Telangana High Court
Mr. Alati Venkatarama Reddyavr And ... vs Sri Bhagwan Sri Balasai Baba Central ... on 15 October, 2025
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2019
% 15-10-2025
# Mr. Alati Venkataramana Reddy & Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao.
...Petitioners
vs.
$ Sri Bhagwan Sri Balasai Baba Central Trust & others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior
Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel for
the petitioners on record.
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. 1992 (1) ALT 583
2. AIR 2002 AP 68
3. 2010 (2) KHC 281
2
NNRJ
C.R.P. No.2218 of2019
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2019
Between:
Mr. Alati Venkataramana Reddy & Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao.
...Petitioners
vs.
Sri Bhagwan Sri Balasai Baba Central Trust & others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.10.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
3
NNRJ
C.R.P. No.2218 of2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders of the learned XV Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally, R.R. District at Kukatpally vide S.R.No.5990 of 2019 in O.S.No.210 of 2019 wherein the learned Judge permitted the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration amount into the credit of the suit with immediate effect and subsequently on request, the time was extended and further time was granted from 03.07.2019 to 11.09.2019 for plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking a 4 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.02.2002 with Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.08.2005 executed by and between defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein on one hand and plaintiffs on the other, in the capacity of vendors and vendees. In addition to the above relief, plaintiffs as consequential reliefs, also seek declaration as null and void of various documents executed by the defendants clandestinely and in collusion with each other so as to defeat the rights of the agreement of sale read with MOU.
3. The main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that at the very inception of the plaint perfunctorily and without considering the legal position, the Court below has permitted the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration vide docket order dated 15.06.2019 i.e., even before the subject suit came up for the first time and much less even before the respondents had entered appearance.
5
NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019
4. It is further contended that even though the petitioners made an attempt to apprise the legal position on 19.06.2019 by citing the applicable case law and after hearing the arguments on the said issue at length, the Court below posted the matter to 01.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 in tandem for orders and it is further contended that the learned Judge vide docket order dated 15.07.2019 on the said issue with adverting to either to the arguments or the case law as cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed contending that the said direction by way of permission given by the learned Judge is against the provisions of law and equality in fair play. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the deposit of balance sale consideration at such a preliminary stage of the suit is against the principles of equity and good conscience, having regard to heavy sums 6 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 of monies belonging to the petitioners would be locked up.
6. It is also further contended that regarding the direction to deposit of balance sale consideration should sparingly be used considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that too, if the Court below comes to a conclusion that, it is necessary to advance the cause of justice, that being the position, the impugned order could not have been passed by the learned Judge at very inception of the plaint. It is also contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the trial of the subject suit had itself had not yet commenced and notices as such are still in course of transmission to few of the respondents. The learned Judge as such ought not to have passed the impugned order at such an inception of the plaint, hence prayed to set aside the said order and by allowing the civil revision petition.
7. Having responded to the notices issued by this Court and as being served, Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy 7 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Though notices were served on respondent Nos.4 and 7, none appeared on their behalf. Notice to respondent No.2 has been unserved and refused and as such it is deemed to have been served and respondent No.3 appeared through counsel Sri S. Sharat Kumar, respondent No.5 by Sri V.V. Raghavan and none appeared on behalf of respondent No.6. However, respondent No.6 was set ex parte though notices were issued by way of substitute service. Though, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 were filed by the representative of respondent No.8 posing himself as legatee, the said I.As were allowed and proposed respondent was brought on record for a limited purpose of disposal of the present revision petition subject to raising of any pleas on the question of entitlement of proposed respondent to represent the legal representative of respondent No.8. The petitioner contends that the proposed respondent is not entitled to represent respondent No.8 purely as the alleged WILL leaving the 8 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 said question open to be decided before the trial Court as prescribed under Order XXII, Rule 5 of CPC.
8. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5.
9. Having heard the contentions and rival contentions of both the learned counsels, the points that arose before this Court for consideration are as follows:
"i. Whether the Court can insist upon the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration at the inception of the plaint?
ii. Whether the order of the trial Court permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration before the Court below is permissible or proper and the same deserves to be set aside?"9
NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019
10. Point No.1:
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued and contended that the very order passed by the Court below is against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were made to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.32 Crores.
11. On perusal of the record it discloses that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.210 of 2019 before the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.02.2002 read with Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.08.2005 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.70.00 guntas in Survey Nos.104/1, 104/2, 105, 106, 107 and 108 situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Municipality, Serilingampally Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the sale consideration agreed is upon Rs.70,00,000/- per acre 10 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 i.e., Rs.40 Crores and plaintiffs in fact had advanced a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the balance has to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It is also contended that the time is the assense of the contract. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the practice prevailed before the trial Court that an undertaking has to be given by the party who approaches the property seeking specific performance of any agreement of sale or contract with an undertaking that they are ready and also ready to deposit the balance sale consideration and it is pointed out that no such procedure is prescribed either by way of any circulars of this Court on the administrative side or the law does not permit to seek such an undertaking and also further pointed out that the entire episode which led to filing of the said civil revision petition is on the ground that permission was granted by Court below it is contended as per the procedure prescribed before the trial Court to cancel the same. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed a 11 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 memo before the trial Court by way of affidavit in S.R.No.5990 of 2019 and on the said date of filing of the suit it reads as follows:
"In receipt of part of the total sale consideration payable under the Agreement of Sale dated 14.02.2002 read with Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.08.2005 and as such, the plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of the said agreement, they undertake to pay the balance sale consideration as and when the Court so directs."
12. It is contended that though there was no permission sought on in the affidavit, still the Court below permitted the petitioners to deposit the said balance sale consideration into the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that so as to consider the circumstances therein, the petitioners/plaintiffs were constrained to comply the said direction. Though in para No.6 of the grounds it is contended that the petitioners made an attempt to appraise the Court as to the legal position by stating case laws, but the Court 12 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 below have insisted the plaintiffs on 01.07.2019 & 15.07.2019 to deposit the balance sale consideration without adverting either to the arguments or case laws cited by the petitioners.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in "Sakamuri Sivarambabu and Another v. Parasad Sunjan Raju"1 wherein it is held as follows:
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court,
(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.
Explanation (i) as extracted states that in cases where payment of money is involved, it is not that essential for the plaintiff to actually tender or deposit the money, except when so directed by the Court. The direction to deposit the money is as a matter of exception, the general rule being 1 1992 (1) ALT 583 13 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 that there is no necessity of the money being deposited in order to prove one's own readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. Further the direction envisaged by the explanation as a measure of exception cannot be understood as one at the inception stage of the suit for purposes of registering the plaint and entertaining the suit. Even the decisions relied upon by the Court below, viz.
Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. Munuswamy Udayar and Others, and Alagammal Vs. M.S. Rajagopala Servai, clearly lay down that it is not essential to the plaintiff to actually tender the money involved or deposit the money in the Court, except when so specifically directed by the Court. This exception does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue direction for deposit of balance consideration even at the inception stage of the proceedings, i.e., at the stage of registering and entertaining the suit. What all required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act is that the plaintiff should aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, his part of the contract. Admittedly, there is such an averment and in fact certain money was paid even at the time of entering into the agreement, some more later on, and the balance money is obtained by the plaintiffs as a loan sanctioned by the Life Insurance Corporation and there are specific 14 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 averments in this behalf made in the plaint.
8. In a matter similar to the one on hand, this Court in C.R.P.902/91 dated 20-3- 1991 set aside the order of the lower court directing deposit of the balance consideration and directed the lower Court to register the plaint and pass appropriate orders, subject of course complying with formalities other than this. In view of all this, we find that the order under appeal is one made without jurisdiction and accordingly it is liable to be set aside." Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the judgment passed in "Gongunta gopala Krishna Murthy v. Uppala Jwala Narasimham and Ors."2 wherein it is held as follows:
"Before numbering the above suit, directed the plaintiff, in view of Explanation (i) to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to prepare to deposit the sale consideration after filing of the written statement while directing the Sheristadar of the Court to register the plaint, if otherwise in order.2
AIR 2002 AP 68 15 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 A reading of the above-said provision makes it clear that one has to prove that he has performed and always been ready and willing to perform the contract, but the defendant has failed or prevented or waived to perform the contract. In those circumstances Explanation (i) empowers the Court to direct the plaintiff to deposit the balance of money in the Court if the Court comes to the conclusion based on facts and circumstances of the case to prove the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract by depositing balance money in the Court. Explanation (i) supra is an exception to the above section where payment of money is involved and it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant and he need not deposit in the Court any money at the time of presentation of the plaint, except when so directed by the Court. What all required is to prove that one's own readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. The direction envisaged in the explanation is a measure of exception and it cannot be understood at the stage of inception of the suit for the purpose of registering 16 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 plaint and entertaining the suit, the amount has to be deposited. On the other hand, the Court is empowered to issue direction to deposit the balance consideration, if it is satisfied that the plaintiff is not in a position to get registration of the sale agreement, if decree is passed in his favour. At this stage, the Court, under the above-said provision, is entitled to direct the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration in the Court, but it cannot direct the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration even at the stage of inception of the plaint or at the stage of registration and entertaining the suit.
That averments have been made as contemplated u/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, it cannot be said that Court has no power to order deposit of the amount. It is further observed that where the consideration amount is on high side and the amount of advance paid is low, it is desirable to put a check on the suitors in preventing them from filing false and vexatious suits and the agreement of sale need not be registered and it can easily be brought into existence at any time with the 17 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 active connivance of the scribe and the attestors. It is further observed that it is the duty of the Subordinate Judicial Officers to consider whether in a given case a direction can be given to deposit the balance to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation that has been made in the plaint about the readiness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. When the Subordinate Judge with experience found that false and vexatious suits are being filed, he is certainly at liberty to ask for deposit of money and when the discretion has been exercised by the Judicial officer in a given set of circumstances."
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued and contended that mere undertaking for the purpose of which it is given by the petitioners/plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit is only to comply with the mandate of the Court concerned and as per the procedure expressing their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract and also to show that he has sufficient funds and he has to keep on generating funds for the purpose 18 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 of compliance of conditions of the agreement and also for specific performance of the contract. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in "Devassy and Another v. Abdulla Koya Haji and Others"3 wherein it is held as follows:
"If a challenge thereof is raised an issue has to be framed and it has to be tried and decided. To show readiness and willingness the plaintiff in a specific performance need not furnish liquid cash and he need only show that he is possessed of funds or that he is capable of generating funds for the specific performance of the contract. In the present case, the plaintiffs have produced communication from the bank showing the bank balance of the first plaintiff, but, no enquiry as to the balance shown in that statement as conducted. When that be the case, it cannot be construed that the impugned order dismissing the suit is based on a decision taken by the Court with reference to readiness and willingness 3 2010 (2) KHC 281 19 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 of the plaintiff covered under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act.
ii. A request for time with a representation to deposit the sum by the counsel by no stretch of imagination can be considered as an undertaking given by the plaintiff before the Court. Assuming that the representation was an undertaking it cannot lead to dismissal of a suit, even if it is flouted without giving notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the undertaking has not been complied with. Before a party is non-suited for the reason of an undertaking given by the counsel, the elementary principles of natural justice demand that he should be heard. In spite of the fact that the plaintiff has produced statements issued by the bank showing his cash balance, which is not disputed as not sufficient to satisfy the balance sale consideration, for not depositing the sum, as if there was an undertaking by the plaintiffs counsel to do so, the Court below has dismissed the suit.
iii. The rigour imposed under Section 24 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 20 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 insisting for deposit of the balance sale consideration due under an agreement of sale to prove the readiness and willingness of the purchaser to establish his claim for specific performance of a contract by the opposite party was watered down and in fact given a go-by under the new Act, Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The recommendations of the Law Commission in its 9th report for dispensing with such onerous condition on a party seeking specific performance of a contact, in fact, has given rise to the liberalized provision under Section 16 (c) with the explanation added to that section under the new Act. Section 16 (c) of the Act with the 'Explanation' thereto, which alone is relevant in the present case."
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently argued and contended that the petitioners are not entitled for specific performance and also stated that he has good defence before the trial Court but the said aspects cannot come in the present civil revision petition as the point for consideration before this Court is limited 21 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 only to the extent whether the direction to deposit the balance sale consideration is valid or not.
16. A perusal of the above said decisions wherein it is specifically stated that considering the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Act it shows that the suit filed for specific performance of contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract and it is also clear that a party who approaches the Court for enforcing of the contract and as such the law which requires is that there must be an application and the same also has to be proved. The question of proof of any application would arise only after filing of the written statement or after completion of the pleadings and also after going into the merits of the case. In such cases, if the law also provides that where the contract which involves the demands of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to tender the defendants and deposit the money except when so directed by the Court. 22
NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 In the case even if the said provision there shall be a direction by the Court that in a suit for specific performance, the purpose of giving a permission, the Court has to initially come to the conclusion of considering the nature of the agreement and also the amount which is involved and also to consider whether any direction can be given or not to deposit the balance sale consideration to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegation that has been made in the plaint.
17. The law is being settled that it is sufficient the plaintiff makes an averment that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is also further settled that the plaintiff actually need not tender or deposit the money, except when so directed by the Court. The direction to deposit the money is as a matter of exception, the general rule being that there is no necessity of the money deposited in order to prove one's own readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. Further the direction envisaged by the explanation as a measure 23 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 of exception cannot be understood as one at the inception stage of the suit for purposes of registering the plaint and entertaining the suit.
18. This exception does not mean that the Court has jurisdiction to issue a direction for deposit of balance consideration even at the inception stage of the proceedings i.e., at the inception stage of the proceedings and as the law permits that unless an averment as to in respect of readiness and willingness has to be made, there is no necessity to deposit the money into the Court at the time of presentation. It is also placed before this Court that there is no specific procedure being prescribed by the High Court by way of any Administrative Circular directing the trial Courts to insist for deposit of the amounts or to insist for giving any undertaking to be filed by way of affidavit or any writing in the absence of any such specific Circulars or the procedure does not prescribe or provide any rule for the same. 24
NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019
19. In such circumstances, the Court below insisting upon the parties to file an affidavit or undertaking affidavit or a Memo in the form of an undertaking is not correct procedure. In view of settled legal proposition of law, the Court only has to see that there is any averment made as to the plaintiff showing readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract which alone would suffice.
20. Considering the above decisions cited and the law laid down, this Court is of the opinion that the permission which is said to have been granted by taking into consideration the undertaking of the plaintiffs as a request for seeking permission and insisting or directing the petitioners to deposit the amount appears to be impermissible under law and even nothing has been placed by any of the parties before this Court that there is any such administrative directions or any circulars other than the law laid down in the provisions enacted under the Specific Relief Act. Even otherwise, any 25 NNRJ C.R.P. No.2218 of2019 circular issued cannot go against and contrary to the provision of law which is impermissible. As such, the permission given by the Court below being impermissible under law and the same is liable to be set aside.
21. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the docket orders dated 01.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 and the petitioners/plaintiffs shall abide by the undertaking given by them before the trial Court about their willingness to perform part of the contract by depositing the sale consideration as and when directed by the Court as provided under law. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to withdraw the amount which was deposited by the petitioners/plaintiffs. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date:15.10.2025.
Bw