AS/1273/2017 of Salla Verra Reddy Vs M.KRISHNA REDDY on 7 September 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT No.1273 OF 2017 (CNR No.HBHC010977622017)

Reserved on: 16.07.2026

Pronounced on: 07-09-2026

Uploaded on : 07-09-2026 Between:

Mr. Salla Veera Reddy …Appellant Vs. Mr. M. Krishna Reddy …Respondent

This Court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 passed in

O.S.No.271 of 2008 by learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District.

3. The appellant herein is the defendant in the aforesaid suit in O.S. No.271 of 2008, while the respondent herein is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25.09.2000 and to put him or his nominee in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property i.e., the land admeasuring Acs.1.09 guntas in Survey No.19 known as Bibisaheb Maktha, situated at Peerjadiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District with the boundaries specified therein.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant approached him and offered to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only). Accordingly, they entered into an agreement of sale on 25.09.2000. The plaintiff had paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) to the defendant in the presence of witnesses and the defendant issued receipt to that effect. The balance sale consideration would be paid on finalization of pending case before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), and registration would be effected within six (06) months thereof.

6. Thereafter, on enquiry by the plaintiff, the defendant informed him that the proceedings pending before the MRO were being adjourned from time to time on one count or the other. The plaintiff came to know that the proceedings were pending with the Joint Collector, Rangareddy District. Under the guise of pendency of the proceedings, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. However, on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff had further paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.06.2001; Rs. 10,000/- on 28.09.2001, and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 26.03.2002 to the defendant and the defendant having received the said amount issued receipts for the same. The plaintiff waited for the outcome of the litigation, however under the guise of pendency of the litigation, the defendant kept on prolonging execution of sale deed. Even then, the plaintiff waited patiently for completion of litigation before the Revenue Authorities.

7. The defendant by showing the progress in the case before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, collected further sum of Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) as part consideration from the plaintiff from 2003 to 2007, for which no receipts were issued keeping in view good relationship between them. The plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) in total as part sale consideration.

8. In fact, the defendant did not show any interest in executing the sale deed and deliberately tried to avoid the plaintiff. Eventually, the plaintiff learnt that litigation had ended in favour of the defendant and that the defendant was trying to negotiate with third parties to sell the suit schedule property taking advantage of the steep hike in the prices. Thus, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 22.02.2008 calling upon him to execute registered sale deed in his favour. The defendant issued reply dated 12.03.2008 denying the agreement of sale itself and receipt of earnest money or part payment towards sale consideration. He also sought a copy of the said agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff vide letter dated 22.03.2008 addressed to the advocate of the defendant, furnished a copy of the agreement of sale dated 25.09.2000. The plaintiff submits that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, and there was no default on his part. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid suit.

9. Denying the case of the plaintiff, the defendant filed written statement, contending that since the date of purchase of the property, it was under litigation with one Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah. The plaintiff was well aware of the said litigation. The plaintiff despite having knowledge with regard to the litigation entered into an agreement dated 25.09.2000 with the defendant, whereunder the plaintiff had paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only). The plaintiff did not sign the said agreement, as such he does not acquire any right and title over the said property and the said agreement is not enforceable in the eye of law. The essence of the contract as stipulated in the agreement is for a limited period of six (06) months and after expiry of the said period, the plaintiff demanded for return of advance amount whereupon the defendant arranged Rs.5,00,000/- through his daughter C. Suchitha on 05.02.2003. The plaintiff received the said amount as hand loan, and in turn issued a receipt. The said amount was refundable on demand, but the plaintiff did not repay, as such the amount was repaid on behalf of the plaintiff by the defendant to C. Suchitha. On acceptance of Rs. 5 lakhs, the said agreement stands as withdrawn, and thereby unenforceable. He asked the plaintiff to hand over the original agreement, but the plaintiff promised him that he would return the same only after the receipt of balance amount. The defendant by raising hand loans from his relatives paid an amount of Rs.7,10,000/- by the end of April 2003 and discharged his liability. Except Rs.12,10,000/-, he has not received any amount including an amount of Rs.7,40,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff has developed a false story of advancing said amount of Rs.7,40,000/- and having paid total amount of Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) to the defendant. The plaintiff after receipt of balance amount failed to return the original agreement. As such, the suit is time barred and the agreement is not enforceable.

11. The defendant further contended that he contested the matter initiated by Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah, in respect of suit scheduled property before the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff received the total sale consideration from the defendant. As such, the question of execution of sale deed on the ground of part performance does not arise. He did not receive any amount of Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff during the period from 2003 to 2007 as part payment. After return of the entire amount, he has no obligation to inform the plaintiff about the progress and stage of the case before revenue authorities as well as the Courts. Now, the defendant has no intention to sell the suit property to anybody and he decided to construct a building to fetch regular income through rent. There is no cause of action. The subject agreement is unregistered, as such, the same is not admissible in law. The plaintiff with a mala fide intention, by suppressing the facts filed the suit to have wrongful gain. With the said contentions, the defendant sought to dismiss the suit.

12. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: i) Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? ii) Whether the sum of Rs.12,10,000/- was returned by the defendant to the plaintiff? iii) Whether the agreement of sale dated 25.09.2000 executed in favour of the plaintiff is true and valid and enforceable? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, as prayed for? v) To what relief?

13. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. Further, Exs. A.12 to A.20 were marked during cross- examination of D.W.1. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined D.Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked Ex.B.1.

14. On consideration of the aforesaid evidence, both oral and documentary, learned trial Court decreed the suit directing the plaintiff to pay Rs.27,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs, Ninety Thousand

Only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the judgment to the defendant within two months and obtain regular registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. If the defendant fails to comply with the same, he should deposit the said amount before Court and obtain regular registered sale deed.

15. Challenging the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred the present appeal.

16. Contentions of the appellant - defendant:

i) The plaintiff failed to pay balance sale consideration within six (06) months from the date of resolution of the case before the MRO/Tahsildar. ii) No steps were taken by the plaintiff during the period prescribed in the agreement. The first step taken was issuing Ex.A6 - legal notice dated 22.02.2008. iii) The suit is barred by limitation. iv) The plaintiff never expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract.

v) The plaintiff failed to prove the payment of Rs.7,40,000/- as part sale consideration from 2003 to 2007. vi) Burden lies upon the plaintiff to plead and prove with regard to his willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff failed to discharge the said burden. vii) Time is the essence of contract. Even then, the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract as per Ex.A1 - agreement of sale.

viii) The conduct of the plaintiff is not bona fide. He has taken a false plea of payment of amount from the years 2003-07 without obtaining any receipt from the defendant. Therefore, the same disentitles the plaintiff from seeking discretionary relief of specific performance in terms of the Specific Relief Act. ix) The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property despite being well aware that there is litigation between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah with regard to said property.

x) Ex.A1 is unenforceable as the stipulated period of six (06) months had already lapsed. xi) The findings of learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence, more particularly the admissions made by PWs.1 to 4 during cross-examination. xii) Learned trial Court failed to consider Ex.B1 - receipt.

xiii) Ex.A1 agreement of sale is dated 25.09.2000, according to which, the plaintiff has to pay balance sale consideration within six (06) months from resolution of dispute before the MRO. Whereas, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A6 legal notice only on 22.02.2008. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.

xiv) The relief of specific performance is discretionary in nature. While granting such relief, the Trial Court has to consider the conduct of the plaintiff. xv) The plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands.

xvi) The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is contrary to the pleadings in the plaint and Ex.A6 - legal notice.

xvii) Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff erroneously and the same is liable to be set aside.

17. Contentions of the respondent - plaintiff:

i) Under Ex. A1 - agreement of sale, the defendant agreed to receive balance sale consideration within six (06) months from the date of resolution of dispute before the MRO. ii) The defendant received an amount of Rs.10 lakhs on 25.09.2000 under Ex.A1 agreement and also issued Ex.A2 receipt in the presence of PWs.2 and 3. iii) Once the dispute is resolved, it is the duty of the defendant to inform the said fact to the plaintiff. In the present case, the defendant failed to inform about resolution of the dispute between him and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah. iv) The dispute between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah with regard to the suit schedule property was pending before the Revenue Authorities and Civil Courts.

In both the fora, the defendant succeeded. Even then, he has not informed the said fact to the plaintiff. v) In Ex.A9 - Reply dated 12.03.2008, he has denied the execution of Ex.A1 - agreement of sale, demanded to furnish copy of the same. Therefore, under Ex. A10 - reply notice dated 22.03.2008, the plaintiff furnished a copy of the same to learned counsel, who had issued Ex. A9 - reply notice on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff and the defendant have known each other. vi) Under Ex.A9 - reply notice, the defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1, whereas in his written statement he admitted about the same. vii) The plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract under Ex.A1 and he has specifically stated in Ex.A6 - legal notice and the plaint.

viii) On consideration of the said aspects only, more particularly, the evidence both oral and documentary, learned trial Court decreed the suit. It is a reasoned judgment. There is no error in it. Even then, the defendant preferred the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

18. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(ii) Whether time is the essence of contract under Ex.A1 - agreement of sale dated 25.09.2000?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff failed to adhere to the time schedule and the obligation cast upon him under Ex.A1 - agreement of sale?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff has expressed readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as required under Section - 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and established the same before the Trial Court?

(v) Whether the litigation between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah is nothing to do with the present litigation between the plaintiff and the defendant herein?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.09.2000?

(vii) To what relief?

19. Point No.(i) to (iii):

i) In Ex. A1 - agreement of sale, the defendant agreed for sale of suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only). The plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on 25.09.2000 i.e., on the date of execution of agreement of sale, towards advance sale consideration. He agreed to pay the balance sale consideration after resolution of dispute between him and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah before the MRO and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On receipt of the said amount of Rs.10 lakhs, the defendant had issued Ex.A2 - cash receipt dated 25.09.2000. PW.2 and PW.3 are witnesses to the said receipt.

ii) It is apt to note that there is dispute between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah with regard to the suit schedule property.

According to the defendant, he purchased the suit schedule property from one Mr. M. Satyanarayana under a private sale deed. Thereupon, his name was mutated in revenue records. He has also obtained pattadar passbook and title deed. After purchase of the suit schedule property, litigation cropped up with Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah. The claim of the said P. Bala Narsaiah is that he purchased the suit schedule property from Mrs. Indira D/o Mr. M. Satyanarayana, under a registered sale deed. Later, P. Bala Narsaiah also filed a suit for recovery of possession. The defendant as DW.1 admitted the aforesaid facts during cross- examination.

iii) The defendant made an application before the MRO for mutation of the suit schedule property in his name. After the issuance of mutation proceedings, the MRO had issued pattadar passbook and title deed in his favour. Aggrieved by the mutation proceedings being issued in favour of the defendant, Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah filed an application before the RDO challenging the said mutation proceedings.

iv) Pursuant to the application filed by Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah under Sections 4, 5 and 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter, “the Act, 1971”), seeking mutation/amendment of ROR, vide Ex. A12 proceedings dated 23.01.2002; the MRO, Ghatkesar Mandal, ordered to incorporate his name in respect of the suit schedule property in revenue records as pattadar. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum-RDO, East Division, Rangareddy District. Vide Ex.A13 order dated 13.12.2005, the Special Grade Deputy Collector-cum-RDO, East Division, Rangareddy District, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Challenging the said order, dated 13.12.2005, the defendant filed revision before Joint Collector-II, Rangareddy District. Vide Ex.A14 order dated 23.09.2006, the Joint Collector-II, Rangareddy District, set aside the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the RDO and the order dated 23.01.2002 passed by the MRO and remanded the matter to the MRO for necessary action under the Act, 1971.

v) Challenging the said order dated 23.09.2006 of the Joint Collector-II, Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.16119 of 2007. Vide Ex.A15 order dated 09.08.2007, this Court dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah preferred an Intra- Court Appeal vide W.A. No.979 of 2007. Vide Ex.A16 Order dated 09.11.2010, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order of learned Single Judge.

vi) Perusal of record would also reveal that Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah had filed a suit in O.S. No.184 of 1998 against the defendant seeking recovery of possession. The same was dismissed on 31.12.2003 vide Ex.A17 - judgment. Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.30 of 2004, which was dismissed on 13.04.2006 vide Ex.A18. He also preferred a second appeal vide Second Appeal No. 1184 of 2006, which was dismissed on 13.11.2006 vide Ex.A19 judgment. He also approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5076 of 2007, which was dismissed on 26.03.2007 vide Ex.A20.

vii) Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A6- legal notice dated 22.02.2008 to the defendant demanding the execution a registered sale deed in his favour. The defendant replied vide Ex.A9 on 12.03.2008, denying the execution of Ex.A1 - agreement of sale, however, sought a copy of the said agreement of sale. Vide Ex.A10 – letter/reply notice dated 22.03.2008, the plaintiff furnished copy of the agreement of sale to learned counsel for the defendant. Thereafter, he has filed the suit on 26.03.2008. PWs.1 to 4 specifically deposed the said facts. Therefore, the defendant cannot contend that the suit is barred by limitation.

viii) It is apt to note that Article 54 of the Limitation Act has two limbs, i.e., “the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused”. If there is a specific date fixed for performance, the limitation period would be three years from the date, otherwise, three years from the refusal to perform the said contract. The said principle was also held by the Supreme Court in Usha Devi v. Ramkumar Singh1. In the present case, Ex.A1 - agreement of sale is dated 25.09.2000 and an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was paid by the plaintiff. As per recitals of the said agreement, the balance amount is payable within six months after the dispute between the defendant and said Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah before the MRO stands resolved. The said dispute went up to the Division Bench

1. (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1915

of this Court in W.A. No.979 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 09.11.2010. Simultaneously, Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah also pursued proceedings before the Civil Court vide O.S. No.184 of 1998 and the matter went up to the Supreme Court, where by virtue of dismissal of the SLP, the litigation came to an end on 26.03.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 22.02.2008 and thereafter filed the suit on 26.03.2008 i.e., within three years from the date of conclusion of proceedings before the Supreme Court. As such, the said suit is filed well within the limitation. On consideration of the said aspects, learned trial Court held that the suit is filed within limitation. Thus, the defendant cannot contend that the suit is barred by limitation.

ix) With regard to the contention that time is the essence of the contract, reference is being made to the judgment in Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi2, wherein the Supreme Court held in agreements for sale of immovable property, time is ordinarily not the essence of contract unless such intention is evident from the express

2. (2011) 12 SCC 18

terms of the agreement, or can be gathered by implication from the terms and circumstances of the transaction.

x) In K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima3 , the Apex court held that “whether time is of the essence in a contract”, has to be culled out from the reading of the entire contract as well as the surrounding circumstances. Merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract.

xi) In Indira Kaur v. Sheo Lal Kapoor4, the Apex Court held that in transactions of sale of immovable properties, time is not the essence of the contract. In the case of immovable property, there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract.

xii) In the light of aforementioned judgments, the defendant cannot contend that the plaintiff failed to adhere to timelines mentioned in Ex.A1 - Agreement of Sale. Point Nos.(i) to (iii) are accordingly answered.

3. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1014

4. (1988) 2 SCC 488

20. Point No.(iv):

i) In Ex.A1, it is agreed by both the parties that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration within six months after resolution of the dispute before the MRO. The Revenue litigation between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah went up to a Division Bench of this Court, which dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah on 09.11.2010.

ii) As discussed above, the revenue litigation between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah ended on 09.11.2010 vide dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 979 of 2007 by a Division Bench of this Court. Simultaneously, the civil litigation between them ended on 26.03.2007 vide dismissal of SLP (C) No.5076 of 2007 by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued Ex. A6 legal notice dated 22.02.2008. In the said notice, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that he has enough resources to pay the entire balance sale consideration to the defendant at any short notice. The defendant is well aware of the same. It is also further stated in Ex.A6 legal notice that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Even as on the date of

issuance of the said notice, he had the necessary resources to pay and obtain a sale deed in his favour.

iii) It is also apposite to note that, even in the plaint, the Plaintiff specifically pleaded that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Further, being a businessman, payment of the balance sale consideration under the Agreement was never an issue for him, nor was it financially burdensome. He at all times made arrangements to draw the funds through his regular source of finance and paid to the defendant as and when required. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are well known to each other. The said fact is admitted by PWs.1 to 4 and DWs.1 to 4 in their depositions.

iv) It is also apt to note that DW.1 during cross-examination admitted that he does not know whether the plaintiff owns and possesses land, rice mills, buildings and complexes in Uppal, Ramanthapur. He knows that plaintiff owns one building and it was leased out to a school and the said building is situated adjacent to the suit schedule property. DW.2, daughter of the defendant, also admitted during cross- examination that the plaintiff is having rice mill complex at Ramantapur.

Huge buildings are at Uppal and the land is situated in the vicinity of Uppal. In the light of the same, the defendant cannot contend that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract despite expressing readiness and willingness at all times.

v) In Syed Dastagiri v. T. R. Gopalakrishna Shetty5, the Supreme Court held that plaintiff can always tender the amount to the defendant or deposit in the court, towards performance of his obligation under the contract. Such tender rather exhibits the willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of obligation. What is not essential is only means need not do but does not mean he cannot do so. When the plaintiff has tendered the balance amount in Court even without the court order, it cannot be constitute adversely against the plaintiff under explanation -1 of Section 16 (c) of the Act, 1963.

vi) It is apt to note that in Zarina Siddique v. A. Ramalingam6, the Apex Court held that relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary and therefore, courts have to consider the conduct of the parties and that parties must come before the court with clean hands.

5. (1999) 6 SCC 337

6. (2015) 1 SCC 705

vii) In R.C. Chandiok v. Chunilal Subarwal7, the Apex court held that readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a straightjacket formula. This has to be determined from the entirety of the facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned.

viii) In Sugharsingh v. Harisingh (dead through L.Rs.)8 and others, the Apex Court held that the Court while dealing with a suit for specific performance, more particularly readiness and willingness to perform the contract, has to consider overall circumstances, conduct on the part of the parties and prayer of the plaintiff in whose favour execution of agreement shall be made has been held to be proved. They are the relevant factors to be considered for the purpose of deciding readiness and willingness.

ix) In Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi9, the Apex Court held that the readiness and willingness need not be in specific phraseology and language.

7. (1970) 3 SCC 140

8. (2021) 17 SCC 705

9. AIR 2000 SC 2408

x) In Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani10, the Apex Court held that although time is ordinarily not the essence in contracts relating to immovable property, the Court must examine the following conditions, to determine whether performance within the stipulated time was intended.

(i) Express terms of the contract;

(ii) Nature of property, and

(iii) Surrounding circumstances.

The Apex Court further held that where the conduct of the purchaser demonstrates lack of readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations, the decree for specific performance cannot be granted. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “25. From an analysis of the above case-law it is clear that in the case of sale of immovable property there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are:

1. From the express terms of the contract;

2. from the nature of the property; and

10. (1993) 1 SCC 519

3. from the surrounding circumstances, for example: the object of making the contract.

29. The analysis of evidence would also point out that the plaintiff was not willing to pay this amount unless vacant delivery of possession of one room on the ground floor was given. In cross-examination it was deposed that since income tax clearance certificate had not been obtained the sum of Rs 98,000 was not paid. Unless the property was redeemed the payment would not be made. If this was the attitude it is clear that the plaintiff was insisting upon delivery of possession as a condition precedent for making this payment. The income tax certificate was necessary only for completion of sale. We are unable to see how these obligations on the part of the defendant could be insisted upon for payment of Rs 98,000. Therefore, we conclude that though as a general proposition of law time is not the essence of the contract in the case of a sale of immovable property yet the parties intended to make time as the essence under clause (1) of the suit agreement. From this point of view, we are unable to see how the case in Nathulal [(1969) 3 SCC 120 : (1970) 2 SCR 854] could have any application to the facts of this case.”

xi) In Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd.11, considering the fact that as agreement of sale for an immovable property, there was an obligation on the part of the Vendor therein that he has to produce income tax exemption certificate and agriculture certificate, placing reliance on the principle laid down in Chand Rani10, the Apex Court held that in sale of immovable property, there is no presumption that time is essence of the contract, however, the Court may infer performance in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the surrounding circumstances.

xii) Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam12, the Vendor therein agreed to measure and demarcate the subject land therein in three months. The Apex Court held that unless the vendor got the subject land measured and demarcated within the agreed three months, it would be impossible for the Purchaser to get a sale deed executed, as such, the question of paying the balance sale consideration does not arise. It was

11. (2023) 1 SCC 355

12. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 442

further held that when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence does not arise.

xiii) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that the plaintiff has to always plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and also establish the same. The relief of specific performance is an equitable and discretionary relief. The parties seeking the said relief have to approach the court with clean hands. The court while dealing with suit for specific performance has to consider the conduct of the parties and overall circumstances of the case.

xiv) As discussed above, the plaintiff has been pleading readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract right from the beginning. With regard to conduct of the parties, as discussed above, under Ex.A9 - reply notice dated 12.03.2008, the defendant denied execution of Ex.A1

- agreement of sale and demanded copy of the said agreement of sale. Under Ex.A10 - letter/reply, the plaintiff has furnished copy of the same to the counsel of the defendant, who issued Ex.A9 - reply notice. In the written statement, the defendant has admitted the execution of Ex.A1 - agreement of sale.

xv) The defendant completed his B.Sc., but discontinued his education in law. He admitted the same during cross-examination. He also admitted that Ex.A1 - agreement of sale dated 25.09.2000 was executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A1 was prepared in his own handwriting as per the instructions of PW.1. He has not mentioned the said fact in his written statement. When a question was posed to the defendant during cross-examination as to whether it is mentioned in Ex.A1 agreement of sale that irrespective of the result of the MRO proceedings, the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration and get the registered sale deed from him, to which the defendant answered that there is no mention in Ex.A1 with regard to registration aspect irrespective of result of MRO proceedings.

xvi) The defendant further admitted that he has not received amount from the plaintiff after dismissal of orders from MRO. He has received the amount from the plaintiff in the year 2002. On 28.03.2003, he paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to DW.2, his daughter on the request of the plaintiff. He also further admitted with regard to receipt of Ex.A6

notice, issuance of Ex.A9 reply and Ex.A10 rejoinder along with copy of agreement of sale dated 25.09.2000.

xvii) During cross-examination, the defendant further admitted that he has received amounts from the plaintiff under Exs.A2 to A5 receipts and that altogether he has received Rs.12,10,000/- from the plaintiff. In his chief-examination, he has stated that he did not receive any further amounts from the plaintiff and all the cash receipts are forged and fabricated, as such, he denied correctness of the same. However, he has clarified that the same is with regard to the amount of Rs.7,40,000/-, and not regarding Exs.A2 to A5 receipts. He has also not issued any notice to the plaintiff for return of Ex.A1 - agreement of sale. He was having good relations with the plaintiff up to the year 2003. Though during cross-examination he has admitted that he demanded the plaintiff to return Ex.A1 for which the plaintiff replied that Ex.A1 is with the brother of the plaintiff, he has not mentioned the said aspect either in his written statement or in his chief-examination affidavit.

xviii) Thus, the aforesaid admissions and evidence of the defendant would reveal that he has taken contradictory stands. In Ex.A9

- reply to Ex.A6 - legal notice, he denied the execution of agreement of sale itself, however, during cross-examination he admitted about the same, receipt of an amount of Rs.12,10,000/- and also execution of Exs.A2 to 5 - receipts. Whereas, it is the consistent stand of the plaintiff with regard to execution of Ex.A1 - agreement of sale, payment of advance sale consideration and issuance of Exs.A2 to A4 - cash receipts by the defendant. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant is not bona fide. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court decreed the suit and there is no error in it.

21. Point No.(v):

i) It is the specific contention of the defendant that the litigation between the said Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah and the defendant is nothing to do with Ex.A1 - agreement of sale. The said contention of the defendant is untenable. In Ex.A1, it is specifically mentioned that the plaintiff shall pay balance sale consideration six months after resolution of revenue litigation before the MRO. As discussed above, the said revenue litigation had ended on 09.11.2010 on dismissal of W.A. No.979 of 2007 by a Division Bench of this Court.

ii) As discussed above, the civil litigation between the defendant and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah went up to the Supreme Court and the same ended only on 26.03.2007 after the dismissal of SLP. Therefore, the defendant cannot contend that the litigation between him and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah is nothing to do with the Ex. A1 agreement of sale. The conduct of the defendant would show that he is trying to avoid the obligation cast upon him i.e., receipt of balance sale consideration on resolution of disputes between him and Mr. P. Bala Narsaiah, and the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

22. Point No.(vi):

i) As discussed above, the relief of specific performance is an equitable relief. Parties have to approach the Court with clean hands. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff right from the beginning of issuance of Ex.A6 - legal notice that he is ready and willing to perform his part of obligation. Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff is bona fide whereas the conduct of the defendant is not bona fide. He has taken contradictory stands. At the initial stage, he has denied the execution of Ex.A1 and issuance of Exs.A2 to 5 - receipts in Ex.A9 - reply dated 12.03.2008, whereas, in the written statement and his deposition, he has admitted the same. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court decreed the suit. There is no error in it.

ii) It is apt to note that the defendant contended that he arranged hand loan of Rs. 5 lakhs through his daughter (DW.2), which was received by the plaintiff vide Ex. B1 receipt. The said fact was also admitted by DW.2. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary and gave a specific finding in paragraph Nos.20, 21 and 22 that the defence taken by the defendant under Ex.B1 is weak and there is no mention of the same in written statement and affidavit of DW.1 filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief. There is no error in it.

23. Point No.(vii):

i) As discussed above, learned trial Court decreed the suit considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary. It is a reasoned judgment and well-founded. The appellant herein - defendant failed to make out any case to interfere with the said judgment. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ii) In K. Prakash v. B.R. Sampath Kumar13, the Apex court held that when the trial court exercises its discretion in one way of the other after appreciation of entire evidence and materials on record, the appellate court should not interfere unless it is established that the discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles, the appellate Court should also not exercise its discretion against the grant of specific performance on extraneous considerations or sympathetic considerations.

iii) In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari14, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that while reversing a reasoned judgment of the Trial Court, the Appellate Court must remain conscious that the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court, particularly those based on conflicting oral evidence and assessment of the credibility of witnesses, should ordinarily not interfere with such finding. Though the Appellate Court is competent to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse

13. (2015) 1 SCC 587

14. (2001) 3 SCC 179

such findings, interference is warranted where the decision of the Trial Court suffers from material irregularity, is based on inadmissible evidence, or is otherwise unsustainable. The Supreme Court further held that while reversing a finding of fact, the Appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court and assign its own cogent reasons for arriving at a different conclusion.

iv) In Lakshmi v. Gopi15, the Apex Court reiterated that the First Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, is required to independently reappraise the evidence. While reversing the findings of the Trial Court, the Appellate Court is bound to record clear, cogent and succinct reasons for its disagreement rather than passing a cryptic order. Mere extraction of the Trial Court’s reasoning followed by a general observation that the Court below failed to understand the dispute would not suffice. Even where the Trial Court’s reasoning is found erroneous, the Appellate Court must give its own reasons for arriving at a different conclusion. Reasons being the lifeblood of every judicial conclusion, a

15. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 681

judgment of reversal without due application of mind would be contrary to the settled principles governing appellate jurisdiction.

v) It is apt to note that vide order dated 21.12.2017 in ASMP No.3201 of 2017 in A.S. No.1273 of 2017, this Court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the balance sale consideration deposited by him before the trial Court pursuant to the impugned judgment and decree. It is the specific contention of Mr. V. Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the said amount is lying to the credit of the aforesaid suit. Though this Court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the said amount, he did not withdraw the same.

24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.271 of 2008 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. ____________________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

____________________________ B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 7th September, 2026 VVR/Mgr