Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and others

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD, WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S.Nos.172 and 403 of 2003 AND A.S.692 0F 2008 A.S.No.172 of 2003 : Appeal under Section 96 RAfu Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt.21-11-O2 passed in OS.No. 96/99 on the file of V Addl. Dist. Judge, FTC, R.R.Dist, at L.B. Nagar. Between: B.CHINNAKRISHNA REDDY, S/o B. Damodar Reddy Rl/o H.No. 2-2-647128, Plot No. 401, Shivananda Apartments, Central Excise Colony, ...APPELLANT AND 1. V.SURENDER REDDY, S/o late V. Gopal Reddy R/o 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. 2. D. Madhav, S/o. D. Ramulu Rl/o Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set- aside the exparte order/recall the Order dt 0311012023 passed in AS. No. 172 of 2003 by restoring the lnterim suspension granted on 16/04/2003 and 1111212023, pending disposal of the AS No. 17212003. WPMP.No.2694 of 2003: Petition under Section 1 51 CPC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment & decree dt.21 .11.2002 passed in O.S.No.96/1999 on the file of the V Addl. District Judge, FTC., R.R. District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2003(CMP. NO: 27079 0F 2003) Between: 1. V.SURENDER REDDY, S/o late V. Gopal Reddy F/o 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. 2. D. Madhav, S/o. D. Ramulu Rl/o Malakpet, Hyderabad. . . ... Petitioners/Respondents AND B.CHINNAKRISHNA REDDY, S/o B. Damodar Reddy R/o H.No. 2-2-647128' Plot No. 401 , Shivananda Apartments, Central Excise Colony, ... Res po nd enUPetitiojn e r Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

vacate the suspension order dated 1614103 passed in CMP.NO.2694/03 in A.S.NO.1 72103 Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRl. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: MURLI NARAYAN BUNG FIRST APPEAL NO: 403 OF 2003 Appeal under Section 96 R/VV Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dt- 21-11-2002 passed in O.S.No.96 of 1999 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B. Nagar. Between: 1. V.SURENDER REDDY, S/o late Sri V. Gopal Reddy Business Rl/o Road No.10, Banjara Hills. Hyderabad 2. D. Madhav, S/o Sri D. Ramulu Business R/o Malakpet, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT(S) AND B.CHENNAKRISHNA REDDY, S/o Sri B. Damodar Reddy Business R/o H.No.2-2-647128, Plot No.401, Sivananda Apts., Central Excise Colony, ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRl. MURLI NARAYAN BUNG Counsel for the Respondents: PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO FIRST APPEAL NO: 692 OF 2008 Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment and Decree d1.21.04.2008, passed in O.S.No 1341 ot 2004 by the lV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTC., Ranga Reddy District. Between: B. Chenna Krishna Reddy, S/o. B. Damodar Reddy Business R/o. H.No. 2-2- 647128, Plot No 401, Central Excise Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND 1. V. Surender Reddy, S/o. Late V. Gopal Reddy Business R/o. 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. 2. D. Madhav, S'o. D. Ramulu Business R/o. 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim injunction against the respondents herein or any body claiming through them from alienating or creating any third party interests in the property forming part of suit schedule in suit o.s.No.131 of 2004 on the file of lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC., R.R.District. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Gounsel for the Respondents: MURLI NARAYAN BUNG The Court made the following Order : 1 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(ASMP. NO: 18'15 OF 2008)

I a HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S. Nos. 172 AND 4O3 of2OO3 AND A.S.No. 692 of 2OOa COMMON JUDGMENT: A.S. Nos. 172 ar,.d 403 of 2003 are against the order dated 21.1i.2OO2 in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 on the lile of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar and A.S. No. 692 of 2008 is against the order dated 21 .o4.2oog in O.S. No. 131 of 2OO4 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar. Both the suits, out of which the present three Appeals are llled, are instituted on the same set of facts and contentions. Hence, all the three appeals are heard jointly and are taken up for disposal by common judgment, with the consent of thc parties. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suits. 3. O.S. No. 96 of 7999 was hled for recovery of possession o[ an extent of 761 Square yards in Survey No. l}2l3lll consisting of plots bearing No. 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 situated at Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The case of plaintiffs is that they are owners of suit schedule plots and they agreed to sell the same to a total sale u/'

1 consideration of Rs. 13,31,75O/- to the defendant and executed an agreement of sale on 23.1O. 1998 and received an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is agreed that the remaining consideration was to be paid in three bi-monthly instalme nts commencing from 23.12.1998 and after payment of entire sale consideration, plaintiffs should execute a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant and put him in possession of the suit schedule plots. However, the defendant failed to keep up the payment schedule, but occupied the suit schedule p1ots, which was noticed by the plaintiffs in March 1999. Plaintiffs' case is that they never delivered lawful possession of suit scheduie plots to defendant since entire sale consideration is not paid arrd they noticed certain unauthorized constructions in the suit schedule plots, for which no Municipality permissions were obtained. Hence, plaintiffs got issued the legal notice dated 27 .03.1999 to th,.e defendant and filed the current suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule plots; damages @ Rs. 4OOO /- per month and for injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule plots. On the contrary, defendant filed his written statement admitting ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plots; agreement of sale dated 23. 10.1998; payment schedule mentioned in the said agreement. However, he

n contended that according to Clause-9 of the agreement of sale, he has been enjoying the property as sole and absolute owner He denied the contention that possession was to be delivered after execution and registration of sale deed after complete payment of sale consideration. It is contended that he never failed to comply with the terms of agreement of sale; he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration. [n fact, plaintiffs agreed for the dcfendant taking possession and making constructions in the suit sr,-hedule plots, as such constructions are not illegal and unauthorized. Defendant further contended that since he filed a case against the 1"t plaintiff under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as a counter-blast, the former filed the present suit. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the follou.ing issues for trail: i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of conl ract-? ii. Whether the plaintiffs are enLitled for possession as prayed for? iii. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? As plaintiffs never sought the relief of speci{ic performance of contract, the Court below did not give any finding on this issue. Since the ownership of plaintiffs over the suit schedule plots, entering into an agreement of sale, sale

4 I 1. Whether there isjustification for the defendant for not paying first instalment of Rs. 3,75,000/- fell due on23.l2 1998 and the further instalments? 2. Whether in part performance of the contract to sell the suit properry, the defendant took possession of the property? lf so, is it protected u/Sec. 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act? On point No. l, the lower Court hetd that the excuses pleaded by defendant for not paying the balance sale consideration viz., non-furnishing of approved lay-out and income tax clearance certificate by plaintiffs, are not valid pretexts, for the reasons: (i) this plea was not taken in the written statement; (ii) if furnishing of these two are so important and condition precedent for payment of balance sale consideration, the same should have been found place in the consideration of Rs. 13,31,7501- ar.d payment of advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- to plaintiffs by defendant and non-payment of balance sale consideration by the defendalt are admitted and while plaintiffs plead that defendant had unauthorizedly occupied the suit schedule plots and raised illegal constructions thereon without permission, defendant pleads that as per Clause-9 of agreement of sale, he took possession of suit schedule plots, his possession is protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Trial Court framed the following two points for consideration:

-) n a€{reement of sale, but they were not engrafted in the agreement of sale. The trial court answered this point against defendant' Regarding the 2'd point, defendant claims that as per clause-9 of agreement of sale, he took possession of suit schedule plots and his possession is protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to Clause-9, plaintiffs (vendors) declared that defendant (purchaser) can enjoy the suit property as sole and absolute owner without any disturbance, Iet or hindrance either from the vendors or from anybody claiming through or under the vendors' This Clause clothes defendant with the right of enjoyment of property' However, a covenant is made in Clauses 4 and 1 1 of the agreement of sale. Clause-4 is that whenever purchaser requests or demands for execution and registration of sale deed in his favour, vendors should be ready for handing over the suit property in vacant and peaceful condition by clearing encumbrances, etcetera. Clause- 1 1 further states that in the event the entire sale consideratioo, as agreed is paid, in spite of the fact that sale deed is not registered, purchaser shall be put into possession of suit property by the vendors' By a conjunctive reading of Clauses 4, 9 ard 1l of the agreement of sale, the trial Court held that it cannot be said that plaintiffs delivered possession of suit schedule plots' ./ {' I

Section 53-A of the Act directs that where there is a written agreement of sale of immoveable property and that transferee in part performance of the contract 'take possession' of such property and if he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, then vendors or any person claiming under them cannot evict the transferee from the said property. The lower Court held that from the facts that plaintiffs did not hand over possession of suit schedule plots to defendant, the latter failed to pay balance sale consideration and pleading unjust justifications, it must be held that defendant is not ready and willing to perform his part of contract as a transferee and as such Section 53-A protection cannot be invoked. After considering and discussing the various authorities relied upon by both the parties, the Trial Court held that plaintiffs are entitied to recover possession of suit schedule plots from delendant. Regarding the 3rd issue, the trial Court held that when once the suit for recovery of possession is decreed and since defendant had no marketable title, he is to be injuncted as prayed for. In the result, the trial Court decreed the suit and directed defendant to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule plots to plaintiffs within three months from the date of judgment and'he is also injuncted from alienating the suit land. plaintiffs I ()

7 n were directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to defendant with interest @ 6oh p.a. from the date of delivery of possession till the date of p.rlrment. Regarding the claim of mesne prohts, the Court held that no material is placed to consider the same, as such this relief is rejected. 4. On the same pleadings and arguments, defendant in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 frled O.S. No. 692 of 2008 seeking specihc performance of agreement of sale dated 23.10.t998. Plaintiffs in O.S. No- 96 of 1999, who are arrayed as defendants in O.S. No. 692 of 2OO8 too relied upon the same pleadings and arguments adduced in O.S. No. 96 of 1999. The Trial Court considering the rival contentions and arguments more particularly taking into consideration the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 held that plaintiff in O.S. No. 692 of 20O8 committed wilful default of payment of balance sale consideration, as such, proteition under Section 53-A of the Act does not come to his rescue, hence, he cannot seek specihc performance of agreement of sa-le. In the result, the Court dismissed the suit. 5. Aggrieved by decree in O'S. No. 96 of 1999, defendant therein filed A.S. No. 172 of 2003. Aggrieved by the decree in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 to the extent of denying mesne prohts, plaintiffs therein liled A.S- No. 4o3 of 20o3. Against

8 dismissal of suit O.S. No. 692 of 2OOB, plaintiff therein ltled A-S. No.692 of2008. ARGUMENTS: 6. AS No. L72l2OO3z Learned counsel Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao contends that trial Court failed to see that appellalt is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but plaintiffs failed to obtain approved lay out and income tax clearance; the trial Court erred in seeing that appellant was in possession of suit property immediately after paying advance amount of Rs. 2,00,OOO/- and enjoying the same as sole and absolute owner; the Court below failed to understand that possession of suit property was given to appellant by respondents themselves; the trial Court erred in interpreting Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. According to learned counsel, the trial Court ought to have seen that time is not t]e essence of contract in question. It came to a conclusion that the appellant is in possession of the suit property illegally and the structures thereon are unauthorized ones. AS No. 4OB|2O03: Sri Murali Narayan Bung, learned counsel for appellants contend that the trial Court erred grossly in denying mesne prohts. It is contended that trial Court when once came \- ,2 I

I n totheconclusionthatrespondentisinunlaw{ulpossessionof suit property, ought to have granted mesne profits' According to the learned counsel, the trial Court failed to consider the fact that respondent, at no point of time, performed his part of Contractnorwasreadyandwillingtodoso,assuchappellantis entitled for mesne Profits' AS No. 692l2O0at Learned counsel Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao appearing for appellant/ plaintiff contends that trial Court having considered that even though there is fault on the part of defendants in not performing their part of contract, plaintiff ought to have initiated suit proceedings for specific performance of agreement of sale at the earliest point of time ' erred in concluding that the suit is barred by time The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that transaction which is subject matter of criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instmments Act is not having any effect on the transaction coverecl by the Agreement of Sale' According to the learned counsel, the trial court ought to have seen that appellant is always willing and ready to perform his part of contract and it f:riled in appreciating/ atalyzing the evidence adduced bY the partles. r I

10 7. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract relevant portions of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.1O.1998 which is an unregistered document engrafted on a Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs. lOO/-. I II IIi IV The property under sale is 761 Sq. Yds., 150 Sq. Yds in Plot No.4; 180 Sq. Yds in Plot No.9; 141 Sq. Yds in Plot No. 1 (6) 0; 14O Sq.Yds in Plot No. 11 and 150 Sq. Yds in Plot No. 12 and the sale consideration is Rs. 13,31,750/- As per clause (2) the purchaser paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the vendors towards advance, which the vendors received and acknowledged. As per clause (3) the balance of Rs. 1 1,31,750/- shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendors in 3 Bi-monthty instalments: a) 1"t instalment of Rs. 3,75,000 /-on 23.12.1994; b) 2"d instalment of Rs. 3,75,O0O /- on 23.02.1999, and c) 3.d instalment of Rs.3,81,750 l- ort 23.O4.1999 B. Agreement of Sale, dated 23.10. 1998 and its contents in general and the ones referred to supra, are not in di1>ute. Similarly, payment/receipt of Rs 2,OO,OOO I - towards adva\nce sale consideration is not in dispute. Schedule of payment of balalce sale consideration and the default of I (v) As per clause (4) the vendors agreed that rvhenever the purchaser requests or demands for execution and registration ofthe Sale Deed in his favour, the vendors should be ready for handing over the Schedule mentioned property in vacant arrd peaceful condition by cleaning all encumbrances, whatsoever etc., at the time ol registration of the Sale Deed. (vi) As per clause (9) the vendors declare that the purchaser can enjoy the schedule mentioned property as sole and absolute owner $'ithout any disturbance, Iet or hindrance either from the Vendors or from anybody else claiming through or under the vendors. (vii) As per clause (11) in the event of the entire sale consideration as agreed is paid inspite of the fact that the Sale Deed is not registered, the purchaser shall be put into possession of the schedule property By the vendors. I I t

T 11 il rl Purchaser in adhering to the said schedule of payment, taking over possession of suit scheduled plots by the purchaser and raising structures thereon are not in dispute. 9. In the above factual scenario, the following are the points to be considered for disposal of these Appeals: 1) Whether the purchaser is justifred in committing default in adhering to payment schedule of balance sale consideration and excuses offered by him for such default are having considerable weight? 2) Whether the purchaser is entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Propert5r Act, 1882? 3) Whether the purchaser, by taking possession ol the suit schedule plots and raising structures thereon, is to be considered as in lawful/legal possession or unlawful / illegal possession? 4) Whether the appeliants in these three appeais are entitled to the reliefs sought for by them? r 10. POINT NO. 1- Admittedly, the sale consideration is Rs. 13,31,75O/- and purchaser paid advance of Rs. 2,O0,00O/- and the balance sale consideration is agreed to be paid by the purchaser in three Bi-monthly instalments, as (i) Rs. 3,75,000/ - ot 23.r2.1998; (ii) Rs. 3,75,OOO/- on 23.02.7999 and (iii) Rs. 3,81,750/ on23.O4.1999. It Is the case of vendors that purchaser did not pay balance sale consideration of Rs. 11,3I,75O1-. The purchaser did not dispute the default on his part in payment of balance sale consideration, however, \\ -..,,-

t2 he tried to justify his default by pleading that vendors failed to get approved lay-out and Income Tax clearance certificates. It is to be noticed that if getting approved lay-out and Income Tax clearance certificates are mandatory for payment of balance sale consideration and for registration of sale deed, unequivocally, that should have been incorporated in Agreement of Sale dated 23.10.1998. No such condition-precedent is engrafted in the Agreement of Sale. Therefore, as rightly held by the trial Court, the excuses offered by the purchaser for committing default in payment of balance sale consideration can be treated as lame excuses taken to defend his acts in the suits. This point is therefore, answered against the purchaser. 11. POINT NO. 2:- For better understanding, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Protrierty Act is extracted below: " 53-4. Part perfortnance.- Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or ttre transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract; and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, ttre transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from I

1i enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the tuansferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this seclion shal.l affect the rights of a tra-r'rsferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the pa rt performance thereof- A plain reading of the above provision clearly shows that protection under this provision will come to the rescue of the purchaser/ vendee, if he /she has performed or is willing to perform his / her part of the contract. As discussed in Point No.1, purchaser had failed to perform his liabiliry and/or is not willing to perform his part of obligation under the Agreement of Sale dated 23.10.1998, by not obeying to the payment schedule and by defaulting payment of balance sale consideration. Hence, as rightly held by the trial Court, the purchaser is not entitled to protection enunciated in Section 53-A of the 1882 Act. This point is answered against the purchaser. t2. POINT NO. 3.- The purchaser contended that as per Clause 9 of the Agreement of Sale, which says that purchaser can enjoy the schedule mentioned property as sole and absolute owner without any disturbance, let e1 hindrance either from the vendors or from anybody eise claiming through or under the vendors, it is to be construed that purchaser was put in

7 t4 possession of suit schedule piots by the vendors, as such his possession there is legal and lawful. It is to be noted here that ciause 9 cannot be read alone since there are two covenants in Clauses (4) and (11) of the Agreement of Sale. Clauses (4), (9) & (11) are to be read conjointly to infer the letter and spirit of the Agreement of Sale, Clause (4) says that vendors agreed that whenever purchaser requests or demands for execution and registration of sale deed, vendors should be ready for handing over t}le schedule mentioned property in vacant and peaceful condition by clearing all encumbrances, whatsoever etc., at the time of registration of sale deed. Clause (11) categorically states that in the event of the entire sale consideration as agreed is paid, in spite of the fact that sale deed is not registered, the purchaser shall be.put into possession of schedule property by the vendors. 13. A plain reading of the above clauses would go to show that at the request of the purchaser, vendors shall execute and register sa,le deed and handover vacant possession of suit schedule plots; if purchaser pays the entire sale consideration and even though sale deed is not registered, vendors shall put the purchaser in possession of suit schedule plots and purchaser shall enjoy them as sole and absolute owner without disturbance or hindra-nce from the vendors' side. Therefore, the '/

1i contention of the purchaser that in view of Clause 9 of the Agreement of Sale, his taking over possession of suit schedule plots is lawful and legal, has no legs to stand. 74. In view of the above discussion coupled with the conclusion arrived at in Point Nos. I and 2, iL can safely be held that possession of suit schedule plots and structures raised thereon by the purchaser, are to be treated as illegal and unlawful. This Court is of the view that the trial Court is right in holding so. This point is answered in favour ofvendors. 15. POINT No. 4:- A.S. No. l72of2OO3 This Appeal is by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 on the {ile of the V Additional District Judge, Fast I'rack Court, R.R. District, L.B' Nagar, who is the purchaser under the Agreement of Sale dated 23.10.1998. Except repeating the contentions and arguments adduced belore the Trial Court and averring that the l,ower Court erred in arriving at its conclusions, no new points are urged in this appeal. In the light of the discussion on the above Points for consideration, appellant deserves no relief. A.S. No. 4O3 of2OO3. /

I 16 16. This Appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar, who is the purchaser under the Agreement of Sale dated 23.1O. 1998, aggrieved by denial of mesne profits. As rightly held by the trial Court, plaintiffs have not placed any material to consider the question of mesne prohts. That apart, since the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.10.1998 - OS No. 131 of 2OO4 was dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 22.04.2008, if the vendors sell the property in question n6q,, unfloubtedly, they will get more sale consideration in view of the steep hike in land prices. Therefore, no mesne profits can be granted. In the light of the discussion on the above points for consideration, appellant deserves no relief. A.S. No. 692of2OO8: 17. The purchaser under Agreement of Sale in question dated 23. 1O. 1998 ltled O.S.No. 131 of 2OO4 on 26.O8 2OO4 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District seeking specihc performance of th) agreement of sa1e, dated 23.10.1998. The date fixed for I payment of final instalment is 23.O4.1999. It is an undisputed I i I fact that purchaser failed to lulfil his obligation under the I I

t7 agreement of sale and failed to pay the full sale consideration. The excuses sought by him for the default are turned down. The vendors got issued the legal notice on 27.03.1999 to which the purchaser got issued reply on O9.O4.1999. O.S. No. 96 of 1999 filed by the vcndors for recovery o"f possession was decreed on 21.11.2OO2. Purchaser/defendant in O.S. No 96 of 1999, plaintiff in O.S. No. 131 of 2OO4 filed A.S. No. 172 of 2O03 on 03.01.2003 and the vendors/ plaintiffs in OS No.96 of 1999 - defendants in O.S. No. 13 1 of 2004 hled A.S. No. 403 of 2003 on 10.02.2OO3. After institution of all these cases, plaintiff in O.S. No. 131 of 2OO4 filed that suit for specific performance. The evidence of plaintilf (purchaser) is that on 2T .03.1999 , defendants (vendors) denied performance of their part of contract under Agreement of Sale in question. Even if this piece of evidence is presumed to be correct, limitation of 3 years for filing suit for specilic performance reckons from 27.O3.1999 and the suit is to be instituted by or before March, 2OO2, however, the suit for specif-rc performance was instituted in August, 2004 ie. more than two years after expiry of limitation period of three years. Therefore, O.S. No. 131 of 2OO4 is barred by limitation as rightly held bv the trial court. In the light of the discussion on the above Points for consideration, the appellant deserves no relief. *"t' f I

t8 18. In the result, all the three Appeals are dismissed conhrming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 in O.S. No. 96 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District, L.B. Nagar, AND the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2008 on the frle of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. Parties shall bear their own costs. 19. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheVAddl.DistrictJudge,FTC',L.B.Nagar,RangaReddyDistrict.(With Records) z ffr" fv naOf . District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court' Ranga Reddy District. (with records) 3. il; ab'b SRl. Parda Ananth Nageswar Rao Advocate [OPUC] a. On" CC to SRl. Murli Narayan Bung, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies f^. I I I

HIGH COURT DAfED:1611Ot2024 COMMON .IT]DGNII.]NT AS.No.172 of 2003 & AS.No.403 OF 2003 & AS.No. 692 OF 2008 2 j N[! 2t?[ I sTAr6 1 rD fl ,t o AI .i'i DISMISSING THF], APPEALS WITHOTIT COSTS q.l> 4-c,?-' ' W^-u dtut''' 1+ 7

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD. WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S.No.172 of 2003 Betw6en: B.Chinnakrishna Reddy, S/o B. Damodar Reddy R/o H.No. 2-2$47128, Plot No. 401, Shivananda Apartments, Central Excise Colony, ...APPELLANT AND 1 . V.Surender Reddy, S/o late V. Gopal Reddy Rio 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. 2. D. Madhav, S/o. D. Ramulu R/o Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 96 RIVV Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., ag,grieved by the judgment and decree dt.21-11-2}02 passed in O.S.No. 96 of 1999 on the file of V Addl. Dist. Judge, FTC, R.R.Dist, at L.B. Nagar. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Murli Narayana Bunch, Advocate for Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.96 of 1999 dated 21 .11 .2002 on ttre file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar and the Judgment and Decree passed by the lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy Districtdated21.O4.20O8 be and hereby is confirmed. 3. That tliere parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// V SECTION OFFICER 1 2 The V Addl. District Judge, FTC., L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District Two CD Copies To, l*'

HIGH COURT DATED:16110/2024 DECREE AS.No.172 of 2003 OISMISSING THE APPEALS I qcoPq4 ^ft""

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S.No.403 of 2003 Between: 't: V.Surender Reddy, S/o late Sri V. Gopal Reddy Eusiness R/o Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 2. D. Madhav, S/o Sri D. Ramulu Business R/o Malakpet, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT(S) AND B.Chennakrishna Reddy, S/o Sri B. Damodar Reddy Business R/o H.No.2-2-647128, Plot No.401, Sivananda Apts., Central Excise Colony, ...RES,ONDENT Appeal under Section 96 RA// Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dl-21-11-2002 passed in O.S.No.96 of 1999 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B. Nagar. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Murli Narayan Bung, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. fhat the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.96 of 1999 dated 21 .11 .2002 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar and the Judgment and Decree passed by the lV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District dated 21.04.2Q08 be and hereby is confirrned. 3. That there parties shall bear their own costs. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Two CD Copbs Y{

HIGH COURT DATEO:1611012024 DECREE AS.No.403 of 2003 DISMISSING THE APPEAL L(cod"4 w e{ff(

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT No: 692 OF 2008 Between: B. chenna Krishna Reddv, S/o. B. Damodar Reddy Business R/o. H.No. 2-2-64712g, PIot No. 401, Centrat Excise Cotony, ArnO"rp"i, iyGrrUrO. AND ...APPELLANT 1. V. Surender.Reddy, S/o. Late V. Gopal Reddy Business R/o. 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. 2. D. Madhav, S/o. D. Ramulu Business R/o. 10, Banjara Avenue, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 96 of C.p.C., aggrieved by the judgment and Decree dt.21.04.2008, passed in o.s.No.131 of 2004 by the lv Addl. District & sessions Judge, FTC., Ranga Reddy District. ORDER : This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the argurnents of sRl. parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri Murli Narayan Bung, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That tte Judgment and Decree passed in 0.5.l,lo.96 of 1999 dated 21.11.2OO2 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar and the Judgment and Decree passed by the lV Additional Diskict & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District dated 21.04.2008 be and hereby is confir:med. 3. That there parties shall bear their own costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTR"AR C-u' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Two CD Copies w I I I

HIGH COURT DECREE AS.No.692 of 2008 lr'',o$d fiw DATED:1611012024 DISMISSINGTHE APPEAL