J. KASHI REDDY Vs. G. MURALIDHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dtd. 6/9/2016, passed in O.S.No.85 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

(2.) Appellant herein is defendant and the 1st respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. The parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

(3.) The backdrop of the case leading to filing of this appeal is as under: One Muralidhar Reddy (Plaintiff) filed the suit against one J.Kashi Reddy (defendant) for specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 8/7/2013. Brief averments of the plaint are as under: Defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.31/AA admeasuring Ac.1.19 gts. and Sy.No.31/E admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts., totally admeasuring Ac.2.39 gts., situated at Kadthal village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which is described as suit schedule property. Plaintiff and defendant have good acquaintance and they have maintained good relations. Plaintiff, defendant and his own brother dealt with some land transactions jointly and regarding the said transactions, accounts were settled between them in the year 2008. As per the settlement of accounts, defendant agreed to pay Rs.28,00,000.00 to the plaintiff and that defendant issued three cheques for Rs.9,00,000.00, Rs.9,50,000.00 and Rs.9,50,000.00 respectively drawn on State Bank of India, Edi Bazar Branch, Hyderabad, by putting the date as 16/1/2009 and when the said cheques were deposited by the plaintiff in his banker, the same were returned with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the defendant'. Thereafter, plaintiff filed complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District, and later the matter was compromised on 8/7/2013 and the defendant has agreed to pay Rs.25,00,000.00 to the plaintiff. As per the terms of compromise, defendant agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 on 5/8/2013 and the remaining amount of Rs.24,00,000.00 will be paid within 14 months in two instalments from the date of compromise. On the date of compromise i.e., 8/7/2013, the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, believing the words of the defendant with utmost faith, settled the matter and withdrawn the criminal complaint in C.C.No.80 of 2013 on 8/7/2013 and that they filed a joint memo before the V-Special Magistrate with clear terms. As per the said terms, the defendant agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 on 5/8/2013, Rs.12,00,000.00 on 20/1/2014 and remaining Rs.12,00,000.00on 20/8/2014. It is further stated that clause No.4 of the said joint memo clearly indicates that the defendant executed an agreement of sale on 8/7/2013 in favour of plaintiff and in case, the defendant fails to pay Rs.25,00,000.00 as agreed upon, the plaintiff was given a right to enforce the agreement of sale dtd. 8/7/2013. Subsequently, the defendant did not repay Rs.25,00,000.00 as agreed and instead got issued a legal notice with false allegations on 13/3/2014, to which the plaintiff gave a reply and also requested the defendant to pay the said amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 or else execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant postponed the matter and finally on 5/10/2014, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to execute the sale deed or make payment, however the defendant refused the same and threatened him with dire consequences. Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 11/10/2014 demanding the defendant to execute sale deed within a week, but he did not respond to the said notice. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff as per terms of agreement of sale dtd. 8/7/2013 and in case the defendant fails to comply with the direction of the Court, the same may be enforced through Court. The plaintiff also sought the alternative relief of refund of Rs.25,00,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.