AS/543/2025 of Mrs. Thaslima Azeem Vs Sri Mekala Ram Reddy on 8 January 2026

1. Mrs. Thaslima Azeem, W/o. Late Abdul Azeem, Age. 48 yrs., Occ. Housewife, F/o. 11-18-235/1, Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State

2. Mohammed Tabreez Azeem, S/o. Late Abdul Azeem, Age. 29 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o. 11-18-235/1 , Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar,

3. Tabassum Azeem, C/o. Mohammed lrfan Ali, Age. 23 yrs., Occ. Housewife No. 17-8-533177, Bagh-E-Jahanara, Charminar, Hyderabad.

4. lanwer Azeem, C/o. Syed lsmail, Age.22 yrs., Occ. Student

5. Tayyaba Azeem, D/o. Mohammed Abdul Azeem, Age. 21 yrs., Occ. Student, No. 11-18-235i1, Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

6. Ayeesha Siddique, D/o. Lage Mohammed Abdul Azeem, Age. 19 yrs., Occ. Student, F/o. 11-18-235/1 , Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

7. Abdul Maqeeth Quadri, D/o. Mohammed Abdul Azeem, Age. 14 yrs., Occ. Student, Fyo. 11-18-235/1 , Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. Rep. by Smt. Thaslima Azeem, ...APPELLANTS/ Plaintiffs AND

1. Sri Mekala Ram Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Age.60 yrs., Occ. Business, Ri/o. Plot No. 2218, Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

2. Smt. K. Madhavi, D/o. M. Ram Reddy, Age.45 yrs., Occ. Software Professional, Rl/o. Plot No.22lB, Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District. APPEAL SUIT NO: 543 OF 2025

3. Smt. Vittal Reddy Gari Archana, D/o. M. Ram Reddy, Age. 44 yrs., Occ. Software Professronal, Fl/o. Plot No.22lB, Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of the decree and order passed in lA No.. 527 of 2O25 in OS No. 258 of 2025 dated 1110912025, on the file of Honourable lll Addl District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, At LB Nagar., till the disposal of the main Appeal and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of .justice. Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. M. LAXMAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. AMARENDER REDDY The Court delivered the following Judgment :

IN'tHE I{IGH COtilt-I'FOR THE S]'A-I'E OF TEI-;\NGANA AT I{\'DEITABAD HON'BLT] SRI.ITISTICE K. LAKSHMAN ,\ND HON'BLE JUSTICI] VAKI'TI RAMAKRISHNA I{EDDY AI'P[..{l- SL II'\o.5{3 OI'- 2025 Date:08.01.2026 Bctrr ecrr -[has lirla Azeenr and sir othcrs .....Appellants nnd Mekrla Rarr l{eddy and [*'o others ....Respondents 'I'his Court delivered the following (Per Hon'blt Sri Justicc K. l-irkshnral) l.leard Sri M. Laxman Rao, learned couusel lor thc Appellants and Sli P. Amarender Reddy, learncd cor.rnsel lor the responclents.

2. This appeal is filed challcnging order dated I I.09.2025 passcd in I.A.No.527 o12025 in O.S.No.258 of 2025 by thc lcamed lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar.

3. 1'he appetlants herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.258 ol 2015 agairrst respondents to declare the actior-r ol the rospondents - JI. DC}I[,\T:

f dclendants in cancclling the agreement ol sale dated 08.I0.20I8 erecut.-d bv I-ate Mckala Subhashini in lavour o1'Maharnrred Abdttl Azcor in respect ol'thc suit schedule propertv by issuing legal notice. dated -10.07.201-1. lts illegal and consequentll', to direct thc rcspondcnts to execLlte and rcgister sale deed in their lavour in respect of- the suit schedulc propefty by receiving balance sale consideratiort ol' t{s.-.0.00,()0()/- (Rupces Fil'tl Lakhs only). In the cvcnt ot rcspondenls - del'endants l'ails to execute and register the sale decd, the Courl to exccute and rcgister the sale dced on bchall ol thc respondents - delbndants

4. Irr thc plaint, the plaintills contended:-

i. I'laintill' No.l is the wife of late Moharnrlcd Abdul ,\zce'rr s/o M.A.Sattar and Plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 arc thcir sons and daughters. The said late Moharnmed Ahdul Azecrn rvas tcnant ol IJ.No.7-34. Shop No.3 (Mulgi). (i- I ['loor in H.No.7-34. admeasuring 640 square leet situated at MRIt Cornplex. Madhurapuri Colony. DilshLrknagar. Saroornagar Mandal. Itanga Reddy District (lbr short. 'sub.icct propcrt!,'). Late Srnt. Subhashani was the original o\\,ner ol' the suit schedule property. Deltndant

ll. No. I is thc husband of saicl late Srnt. Subhashani and De't-cnclants No.2 and 3 are tircir daus.htcrs. During Iil-e tir.ne, late Mohanicd Abdul Azcern. purchased the suit schcdulc propert), ll'orn l-atc Snrt. Subhashrni. l-he sale consideration u,as t-rxed at Rs. 1.00,00.000/- (Rupees One Crore only). Having received an arnount of Rs.50,00.000/-(Rupees lriliy I-akhs), late Snrt. SLrbhashini had execr-rted an agrecment ol- sale on 0lt.l 0.2018 in whicli it is agrecd to pay' balanc:e amount u'ithin i (three) nronths lbr execution ol registered sale dced. llt. Despite several requests made by said late Mohamed Abdul Azeem, for execution of registered sale deed, Snrt. Mekala Subhashani postponed the same on onc reason or the other. Meanwhile she died on 29.10.2019 leaving behind thc defendants herein as her legal heirs. 'l'he said Mohamed Abdul Azeem, also died on 25.05.1020 leaving behind hirn the plaintiff's as his legal heirs. Evcn after his death, in August/September 202 l, the plaintiffs along u,ith their uncle lequested Def-endant No. I tc'r execute l\'. registcrl-d sale dced lbr which he refused and stated that thcre is mortgage over the schedule property and hc w'oulrl crccute rcgistcrcd sale deed after releasing thc nl()ngaqL'. Instead ol'erecuting legistererl sale deed. the Dcfbndant Nt'r. I got issucd legal notice dated 30.7.2024 cancclling lhc agrec'nre nt ol' :ale datcd 08. 10.201 8 lorfe itinr llttt()ttnls paid and also dernancled to vacate the plerniscs and pav darnage s. f he Plaintills sent reply clrll - dcnrancl noticc datcd 14.08.2024 to the said notice. denling thc allegations rnade by the defendants and called Lrpon thcnr to execute the sale deed in their t'avour b,v receiving 1l're balance sale consideration. I'he clelendants had issucd a rejoinder notice dated 09.09.202,1 u,ith lalse allegations and also expressing to enter into ile.recrrent olsale and sale deed with third parties \,. Elen afier notices ancl reply notices, on 05.05.2025. plaintifl- No.2 along with his maternal uncle, requested l)clendant No. l to cxecute sale deed by receiving the halancc sale consideration. -Ihe Defendant No.l dernanded an additional anrount of Rs.30,00,0001 (Rupees I'hirty l.akhs Only) tbr execution of' registered salc' dccd. \\/hen the plaintill.s expressed thcir inabilitl , thc dcfendants have issued another lcgal notice dated l'1-0 I -2015 r-rndcr Section 106 of I'ransle r ol [)ropenr Act, with all t-alse allegations stating that their tenancl is terrninatecl and to vacate the shop in 15 days and pal' rental drres Rs. 15.86, l82l-. The Plaintiffs, issued repll' dated l0-01-2025 denying the same. vl. l'he deftndants are bound to execute rcgistered sale dced by receiving balance sale consideration. The delendants created niortgagc over the suit schedule propefiy to Dcccan lloLrsing Finance Corporation Ltd., and did not kecp their promise. Ptaintiffs obtained encumbrancc cefiillcate dated 06-08-2024 and, car.ne to know that thc del'endants cleared the mortgage only on 21.06.2024 and sot issued thc atbresaid notice dated 30.7 .2024 rvith talsc allcgations to nrakc illegal gains. Plaintitf! have got issued rcply on 14.08.2024 requesting to execute rcg saL' decd by receiving balance sale con:idcratit',n. I herefirre. thc suit.

5. l'lic de lcndarrts flled I.A.-\o.517 ol 1025 in the present suit under Olclcr Vtl Rule- I l(l) read u'ith l5l of CPC, to reject the plaint in the albresaid suit contcnding -l'hc suit is rrot maintainablc. the reliel'claimed is bad in lau' and barred bv limitation.

ii. Thcre is no cause of action for ptaintiff to sue tbr <leclaration ancl specific pertirrrnance of agreement ol' salc l 'fhcre r.r'as stipulation tbl a period three rnonths only front tht'date of ugreernent of sale to execute r-egistered salc deed I']lrintifli did not file thc suit w,ithin three years frorn the stc rccl l\ dale ol-executiorr of aglccment o1'sale dated 06. I0.2018 '['hc plaintifl- u,ithout issuing notice, filed the present suit

6. Opposing the said petition, the plaintilfs filed counter' contending:- i. l)elendant No. I exltressed that thel would execute sale deed but ll'onr to titnc he postponed the sarne.

l II Since their lather died on 15.05.2020, Defendant No. I issued notice dated 30.07.1024 cancelling the agreement of sale dated 0tl. I 0.10 I 8. 1'he plaintilT issued reply and Dclendant r,,vo. I issued rejoinder. 'l herelbre, the cause of action is continuing aud not barred bv linritation. l Dcspite requcsts nrade by the fbther of the plaintiffs, Defendant No. I postponed the same tl'orn time to time under onc pretext or tl-re otht-r

7. Vidr inrpugncd order, learned trial Court allowed the said pctitiorr reje'cting the plair.rt in O.S.No.258 of 2025 holding that the suii i: harrcd lrr lirnilati,ut.

8. Challenging thc said order, dated 11.09.2025 passed ln I.A.No.5l7 ol'1025 in 0.S.No.158 o12025 by the leamed trial Court, thc plaintitl.s fllcd the present appeal on the following grounds:-

i. [-carr.red trial Cour.t f'ailed to consider that the suit lbr declaration to declare the tcrrnination notice dated 30.07.2014 must bc tlled wirhin 3 vears from the date of the said notice. 'l.l.rey havc tl led the suit u,ithin one year as such the suit is u'ithin Iinritatior.r undcr Article 58 of the Limitation Act. i s I1 l\'. Learned trial ( ourt tailcd to consider tlic efforts made bv lather ol'thc plaintifl.s tlurinc lris litctirne clenranding tor execution of rcgistercd sale dced rlithin -l rnonths irr tcrms of agreernent of salc and also tailed to sce that it is onlv the del'e ndants rvho postponed the e rccution inlcntionallv. lll As pcr Order 7 RLrlc I l(cl) ol CPC, the averments in the plaint and the docunrerrts tllccl alon,, ri'ith the plaint are only to be considered. But thc' lcarnecl trial C]ourt did not retbr the plaint pleadings, br-rt only' rclic-d upon the avc'nnents in the petition filed unde r Older 7 Rulc I I (dt olCP('. Learned trial Court crrcd in holding that the plaintilfs, legal heirs ot' \4r. .,\bdLrl Azecnr. renrainecl silent till thc det'cndants issued legal notice dated 30 07.2024 to vacate and for payment of arrears ol'rcnt b1'tenninating the agreement of sale. Learned trial ('ourt lhiled to consider the settled precedents ol Apex court and other t{igh ( ourls relied upon by the Plaintiffs and crroneously' rcjcctcd thc plaint vt. l-he cause of action liling the suit for declaration and specific perfcrrrnance arose li'orn thc date of legal notice dated

() -10.07.2024 and the suit Iiled on 19.06.2025 is well within the period ol'limitation

vii. ' re [-irlitutit'rn is nrixecl cluestion of facts and larv. In thc Irrcscnt ca:c. it is thc urattcr ol lhct which will be established in duc coulsc of tlial and it is not a question of law to decide the linritation on thr- cause ol-action.

viii. l.carned Irial Court t'ailed to consider that defendants had cleared nrortqa-sL- on the sr"rit propefty only on 21.06.2024, rtll s,'hictr datc. dcll'ndants obligation to discharge the encumbrance be tbrc salc unrlcr Scction 55 ( I ) (a) ol'I'ransfcr of Property Act \\ AS inconrplcte u hich clcarly shows that the delendants thcmselves were not readv and dela-ved execution of registered srle clc.'d. ..\ticr clearance tll'rnoftgagc only, the Vendor issued legal notice on 10.07.2024 cancelling the agreement of sale wlrich savc rise to lllinc ol'the suit on 19.06.2025 which is *'ithin lirnitatior-r. !). With thc alirrcsaid sr.rbnrissions, the appellants sought to set aside thc impugncd order dated t 1.09.2025. \

10. In support o[ their case, the appellants - Plaintiffs placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in I

l0 P.Kumarakurutraran vs. P.Naravan'. Sol."* D.Agboahvala vs. Shamalji Odrlhav.ii T'hakkarr. Sri l]ovenepallv vs. Sri ,Iavav:rrrlhan vs. \'.Nirupanra l{cddt-\ .{nnamalai vs. Vasanthil. ancl I).f)souza vs. Shontl rilo Naitlu'. I 1. Thc responden ts/de icndants contended that thc suit is barrcd br lirnitation. thc plaintil'1.s clr'r'crlr dralicd the plaint u,ith illusorr pleadings. 1hc plaintiffs. instcad ol sceking specific perlbrmancc of agrcement of sale. sought lbr cleclaration of noticc dated 10.07.1024 issued by defendants terminating the agreernent of sale dated 08.10.2018 as illegal only, to get over tiom the limitation and also to fill up lacuna / Iaches. i!{ere possession over the suit schcdule promptly rvill not ertend lirnitation to rhe plaintiffs to llle the suit. On consideration of the said aspects onl1. lealned trial Court allorved the pctition trlcd by the del-endants under Order VII Rutc I l(d) oI CPC seeking rejection olplaint. lt is a reasoned order. Therc is no error in lt r 2025 Livelatv (SC) 50s r Orderdated l7.Og.2O2l in(livil Appeal No.i64l ol202l 'Ordcr dated 29.07.2025 in Civil Appcal No-*---oll025 (arising out ofSLP (C) No.57i2 ol'2015 '2025 l-aw Suit (SC) l416 ' loM l-aw suir ( sc) 7l 7

1l

12. In support ol theil case, the respondents - Def'endants placed reliance on thc plinciple laid dou'n by the Apex Court in Nikhila Dirlang Mehta V. Hitesh P. Sanghvi6, Fatheji and Company V. l-.M.Nagpal ,, Khatri Hotles Private Limited Vs. Union8, The Correspondence RIIANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekare, Dahiben vs. Aravindbhai Kalyanji Ilhansusali (Gujra)r0,, Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs. Sri llala and Companyt' on the judgment of this Courl in P. Ramakrishna vs. Coverdhan Ileddy G) Gopal ReddyD and also on the judgnicnt of i\'ladras High Court in Vasumathi H Shah Vs Pushpa Rajrr. 1-1. We lrave licarcl lcarnctl counsel on cithcl side and gave thoughtful considcration olthe subrnissions made and judgments cited by thern 6 2025 SCC Onlinc SC 779 ' zo r sltyscc ;lo 'zo t t 1e; scc rzo e 2025 SCC Online SC 739 'o zozo(l) scc :i66 rr 2025 sCC online sc .,18 rr zoz:1ay nLo:50 ltst " 20 15 3 Lw 825

I4. [n the present case, the undisputed facts are as tbllows:-

i. Mr. Mohd. Abclul Azeern, husband and t?rther respecl.ivelv of plaintiffs entercd into an agreerncnt o1' sale datcd t18.10.201IJ riith Mrs. Mekala Subhashini. rvil-c and rnothel respectively ol lhe deltndants ri,iLh rcgard to the sale ol suit schcdulc proper11,. 'lhe total salt' considcration aqrecd rvas I{s. 1.00,00.000,'-. Vendec 113,s paid an anroLult ol Rs.->0.00.000i- toriards adrance salc consiclcration i.c. I{s. 10.00,000i- vide checluc No.148777, dated 06. 10.20 18. Rs. 10,00,000i- vide chequc No.248778, dated 25.0ti.1018. draw'n on Axis Bank, Dilsukhragar Branch and Rs.30,00,000/- by rvay ofcash. Vendor has rcceived and acknowledged tl're said arlount. Vendee agreed to pay the balance sale consideration rvithin thrce months lrorl thc date ol' aglcernent of'sale or at the time ol rcgistration, whichever is earlier The said ttrree rnonths period w'as expired on 07.0 I .2019.

ii. \'errdor died on 29. 10.20 19. Vendee died on 15.05.1020 \/cndee, i.e.. late Mohd. Abdul Azeem w'as the tenant of the suit schedule property. After death ol the vendor, their legal heirs got iss,idJegal notice dated 30.07.2024 to the legal heirs of the vendee tenninating the agreement of sale dated 08. 10.2018. Legal heirs of verrdee got issued a reply dated 14.08.2024 to the legal heirs of the il vendor. l,egal heirs of vendor issued interim rejoinder dated 09.09.2024 to thc reply dated 11.08.20)4 issued by the legal heirs ol tlrc Vcndec. On l:1.01 .2015. thc l.-uirl hcirs ol'the vendor issued notice ol' tclrnination 1cluit notice) undel Section l0(r ol the 'fransfbr of Properlr' Act, 1981, demanding thc legal hcirs of thc vendee to vacate the subject propefiy ',r'ithin one rlonth fl'onr the date ol receipt of the said notice and also to pay an arrount o1' t{s. 15.86,182/- towards r rrears of rcnt. Ptaintifls tlled r suit in O.S.No.l58 ot'2025 on 19.06.2025 against thc defendants seeking to dcclarc thc tern-rination notice dated 30.07.2024 issucd by thc defendants tenninating the agreement of sale dated 08.10.2018, as illegal and also tbr specific performance of agreement of salc dated 08.10.20 18. 'fhe dettndants llled an application under Order VII Rulc I l(d) ol CIPC seeking rejection of plaint on I1.08.1025. Vide order dated 11.09.2025, the leamed trial Court allowed the said application and reiected the plaint

iv. As discussecl supra, thc defendants l'rled an application vide I.A.No.527 of 2025 under Order Vll Rule ll (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the afbresaid grounds. more particularll,, that thc suit is barred by Iirnitation. Accorcling to thcrn, the plaintil'i! should have l4 tlled the suit on or bctbre 08. I 0.201 l. Thev have filed the suit on

19. ()6.101-< end therclirre. tlre sarnc is barred bl linritatiorr \.\/hcreas. accordin,,. to thc plaint pleadirrgs. the lccal licils ol thc vendor have issuccl uoticc datcd i0.07.1024 tcrnrinating thc ilsrccnlcnt ol' sale clatcd 08.10.20 18. -fherelbre. thcy har c lilcd plaint on 19.06.1015 i.e. rr ithin three vears ll'orn the said datc

15. In thc- light oltlre above. it is apt k) note that Oldcr - \'ll. Rulc - 1 I olCPCl deals rvith 're-iection of plaint'. 'I'he sanre is rclevant and extracted as under: "11. Rejection of plaint. 1'he plaint shall bc re.iected in the lbllowing cascs:- (a) rvhero it does not disclose a causc of action:

(b) s hcrc the rcliel clainred is underr,alued. and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a tirne to bc fixed by the Court, fails to do so:

(c) ri'here the relief claimed is properll, valucd. but the plaint is returned upon papcr insulliciently stamped, and the plaintiff- on being required by thc Court to suppll.thc rcquisite stamp-paper within a time to he tixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) rvhcrc the suit appcars tiom the statemcnt in thc plaint to be barred b1,, any lau,;

(e) u,here it is not fili:d in duplicate: ( f-) s herc the plaintifl' lails to comply rvith the provisions o l- rulc 9: Plorided that thc tinrc fixed h1 thc Court lur thc correclion of'the valuation or supplying ol the requisitc stanrp-paper shall not bc extendcd unless the Court. firr reasons to be recorded. is satisfied that the plaintiff rvas pro'ented b1' any cause of an exceptional naturc fionr corrcclilig thc valuation or supplf ing the rcquisite starnp-paper. as the oasc rnay bc. within thc tirne llxed by the Coun antl that rcfusal to cxtend such tinre r.vould causc sravc injustice to thc plaintifi"

16. In Dahibcn (supra), the Apex Court considered the scope and anrbit olOrder - Vll. Rulc - ll of'Cl)C and held as under: "23.1. -l'he renre dy under Order 7 Rulc I 1 is an independent and spccial renredy, rvhercin thc court is empowered to sumnarily dismiss a suit at the threshold. wilhout procccding to record evidcncc, and conducting a trial. on thc basis ol- the cvidence adduced. if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on anl ol thc grounds containcd in this provision.

23.3. l'hc underlying object of Order 7 Rule I l(a) is that if in a suit. no causc of'action is disclosed. or the suit is barrcd by lirnitation under Rule ll(d).

l6 the court s'ould not perrnit thc plaintifl to runnccessarilr prottact thc procecdings in the suit. In:trth lr eusc. il uoultl he rrecessarl t() put an cnd 1o tire sharr litigation. so that hrlther.judicial tinre ir nrrt $ uslcd.

13.1. ln l:lutr llus,sairtv. Rajiv Gandhi 11986 Supp SCC' I I5. l;ollowed in Munvendrasinhji lluttiil.:inltli,lutk:.jut'. I'ijaykunt,erbu. 1998 S('(' ()nl inc (irti l8l : (1993) ) Gt.Il 8231 this Clourt hcld that the rrholc purpose ol conlerment ol porlers Lrntler this provision is to ensure that a litigation rvhich is rncaninglcss, and bound to provc atrortivc. should not be pennitted to waste judicial tinrc ol'the courI. in the lollowing words : (SCC p. -i2.1. para l2) 1-r. .. -fhe rvhole purpose of confemrent of such poners is to cnsure that a litigation which is meanirrslcss. and bound to prove abortive should not bc pennitted to occupy the time of the court. and crercisc' tht' mind of the respondent. The srvord of' Damocles ncad not be kept hanging or,cr his head umccessarily without point or purposc. Even irr an ordinary civil litigation, the crrurt reatlily exercises thc power to reject a plaint- il'it does not disclose any cause ofaction." 2 ].5. Thc powcr oonlerred on the court to lcrnlinatc a civil aclion is. however, a drastic one.

lr l1 and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule I I arc rcquired to be strictll adhered to.'- ln Hari Shanker,fain vs. Sonia Gandhirr. the Apex C-ourt hc'ld tliat the cxpression "czluse ol action" has becn compendiously de tl ned to meau cverv lact wh ich it wou ld be ncce ssarv lor the plaintifl'to prove. il traversed, in order to support his right to the .]ur,lgnrent of Court. Ornissior-r o1- a singlc nratcrial l'act lcads to an incornplctr' causc of'action and the statenrent of clairn becomes bad. I-lre lirnction of thc parlv is to pre sent as ltLll a picturc ol the cause ol irction \vith suclr turther intbn-nation in detail as to make the opposite party- understand the case he will have to mce1. Mercly quoting the u'ords o I' the section like chantine of a mantra does not amount to staLing rnaterial lacts. Material t'acts would include positive statement o1- lacts as also positive averment of a negative f'act. if necessary. I-ailurc to plcad "rnaterial facts" is latal to thc election pctition and no anrendmcnt o['thc pleadings is permissible to introduce such material thcts after the time-limit prescribed tbr filing the clection petition. It is the dutv ol the CoLu-t to examinc the pctition in'espectivc of any rvlitten staternellt or denial and reject the petition il it does not ''. (:00 t) 8 SCC :i:

l8 disclose a causL- of action. l'o cnable a Court to re.iect a plaint on the groLrnd that it (ioes nor clisclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing r'lsc. ('ourts have alrvays fiorvned upon vaguc pleedings u hiih lcar.' a n id.' scope to adcluce any cr idence. \o anlount o1'c'r'irlencc .a11 cr.ll'e basic dettct in the pleadings

18. It is apt t() rlotc tllat the said .ludgment is in rcspcct o1- an election petitiou and it is on consideration ol scope and anrbit of St-'ction - til (I)(a)ol'the Reprr'sentation ol'the People Act. 195 I

19. ln C lrurch of (lhrist Charitable Trust antl F.ducational Charitable Socictr. rep.b-r' its Chairman v. Ponniamman Etlucational I-rust. rcp.bl its Chairperson/Managing Trusteers, q'herein the date ol- Agrcerncrrt of Sale is not mentioned in the plairrt, considering f:orms 47 and "18 of Appendix 'A' of CPC, the Apcx Court held that lirilure to r.nention the date violates the stalutor.v requirerrcrrt and il the datc is one which attracts the bar of lirlitation. the plaint has to corrfbrnr to Older - VII Rule - 6 and specifically plead tlre ground upon ri hich exerllprion lronr limitation is claimed. The Apex Coufl founcl tault u,ith the pleadings of the plaint in the said r'. teo 1q2 8 scr uoo l9 casc and hcld that thcre rvas shortt-all in the plaint averments and statutor)' provisions. nameli,, C)rder - VII Rule - I 1, Rule - 14 (l) and RLrle - l-1 12), Folrrs 47 and-lti in Appendix A olthc CPC rvhich are slirttilot\ ln r)atufc lhe Aper Courl also held that the lcarned Sinelc .lutlge ol'the I Iigh Court has correctll, concluded that in the absence ol 3n\ causc ot'action sho\\,n as against the flrst delendant therein, the sr"rit canrrot be plocccded either tbr specitic perfbnnance or tbr the rL-c()verv o1- rnone]' advanced rvhich according to thc plaintiff was !.i\ r'n to thc sectrnd clclenclant in thc suit and rightly rc.iectecl thc plaint a: against the tl rst de l'endant

10. In thc said.judgnrent, relbrring to Order - VII, Rules - I I (a) arrd ll (d). ttre Apex Courr held that the Courl has to satisff that the plaint discloses a caLlse of aclion and does not appear to bc barred by anv lau. 'l'he statutory lbnns require the date of agreetnent to be nrcntioned to retlect that it does not appear to be bared by lirnitation. In addition to the san1e. in a suit for specific performance, tl-rere should be an agrecrnent by the del'endant or by a person duly authorised by a powel of attorrrcy erecuted iri his f'avour by the owner. It was further held that in the plaint, the plaintiff has to specifically plead the ground upon rvhich exenrption fiom lin'ritation is clairned

21. ln Kamala Kumar r'. Prcmlata Joshir6 the Apex Courl hcld as lbllos , "lt is a scttled principle ol la\v that the grant ol' relir'l ol' spocilic perlirrrnance is a discrctionarl and cquitablc rclict, 'l lrc material questions. \vhich arc requirctl to be gorre into fbr grant of the relicf ol ipeci [ic llcrl'rlrrnlrrcc. are: Iirst. *hcthcr thcrc cxists a ialid and concluded contract bct\\'ccn the parties tbr sale/purc:hase 0l' the su it propcrtr,: Sccond. rrhethcr thc plaintitFhas bcen rcadl and u,rlling to pcrlbrm his part ol'contract and whethcr hc is still readl' and uilling to perlonn his part as nrcnt ioncd in thc contract: I hird. u lrcthcr thc plairrtilf [ras. in tact, pcrlbrnred his par1 ol'the contract and, il so, horv arrd to nhal extcnt and in rvhat rnanner hc has pc'rlbnncd and 'rr hcther such perfonnance was in conlonnit]'$,ith the terms olthc contract.l lrourth. rlhcthcr it uill be equitable to grant the relicf o1' specific perfbnnancc to the plaintiff agains( thc dclendant in relation to suit property or it will cause anv kind ol hardship to thc delcndant and. ifso. hou, and in rvhal rnanner and '0. {20 t91y 3 scc ,o.t 2t thc extent if such relief is eventuallv sranted to the plaintiti-: and Lastli. rvhether the plaintilT is entitlcd for grant of' anr other altrnativq relicl. nanrcl1,. rclirnd o[' calncst nr()ne) ctc. and, if'so. on rvhat grounds."'

22. [n Bhargavi Constructions vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Rctldyr', the Apex Court hcld that the term 'law' used in Order - VII, I{ulc - ll td)o1'('l'C' inclucles not onl1, legislative cnactments but also iudicial dc'cisions cll' the .\pex Clour-t ir.r view ol' Article - l4l ol thc ( onstitution ot- India

23. Therc is no dispute that Lhe law laid down by thc Apex Courl is binding on all the Courts including trial Couft and this Court in tcrnrs ol' Articlc - I 4l of thc Constitution ol India. l;1. In Mohintlcr Kaur vs. Sant Paul Singhrs, the Apex CoLut held that rvhere the agreemcnt of sale l-ras been cancelled by Vendor, thc' parll ltas to scek reliet'ot'declaration of such cancellatiorl, in addition to seek rclie {'ol- spc-cific perlbrurance of such agreement of I (]o t8) ki-sr_-c t8o ' rl0l9) e s(t l5s sale. The said principle u'as also reiterated by thc Apex Court in R. Kandasamv (since tlead) v. T.lt.K. Saraswathvre.

25. C'orrsiderirrg the pleaclings. in Manickarn v. Vasanthar". wherein suit $'as filcd lbr specitrc perlbrnrancc ol' agreer.nent ol salc. the Apex CoLrrt helcl thilt rclief ol-specific pertbrmance of contract is a discretionarl, r'elief', ancl pleadinqs in a suit tbr specific pertbrrnancc have to be verw dilect. spccilic and accurate. A suit lbr specitic perlonnancc bascd on l.ald ancl r agr-re pleadings rnust necessarill' bc rejected. Section - l(r (c)of the Specitrc Relief'Act requires readiness and willingness to be pleaded and proved by the plaintifF in a suit for specific pcrlorurancc ol'contracl and thc sarnc are nrandatory.

26. Rct-erring to thc principle Iaicl down in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satvapalrr arrd other judgrnents in Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association2:. the Apex Couft helcl that the Court while dealing rvith an application f rled under Ordcr - VlI, Rule - 1l of CPC, has to consider tl.re whole plaint and whole plaint has to consider the has to be lead, not any particular plca. 1'he avemrents in ''. 1zo2s; : scc : r;

20. 1zo4l1 scc ont-ine sc ll)s6 'z'. 1t9zz; + scc ,loz 2', 2025 SCC Ont-ine SC 4li l-1 the plaint as a wholc have to be seen to find out whether Clause - (d) of Rule - t I, Order - VII ol CIPC is applicable. The relevant facts which need to be iooked into fbr dcciding an application thereunder are the avennents in the plaint rvhich are germane.--Ihe pleas taken by the defendant either in the aflldavit tlled in support of an application tlled under Order - VIl, Rulc - I I of CPC or in the written statement u'ould be uholly in'elevant at that stage. Under Order - VII, Rule -l I of CPC, the Court has to take a decision tooking at the pleadings of the plaintiff'only and not on the rebuttal made by the delendant or any other matelial produced by the detendant. i) Refening to the Limitation Act, 1963, the Apex Court furlher held that Limitation Act does not confer any substantive right, nor defines any right or cause of action. The Law of Limitation is based on delay and laches. Unless there is a completc cause ol action. lirnitation cannot run and there cannot be a complete cause of action unless tl-rere is a person who can sue and a person who can be sued.

ii) ln Annamalai (supra), the Apex Court referring to the principle laid down by it in earlier judgments in A. Kanthamani v.

t,1 Nasreen Ahnrc'd2'r^ l.S. Sikandar K. Su branrani2a and Il. Kandasamr' (Supra), consiclercd zts to u'hcn a declaratorl' reliel is essential. Paragraph Nos.25 to ]2 arc rclevant and thc sattte are extractcd as urtder: "\Yhen a dcclaratorl rclief is csscntial

15. When a declaratory' rcliet'is cssentiirt 15. A declaratorr rcliel' sceks to clcar rvhat is doulrtlirl. and uhich is ncccssurY to nrakt it clear. Ifthcre is a doubt on thc rir:h( ol'a plaintill.:rnd sith,rLrl the doubt being cleared no t-urthcr relicl'can bc grantcd, a dcclaratory relief hecomes essential becaLrse u,ithout such a declaralion the consequential reliel' nral. not he available to the plaintil'l lSce: Ananthula Sudhakar r,. P. lluchi Reddl tdcad) b1 L.lt.s and others. (2008) 4 SCC 594. For exanrple. a doubt as to plaintills title to a property may arise because olexistence of an instlurncnt relatinq to that property. If plaintiff is pri\'! to that instrument. Section 3l of Specific Relief Act. l96i cnatrles him to institutc a sLrit tbr cancellation ol the instrumcnt \\,hicli ma) bc void or voidahte qua him. If plaintiff is not privr to the instnunent. hc ntav seek a declaration that the same is void or does not aff'ect his rights. When a document is void ab initio. a decree lor setting aside the same is not necessary as thc samc is non est in the e1,c of larv. beinu a nullity. 'lherefore, in such a case, if plaintil'f is in possession t,1'thc property which is subject mattcr of such a void instrunrent. he nrav seek a declaration that the instrumenr is not binding on him. However, if he is not in possession, he nray sue lor possession and the limitation period applicable would be rhar as applicablc under rr. (2017) 4 scc 654 '0. 12ol3y t5 scc 27

l5 Article 65 of the [-in.ritation Act. l9(ri on a suit lor possession9. Rationale ol the aloresaid principlc is that a void instrument /transaction can bc ignored by a court rvhile granting thc main relief based on a suhsisting right. tlut. lhclc the plaintifls right falls under a cloud. thcn a declalation allilnrir.rg the right of the plaintilf t.ual he necessar\ lor sranl ()l l c()r)scqucntial ielief-- IIowever. whether such a dcclaration is requirccl lbr the consequential relief sought is to be assessed on a casc-lo-case basis- dependent on its facts.

26. A breach of a contract nral bc by nonperlbrmance or by repudiaticrn. or br both. In.llsrlr'' I.d\t ()/ ('ontruct (29th Oxford Edn.), under thc heading "Furuts of tsrcach Which Justily Dischargc". it is stated thrrs: "The right ol a pan\ t() he tr!'atc(l as discharged from lurther pertbrnrance nray arise in anr one ol lhrec wa\s: the other party to the corltract (a) mav rcnoullcc its liabilrtrc' undcr rt. (b) may by its own conduct make it impossible to tirlllll tlrcnr, (c) may fail to perform rvhat it has prornised- Of thcse frrrrrs ol'breach. the llrst two may take place not onlf in the coursc ol'perlirrnrance but also while the contract is still whollv erecutor) i.c.. bcttrre cither parrv is entitled to demand a performance bv the other partl of thc ()ther's promise. ln such a case thc breach is usually tenrred an anticipahrv breach. The last can only take place at or during thc tirnc tbr pcrli'rnrance of the contract."

27. Ordinarily. for a breach of coDtract, a part1, aggricvcd by the breach i.e., tailure on the part ol thc other party to perfbrm its part under the contract can claim compcnsation or darnages by acccpting the brcach as a termination ol the contract. or/ and, in ccrtain cases, obtain specific perlbrmance b)' rlr)t rccognizing the breach as termination of the contract. (See: O['G l)o*er (icneralion Private Linrited v. Enexio I'ouer' ('rxrlin{r Solutions lndia Pvt. I-td. and

l6 anothcr. (1015) 2 SCC 417. paragraph 106.1. In a case where the contract bct\\'een the parties conl'crs a right on a party to thc contract to unilateralll- terminatc th,.' contract in ccrtlil.t circumstances. and the contract is temrinated exercising that right. a merc suit lirr specitic performancc' *'itht,trt scckitr" a .leclarali()n thal such tcrmination rs invalid nlav not bc maintainablc. I'his is ',', hecausc a doubt /cloud on subsistcnce ol the contlact is crcaled rvhich needs to be cleared beforc grant of a dccrec cnfirrcing contractual obligations of tlre parties to thc contract.

18. Norv rle shall consider teu decisions ol'this ( ourt rrhcre lltc question ol'qrant oI rcliel of specilic pcrlirrrnancc of a c()ntrsct in tccth ol termination ol the contract r'vithout sceking it declaratiotr qua subsistence of thc contract was consitlered. In l.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani [(2013) t5 SCC 271. llte agrccmcut li,r salc stipulated sale within a stipulated time lianie: on liilurc ol llre ptaintifl io respond to the notice seeking execution ol sale. thc agrcemeul was terminated. In that contexl. this Court hcld: "16. Since the plaintiff did not perlornr his part o{'corttraot rvithir thc extended period in the legal notice referred tt, supra- thc agrccnlent ol- sale was terminated as per noticc dated 28-:l- 1985 and thus. thcre is termination of the agreement of salc betwcen thc plaintitT and dclendarrts l4 w.e.f. l0-4 - 1985

17. As could be seen from the prayers sought tbr in thc original suit. the plaintifT has not sought lor declaratory reliel' trr declare tlrc terminalion of agreement of sale as bad in larv. [n the ahsence ol such prayer by the plaintiff the original suit filcd b1.hinr belore the trial court for grant ofdecree for specilic perfonnancc in respect ol'the suit scheduled property on the basis of agreemcnt of salc and conscqucntial relief of decree for pennanent injurrction is nr.rt maintainable in law. 38. Thereforc, we have to hold that thc relicl' sought for by the plainliff ior the grant of dccrce fbr spccific )i perlbrmance ofexecution ol-sale deed in respect ofthe suit scheduled property in his f'avor on thc basis ol'non-existing agreenlent of sale is whollv unsustainable in lau."

29. In A. Kanthamani (sLrpur). tlle Jecision in LS. Sikandar (supra) was considered. and it \\3\ hcl(l: "30.i. 'l'hird, it is a well settled principlc of law lhat the plea regarding the maintainabilitv ol suit is rcquired tti lre raiscd il the first instancc in the pleading (!\'ritten statcnlent) thcn onlr such plea can be adjudicated b1'thc trial coun on its mcrits as a prclinrinary issuc under Order l4 Rule I CPC. Orce tlre lirrding is rendcrc'd on the plca, the same can be exanrined hv lhc lirst or/ and sccond appcllatc court. It is only in appropriate cascs. rrhcre the courl prima frrcie finds h1' mere perusal of plainl allegatirrrrs llrat thc suit is harred by an) e\press provision of larv or is nor lcgalll nraintainable duc to an) legal provision; a judicial noticc can bc trken to avoid abtrse oi.iudicial process in prosecuting such suit. Such is. lx^vevcr. not the case here.

30.4. Fourth, the decision rclicd on b1 the leanred counsel lor the appellant in l.S. Sikandar lurns on the l'ircts inrolved thcrein and is thus distinguishable."

30. In R. Kandasamy (since dcad) and others v. T.R.K. Sarawathy and another [(2025) 3 SC(] 5131, this Court considered both I.S. Sikandar (supra) and A. Kanthan.rani (supra), and clarified the law by obscr\ ing as under: "47. However, we clarily that ary failurc or or,rission on the part of the trial court to frame an issuc on nraintainabilitl of a suit touching jurisdictional lact by itself cannot trinr the powcrs ol the highcr court to examine whcther thc.iurisdictional lact did exist for grant ol relief as claimed, provided no nc\\ tacts rverc required to be pleaded and no new evidence led.''

31. From the aforesaid decisions u,hat is clcar is that though a plea regarding maintainabilit), of the suit. g1,gn il not raised irr urirrcu lll statcnlcnt, rnav be raised in appeal, particularly when tro new facts or cvidencc is required to address the same, thc issuc whether a tleclarakrrr rclief is essential or not would havc (o hc addressed on the facts ol each case.

ll. [n our ricrv. a declaratory relief would be r€cluircd wherc a tloLrbt or a cloud is thcre on the right ol'the plaintill':rnd grant ol' rclicl to thc plaintiff is dependent on removal of that douht or cloud. llorvever. uhether there is a doubt or cloud on tlre right of thc plaintitl'trr seck consequential reliel-, the samc is to bc delernrincd ()n tllc tacls ufcach case'. For exan.rple. a colrtract nrar civr' riuhl to the parties. or any o[e of thc parties, to terminate thc contract or) cristence of certain conditions. In terms thcreot. the eontract is tcrnrinated. a doubt over subsistence ol the contract is created lind- thereltrre. rvithout sceking a declaration that termination is bad in laq'. a decree for spccific performance may not he available. Ilow'ever. rhere there is no such right conferrcd on an)' part) to tcnrlinate tlle contract- or the right so conferred is r,'aived. r,et tho contract is tenninated unilaterally, such termination rnav he takcn as a breach ol'contract by repudiation and the party aggricved rnal. by treating the contract as subsisting, sue for speciljc perfrrmrancc \\'ithout sceking a declaratory relief qua validitl ol' suclr tcrrnina1ion."

27. 'flre surn and substance of the principle laid dorvr-r in thc atbresaid j udgmerrts is that when the agreement olsale is cancelled hr the vendor, the vendee has to seek declaration and also specillc perlirrnrancc of agreernent of sale, but not only specilic pcrlbnnance ol' agreement of sale l9

28. A declaratory reliel w'ould be required where a doubt or a cloud is there on the right ol the plaintiff and grant ol relief to the plaintit'f is dependerrt orr rer.novirl o1'that cloub[ or cloud. Where thcre is a doubt or cloud on the right of the plaintilT to seek consequential rclicl. the sarne is to be deternrincd on thc tacts ol-cach case.

i) Where there is no such right conf-erred on any partv to tclnrinatc the contract, or thc right so conlcrrcd is uaived, )'ct the contracl is tcrminated unilaterall).', such tcrmination rna-y'' bc taken as a breach ol contract by repudiation arrcl tlrc party aggrieved nray, by treating the contract as subsisting, suc [br specific perfomance

29. White considering the application filed under Order VII Rule li (d) of the CPC to rcject the plaint, the trial Court lras to consider pleadings of the plaint and documents liled along with the plaint nothing more. The trial Court cannot consider pleadings in the altidavit filed in support of a petition filed under Ordcr VII Rule I I

(c) ol CPC and pleadings in rvritten staternent and documents filed by the dcfbndants. without seeking a declaratory r'eliel4rrrr validity ol-such temrination.

t0

10. In thc light olthe aforesaid principte, coming to tlrc t'acts ol' the prcscnt case. ihe vendor i.e. Smt. Mekala Subhashini. u ile and motht'r rcspecti!cly of thc det'endants entered into an agrc.-nrent ol' salc datr'cl 08.l0.l0ltt uith Mohd. Abdul Azeeni, husbancl anrl lathc'r respecti\ clv o1' thc plaintitls on thc specil'ic telms and conclitions mentionccl therein. The total sale consideration aqrecd \l its Rs. I.()0.(X).000/- and hc has paid an amount of Rs.50.00.000, tort'ards advancc sale consideration. Ile agreed to pay the balancc arrount within three monlhs lrorn the date of agreement of sale. 'fhc said threc months period w'as expired on 07.01.2019. -l l. In thc present case, the important aspect is that Srnt Mckala SLrbhashani rnortgaged the suit schedule property with l)eccan Housing Finance Corpot'ation Limited Ameerpet brancl-r hr rvay o1' erccution ol'a registered lnortgagc deed bearing document No.3 165 ol 20 17. dated 05.07.2017. The said fact was not mentioned in the agrecnrent oi sale datcd 08. I 0.2018. On the other hand, in clar.rsc No.-S o1'thc agreernt-nt of sale, she has declared and indemr-rified the vendcc that suit sclredule propefty is free tiom allencumbrances such as sales. gilis. nrortgagcs, Iiens and courl attachments etc., whicli is lirctuallr Prior to the said agreement of sale itsell, thc vendor has incon'ect. I t

II mortgaged the subject propefty rvith Deccan Housing Finance Corporation Lirnited. Ameerpet branch. Thus, there is suppression of tlre said fact h1, the r cndor in the agrccmcnt o1- salc datcd 08. 10.10 l8 i2 It is also not in dispute that r.'endor died on 29.10.:0 l9 '[-herc'after, legal heirs of the vendor i.e. the delendants hercin cleared the said loan, released the said rrortgage by rvay of execution of a relcase deed, releascd mortgage rights or re-conve)'ance dced bearing docunrent No..i202 ol 1024 dated 21.0(r.202.{. lhercaflcr. they harc issuecl legal notice dated 30.06.2025. It is the specilic contention ol the plaintilfs hcrein that the vendee during his liGtime approached the vcndor with a request to receive the balance sale considerate and exccute registered sale deed in his i-avour. He has also expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and obtairr registered sale deed. It is the vendor wl-ro postponed the same on onc pretext or the other. .l3. It is also the specific contention ol' thc plaintills that alter the death of tl.re vendee, the plaintiff No. I approached the defendant No.l along with the brother of the plaintifl'No.l Mr.Mohammad Mohiuddin Abkhan requested the defendant No.l for execution of ll re gistercd salc decd and defendant No.l inlormed that therc \\ I'I S nrortqage or el tlrc' schcdr-rle propenv and he rvill execute after releasc ol the mortlLauc l'herc u,erc spc'citic assefiions in paragraph Nos.2 to 6 olthe plaint -.i-1. In paraglaph No.t3 ol thc plaint. there is specilic nrention that thr'rlcfflrclrrnls crcalcd rnortgaqe ovel thc suit schedtrle pl'opcrtv t(r I!1i s DHi C L, rnd thc1, pronrised to release the mortgage and cxccute salc dc'ed in thr our ol'the plaintilfi and recently after rcceiving legal notice. plainti ll.s obtained encumbrance certificate dated 06.08.2014 and canrc to knou, that the delbndants cleared the mortgage ()lt 21.06.?021 and got issued temtination notice dated 30.07.2024 fhercallci'. tlrerc w'as exchangc ot'noticcs and reply notices bet"veen thern. -lhus, they lrave t]led the said suil on 19.06.2025 seeking cleclalation aml also spccitrc pertbnnance ol- agreement of sale, datccl 08.10.10 18 ii,ell rvithin limitation i.e. three years from the date o1- i ssuarrce o t- tenl ination notice dated 3 0.07 .2024. -.j 5 As cliscussed supra, it is not in dispute that legal heirs ol' vendor cleared thc rrortgage on 21.06.2024. Thereafter, instead ol rL'cluestinr-l the plaintillt. to pa1, the balance sale consideration ancl

)_) obtain registered sale deed, they have issued legal notice dated 30.01 .2024 terminatinq the aqreement of sale dated 08. 1 0.20 1 8. There is no cxplanation hrrn thc c[t-endants rvith regard to suppression ol' reqistcred rllorlgage dced bcaring document No.3 165 ol 2017 dated 05.07.1017 executed bv the vendor, in favour of M/s DFIFCL. tbr obtaining loan for Mis MRR Bar and Restaurant represented by Mr Nlcktla Ram Reddy, dct'endant No.l, husband of the vendor i6. As discussed supra, in the present case, once therc is cancellation ol- agreenrent ot'sale, necessarily the plaintilt's have to seck only declaration and the1, cannot seck specific perfomrance o1'the agrcenlent of sale dated 08.10.2018. The said principle was also laid dori n by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. Thus, the plaintitf tiled the said suit sceking to declare the tennination noticc datcd 10.07.2024 as illegal and :rlso for specific perfolrnancc o1-thc a!.r.cnrent of sale dated 08.10.2018. There is no error in it. It is not an illusori'pleading and the plaint is not cleverly drafted plaint as alleged by the defendants.

37. It is also not in dispute that the vendee, the husband and t-ather ol the plaintil'ls, was tenant of the suit schedule propefty.

l1 l'herefore. the dcl-endants issued quit notice dated 24.0 1.2025 under Section 106 ol- the .[ P .\ct -l'here is no dispute with regard to legal position that posscssion of'the suit schcdulc- propefiv cannot extend limitation to tl lc- u sr.rit lirl sIccific perlbrurance of agrecment sale. But in thc prescnt case, thc lrcts are different. Vendor, the wife and rlrother ol the dclendanls suppressL'd about the registered mortgage deed in thc agrecnrent ol'sale dated 08.10.10 I 8. l" detbndant. husband o1'the vcnclor. obtained loan ll'om ivl/s DHFCL, by way of execution ol'registered ll-lo(gage cleed in respect of suit schedule property prior to the su['r.iect irgrecmcnt of sale and thev havc cleared the said mortgase blr ri,av ol- crecuting a rcgistered release deed only on 2l .06.1014.

18. 'fhus. it is the speci{ic case of the plaintills herein that the de'tcndants, Iesal hcirs ol the r.eudors specifically stated with them that thev will clear the loar-r, release the mortgage and then execute rcgistercd salc de-cd irr their l'avour. There are specitic pleadings to the said eilcct in the plaint right fi'onr paragraph Nos.2 to 10. Even the plaintitii havc spc'cificallr lnentioned about the lintitation and cause ol action in the plaint. .fherefbre. the trial Court has to consider the contents of thc plaint and clocr,rnrents filed along ivith the plaint. '[rial Court cannot consider anything beyond the same while deciding an application unclcr Older Vtl Rule ll(d) of CPC. The said principle rt as also laid down bl the Aper Court in the. judgments cited siqrra lnstcad of considerir-rg tlre saicl aspects. vide impugned order dated I 1.0q.1025. lcarned n'ial Court en'oncously held that the vendee, thc clulin-r her lifitime or alier her death, her husband and children (dctindants) \\ith a request to receive the balance sale oonsideration and crecute registcred sale deed, he did not even issued legal noticc r.r'ithin thrce nronths demanding the specific performance or return thc advancc sale consideration. The trial Court also erred in giving finding r.vith regard to l.rossessir-l.r of the subject property by the plaintift'. It is apt to note that the plaintifl.s never sought extension of limitation basing on posscssion. i9. It is tlieir spccific case that the vendor suppressed about the legistcred r.nortgage of the subject propefty with M/s DHFCL. The vendee during his lifbtime requested the defendants and after her death to reccive thc balance sale consideration and execute a registered sale husband ancl t'ather ol' thc plaintitfs did not approach the vendor t6 decd. in his favour. L-}'en afle'r thc death ol thc vendee, the plaintiffs approached 1'' clet'endant, hLrsband ol- the vendor, u'ith a request to reccivc brlancc'sale consideration arrd exccr.lte registercd sale deed. 'l'he1' har.' ir-r lirrrned that therc is urortgagc oV'er the suit schcdule propert). thcy irill clear the sanre and cxecutcd register salc in f'avour ol the plaintills. 'l'hc trial Court rnissed the said aspects in the ir.npugned older clatcd I 1.09.1025. [hc trial Court also missed thc lact that there is supprcssion o1'the said legistered mongage of the suit schedule propcrt), b1' the r,'endol in thc agrcement of sale dated

08. r0.20 r8

40. As discr.rsscd supla. the said aspccts are triable issues. 'I'he trial Court cannot considcr the said aspccts while decidir-rg a petition under Ordcr VII Rule tl of- CIP('. I'he detendants have to take the pleadings in thc $ ritten statemcrlt. also during trial and it is lor the trial Clourt to consider the said aspccts. 'l'hcrefbre, the impugned order dated I1.09.1025 is not on considcration of the said aspects and also principle laicl dorvn bv thc Apex Coult in the aforesaid judgrnents. lt is liable to be set aside.

t7 4l . ln the light ol'the atbrcsaid discussion, this Appeal Suit is alloq'ed. Thc ordcl tlatecl 1109.2025 in I.A.No.527 ol 2025 rl O.S.No.l5ti ol l0li l,lsscd b) the III Additional District Judge, llanga Rcddl District. et L .B.Nrsar, is set aside. LA.No.527 of 2015 is disurissed. I lou'er cr'. thc- trial Couft shall decide O.S.No.258 o1' 1025 strictll, in accolclunce rvith larv, considering the evidence both oral and docunrentalv s ithour being influenced by any of the findings in the pre scnt ordcr. l.ibe(,r, is sranted to both the plaintiffs and del-endants to take all thc c ontentions/grounds which they have taken in the present appeal, in thc suit and it is lor the trial Court to consider the same. Conscquently. nr iscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir-r this appcal shall stand closcd ,TRUE COPY' Sd/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER G \ To, kul/ba Yx 1 . The lll Additional DiStrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. ( with records )

2. One CC to SRl. M. LAXMAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5 on" cCtJsRl. P. ATMARENDER REDDY, Advocate [oPUC]

4. Two CD Copies I

HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2026 't)l:Cl{t:l:

JUDGMENT

APPEAL SUIT No.543 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUTT WITHOTJ]'COSTS U 2 B JAil 2U6 ;--t.:5"-)-i:1) .{ HT. SIA ) (. L * * Ge" 9toa t I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT NO: 543 OF 2025 Between:

1. Mrs. Thaslima Azeem, W/o. Late Abdul Azeem, Age. 48 yrs., Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. 11-18-235/1 , Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar,

2. Mohammed Tabreez Azeem, S/o. Late Abdul Azeem, Age. 29 yrs., Occ. Business, Rl/o. 1 1-18-235i 1 , Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3. Tabassum Azeem, C/o. Mohammed lrfan Ali, Age. 23 yrs., Occ. Housewife PJo. 17-8-533177, Bagh-E-Jahanara, Charminar, Hyderabad.

4. Tanwer Azeem, C/o. Syed lsmail, Age. 22yrs., Occ. Student

5. Tayyaba Azeem, D/o. Mohammed Abdul Azeem, Age. 21 yrs., Occ. Student, R/o. 11-18-235/'1 , Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No.5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

6. Ayeesha Siddique, D/o. Lage Mohammed Abdul Azeem, Age. 19 yrs., Occ. Student, R/o. 'l 'l-18-235/'1, Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad.

7. Abdul Maqeeth Quadri, D/o. Mohammed Abdul Azeem, Age. 14 yrs., Occ. Student, R/o. 1'1-18-235/1, Bhagat Singh Colony, Road No. 5, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. Rep. by Smt. Thaslima Azeem, ...APPELLANTS/ Plaintiffs AND

1. Sri Mekala Ram Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, Age. 60 yrs., Occ. Business, Rt/o. Plot No. 2218, Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

2. Smt. K. Madhavi, D/o. M. Ram Reddy, Age. 45 yrs., Occ. Software Professional, Rl/o. Plot No.2218, Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.

3. Smt. Vittal Reddy Gari Archana, D/o. M. Ram Reddy, Age. 44 yrs., Occ. Software Professional, R/o. Plot No.22lB, Green Hills Colony, L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants

Appeal Under Section 96 RArv. Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC aggrieved by the Order dated 11-09-2025 in l.A.No. 527 ot 2025 in O.S.No. 258 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Laxman Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri P. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is allowed

2. That the Order dated 1'l -09-2025 in l.A.No. 527 ot 2025 in O.S.No. 258 of 2025 passed by the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar be and hereby is set aside.

3. That l.A.No. 527 ot 2025 is dismissed. The trial Court shall decide O.S.no. 258 ot 2025 strictly in accordance with law, considering the evidence both oral and documentary without being influenced by any of the findings in the present order.

4. That Liberty is granted to both the plaintiffs and defendants to take all the contentions/ grounds which they have taken in the present appeal, in the suit and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. Sd/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1. The lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Two C.D.Copies \qr G To kul I

HIGH COURT KLJ & VRKRJ DATED:08/01/2026 DT,CRET, APPEAL SUIT No.5a3 of 2025 AT,LOWING'I'H T] APPF],AI, STJ IT WITHOTiT C'OSTS .d e-}> )-\ \c\- K'w