16 explains that the defendant lost the original documents and so, the defendant has filed a complaint before the police on 08.05.2007 and he has also made a publication in the local news paper under Ex.B15 and B14 is the letter submitted to the SRO asking him to stop any registration. He further argued that PW2 ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 9 has not supported the case of PW1 and has contradicted his evidence, therefore, he prayed to uphold the judgment of the trial Court.
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 06.06.2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale?
3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable in law and under the facts?
4) To what relief?
13. POINT NO.1:
a) The evidence of PW1 reveals that he has reiterated the contents of his plaint in his chief examination. In his cross examination, he has admitted that since 2010 he was residing at H.No.1-3-183/33, Talla Basthi, Kavadiguda and that it was a rented house. He further stated that he is also residing at Alwal and that he was doing his flower business and fabrication works at premises No.3-3-394, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad. Again he stated that he is not doing flower business in the premises No.3-3-394, but is ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 10 running the business in front of Municipal place and denied the suggestion that he was doing flower business on footpath in Mahankali street. It is elicited from him that he has not filed any document to show that he is carrying fabrication work. He admitted that he has not pleaded in his plaint and also in his chief affidavit that his monthly earnings are to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. He further stated that he files income tax assessment only for fabrication work and that he earns Rs.25,000/- per month from fabrication work and Rs.1,00,000/- from flower business. He admitted that on 05.09.2010 he lodged a police complaint against the defendant and his family members alleging that he has a threat to his life from them. He further admitted that in the year 2012 i.e. on 08.10.2012 he lodged an application under Right to Information Act asking the stage of his complaint. He admitted that prior to 06.06.2011, there was a dispute with defendant's family members, for which the said complaint was filed.
b) It is pertinent to take note of a fact in this regard that the agreement of sale vide Ex.A1 is dated 06.06.2011. When so many disputes were pending between the plaintiff and defendant, how the plaintiff could enter into an agreement of sale by paying an advance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- is a big question.
ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 11
c) PW1 admitted that the police replied to his letter dated 27.10.2012 stating that his complaint is under investigation. It is elicited from him that the stamp paper on which Ex.A1 is drafted is purchased on 27.03.2006. He admitted that as on the date of purchasing Ex.A1, the suit schedule property does not stand in the name of defendant. This again raises a doubt as to how the plaintiff could purchase the stamp paper on 27.03.2006 itself. The explanation given by the plaintiff in this regard is that the defendant has offered to sell the property in 2006 and he purchased the stamp paper but when he enquired about the title deed of the property, the defendant has replied that it is in his mother's name, therefore he refused to purchase the property and subsequently, he offered to sell in the year 2011. He admitted that he has not mentioned the said fact in his plaint or in his chief affidavit or in his legal notice. It is elicited from PW1 that he has not filed any document to show the source of funds i.e. Rs.20,00,000/- to purchase the property. It is further elicited from PW1 that he filed a suit against the sister-in-law of the defendant in O.S.No.1827 of 2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy. On his admission, Ex.B3 the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.1827 of 2014 and Ex.B4 certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.1827 of 2014 are ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 12 marked. He also admitted that the sister-in-law of defendant has filed eviction suit against him vide O.S.No.1529 of 2013. Thus, on his admission the plaint in O.S.No.1529 of 2013 is marked as Ex.B5 and certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.1529 of 2013 is marked as Ex.B6. He denied the suggestion that he grabbed the documents of defendant and created Ex.A1 and filed a false suit. He further admitted that Ex.A10 the labour license registration certificate shows that he commenced his business in 2012 and that it pertains to the year 2013 and that renewal of labour license under Ex.10 pertains to 2014. The plaintiff has also filed Ex.A11 the statement of account. His contention is that he has paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque to the plaintiff on 24.01.2005. He admitted that the transaction dated 24.01.2005 regarding the payment of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque to the defendant has nothing to do with the suit transaction.
d) PW2 is one S.Pramod Kumar, who deposed that he knows both the parties to the suit and that he has attested as a witness in the agreement of sale dated 06.06.2011 and that in his presence, the plaintiff has handed over Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant and that the defendant in turn has handedover the original gift deed to the plaintiff. In his cross examination, it is elicited that the plaintiff is ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 13 his brother, that he does not have personal knowledge about the suit and that he does know against whom the present suit is filed. He was confronted with the signatures on his chief affidavit and also on Ex.A1. The witness has admitted the signature on his chief affidavit to be of himself but he stated that the signature on Ex.A1 is a little different, but it belongs to him. It is elicited from him that he does not know the contents of Ex.A1 but he received a phone call from the plaintiff stating that he was purchasing a small house and asked him to come down to Kavadiguda, so he went there and signed on the document and that the defendant was also present there. He does not know about the second witness but he stated that he knows on which date the second witness has signed on Ex.A1.
e) It is elicited from PW2 that the plaintiff is a flower vendor at Mahankali street and that the said business is carried on, on the footpath at Mahankali Street. Thus, PW2 has contradicted the assertion made by PW1 that he runs his business in a shop at Mahankali Street and that he also runs fabrication works. An overall perusal of the evidence of PW2 does not inspire confidence to hold that he supports the case of PW1. Further the evidence PW2 creates suspicion on the source of income putforth by PW1.
ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 14
f) DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendant. In his cross examination, he admitted that all the properties of his family were purchased by his father and that his father filed a suit for cancellation of gift deed on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. He further admitted that the suit was filed for premises No.3-3-714 to 717, 3-3-726 and 727 admeasuring 442 Sq.yards, situated at Rangrez Bagar, Secunderabad and that he filed a written statement in the said suit. It is elicited from him that he has not filed any proof to show that the plaintiff worked under his father at any point of time. He admitted that he knows the plaintiff from his childhood and that the suits between the plaintiff and his sister-in-law are covered under Exs.B3 to B6 but they are nothing to do with the present suit. It is elicited from him that in the gift deed which was executed in his favour by his mother, the plaintiff is one of the witness. He denied his signatures on Exs.A1 and A5 courier receipt. He admitted that in Ex.B14, the complaint given by him he has not mentioned the date, month or year of his going to Hayathnagar and loosing the documents. So also Ex.B15, paper publication is silent about the said details. He admitted Ex.B16 does not bear the acknowledgment of Chikkadpally police station. It is elicited from him that after the execution of gift deed, ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 15 disputes arose among his brothers and that there were no transactions between himself and the plaintiff earlier. He admitted that he received Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff on 24.01.2005 by way of cheque. He has expressed no objection if the agreement of sale Ex.A1 and also Ex.A5 the courier receipt are sent for expert opinion. It is also elicited from him that his father executed a gift deed in his favour under Ex.A8 with regard to 447 Sq.yards, in which the plaintiff has signed as a witness. This proves the acquaintance of plaintiff with the defendant's family and as he signed as witness in two documents. He admitted that adjacent to his Rama Krishna Trading Company there are many shops and further admitted that his father used to run the said company till his death. It is elicited from him that the lost gift deed was not traced out till date. He admitted that the cyber crime police registered a crime against him in Crime No.137 of 2015 but he added that the said complaint was filed against him at the instance of plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the application given by the plaintiff to investigating officer of cyber crimes against the defendant, which includes the letter dated 25.04.2016 and 20.05.2016. He denied the suggestion to have received Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and he has also denied to have given the original gift deed to the plaintiff.
ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 16 He admitted that himself and his sister-in-law by name Sunitha gave complaint against the plaintiff, while his other family members did not.
g) A perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that it is a receipt-cum-agreement of sale written on Rs.100/- stamp paper. The contention of the defendant counsel is that it is a fabricated document and he disputes his signature also on Ex.A1. His contention is that he never executed such document. Now the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove the said document. He got examined PW2 contending that he is an attesting witness. PW2 is S.Pramod Kumar, it is elicited in his evidence that he is the plaintiff's brother and also that he does not know the contents of Ex.A1 and nature of Ex.A1 but that when he was called by the plaintiff, he went and simply singed on the document. When the document was confronted to him along with his chief affidavit, the witness has stated that the signature on Ex.A1 defers a little from his signature on the chief affidavit. This again casts a suspicion on the document.
h) The another contention raised by the defendant counsel is that the stamp paper happens to have been purchased in the year 2006 while the document is dated 06.06.2011 and the plaintiff as ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 17 PW1 has answered in his cross examination that he had talks with the defendant to purchase the said property mentioned in Ex.A1 and has purchased the stamp paper but then, he got to know from the defendant that the property exists in the name of his mother and therefore he has postponed the execution of agreement of sale and pursuant to the execution of Ex.A2 in favour of the defendant, he got this document executed. Even if this version of the plaintiff has to be believed, Ex.A2 is executed on 05.9.2006 while the agreement of sale is entered on 06.06.2011. The date of purchase of the document is 27.03.2006 while the date of gift deed is dated 05.09.2006. In case if he intended to enter into agreement of sale and if he has waited for the clear title of the defendant, it was conferred on the defendant in the year 2006 itself, then what made him to wait till 2011 for the execution of Ex.A1 is not explained by the plaintiff. The attestor himself has expressed suspicion on his signature on Ex.A1.
i) The contention of the defendant counsel is that the defendant lost the original gift deed and thus, lodged a complaint with the police on 08.05.2007. The recitals of Ex.A1 show that the defendant has handed over the original gift deed to the plaintiff and it is executed on 06.06.2011 i.e. after the complaint lodged by the ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 18 defendant. When PW2 has expressed such a doubt of his signature on Ex.A1, the plaintiff has not taken any pains to get the other witness examined. The executant himself has disputed his signature on Ex.A1, then the onus lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove the document but he could not discharge the burden and the document under Ex.A1 is viewed with suspicion. But for Exs.A1 and A2 there are no other documents to prove the case of the plaintiff, all the other documents referred to the legal notice issued by him and the proof of service and he has also filed the certified copies of the documents pertaining to other suits, which do not aid the plaintiff in proving the execution of agreement of sale. He filed the statement of account under Ex.A11 and labour license registration certificate under Ex.A10. Through Ex.A11 he wanted to prove that he has paid Rs.50,000/- to the defendant through a cheque. But again he has admitted in his cross examination that the said amount does not pertain to the suit transaction under Ex.A1. Therefore, Ex.A11 is also of no avail to the plaintiff to prove his case. Ex.A10 pertains to the subsequent years, he wanted to prove that he had enough financial resources to enter into the agreement of sale by paying Rs.20 Lakhs, however, it was elicited in his cross examination that the contents of Ex.A10 reveal that they ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 19 pertain to the subsequent years, while the agreement of sale is dated 06.06.2011. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the agreement of sale under Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant on 06.06.2011. When he contends that he has paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.20,00,000/- it is for him to prove that it was paid in cash or through cheque. His contention is that he has paid it in cash. The only witness on whom he relied upon is PW2 and the evidence of PW2 does not corroborate the evidence of PW1 in several aspects, therefore, Ex.A1 is held as not proved.
j) On the other hand, the defendant has filed the copy of complaint lodged by him under Ex.B16 and also the letter given by him under Ex.B14 alleging that he lost his original gift deed, whereunder he has derived his title to the suit schedule property from his mother. Further, the documents under Exs.B3 to B6 were marked on the admissions made by PW1 in his cross examination, as they pertain to the case filed by the cousin of the defendant against the plaintiff herein. However, the said documents are not relevant to be considered in the present case. Therefore, the defendant could prove that he was diligent enough, on loosing the gift deed, he has filed a complaint before the police and also has made a paper publication and also has addressed a letter to the ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 20 SRO and obtained the orders from him. Therefore, it is held that Ex.A1 is not proved by the plaintiff. The defendant expressed his willingness to send the document to handwriting expert but the plaintiff failed to take any steps, initially it was addressed to the FSL but when they requested for contemporaneous signatures, the plaintiff have not taken any steps to obtain the contemporaneous signatures from the defendant and to get the opinion of the expert. Though the appellant counsel has argued that the defendant has not cooperated in furnishing the contemporaneous signatures, it was his duty to make an application before the court and to obtain the defendant's contemporaneous signatures and through the said application he could have insisted on the contemporaneous signatures of the defendant. However, the plaintiff has not acted in furtherance of the letter of FSL seeking the contemporaneous signatures pertaining to the year 2011. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, hence, he is not entitled to any relief under the said document, thus, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. Therefore, it is held that the document under Ex.A1 is not true, valid and does not bind the defendant. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
ETD,J CCCA No.306_2019 21
14. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.06.2011.
15. POINT NO.3:
In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. POINT NO.4:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 08.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.87 of 2014 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. No costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 10.09.2025 ns