APHC010580372005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST \ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO AS NO: 610 OF 2005 Between: Malla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Durgu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years. Business R/o.Kothapalem via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Smt. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma, W/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 78 years. 2. Sri Lanka Jagannadham, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 54 years. Advocate 3. Sri Lanka Subrahmanyam, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu , aged about 52 years, Hindu. 4. Dr.L.S.R.Krishna, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Nizam Institute of Medical Science, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 5. Smt. Akella Gowri Parvathi aged about 53 years, D/o. Late Venkateswarlu 6. Smt.Lanka Jalaja, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 42 years 7. Sista Rama, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Gam R/o. at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16. 8. Kum.Lanka Venkata Lakshmi, Advocate, aged about 42 years. ( Appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are all residing at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16). 9. Smt Lanka Uma, W/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Hindu, House wife R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. 10. Smt Lanka Keerthi, W/o. P Trilok Chand as well as D/o. Sri Lanka Late Hindu, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Jagannadham, Pradesh . 530016. 11. Lanka Preethi, W/o. Yechuri Chaitanya as well as D/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Hindu Pradesh . 530016. R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra 12. Lanka Kameswari Devi, W/o. Late Lanka Subrahmanyam, Hindu Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. R/o. 13. Dr Lanka Venkata Lakshmi Swetha, D/o. Sri Lanka Late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, Paediatrician, Pradesh - 530016. R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra 14. Lanka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sri Lanka Late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, Advocate, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. (Respondents 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 are Proposed Legal Representatives of the deceased Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 are brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent nos. 2 and 3 vide Court order dated 18.12.2024 in I.A.Nos. 4 and 7 of 2024 in A.S.No.610 of 2005.) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/03/2005, made in O.S.No.44 of 2000, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gajuwaka. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. S. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant and Sri. M S R Subrahmanyam for Respondent. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:- 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. That the suit in O.S. No.44 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Gajuwaka, be and is hereby dismissed; and 3. That there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. 2. Two CD Copies PR vfia HIGH COURT DATED;01/08/2025 DECREE ■5 12 AUG 21)25 A.S.NO.610of 2005 m , Current tiecuon DISMISSING THE AS NO.610 OF 2005 I APHC010580372005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO AS NO: 609 OF 2005 Between; 1. Smt. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma, W/o.Late Venkateswarlu Gam, aged about 78 years. 2. Sri Lanka Jagannadham, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 54 years. Advocate 3. Sri Lanka Subrahmanyam, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu , aged about 52 years, Hindu. 4. Dr.L.S.R.Krishna, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Nizam Institute of Medical Science, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 5. Smt. Akella Gowri Parvathi aged about 53 years, D/o. Late Venkateswarlu 6. Smt.Lanka Jalaja, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 42 years, 7. Sista Rama, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu R/o. at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16. 8. Kum.Lanka Venkata Lakshmi, Advocate, aged about 42 years, ( Appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are all residing at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16). 9. Smt. Lanka Kameswari Devi, W/o. Late Lanka Subrahmanyam aged 61 years, residing at, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam - 530016. 10. Kumari. Dr. Lanka Venkata Lakshmi Swetha, D/o. Sri. Lanka Late Subrahmanyann, Hindu, aged 31 years. Paediatrician resideing at 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam -530016. 11. Lanka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sri. Lanka (Late) Subrahmanyam, Hindu, aged 27 years. Advocate, resideing at 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam -530016. 12. Smt. Lanka Lima, W/o. Sri Lanka (Late) Jagannadham, Hindu, aged 65 years, House wife. Residing at 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam -530016. 13. Smt. Lanka Keerthi, W/o. P. Trilok Chand, as well as D/o. Sri Lanka (Late) Jagannadham,Hindu, aged 34 years. Residing at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam -530016. 14. Smt. Lanka Preethi, W/o. Yechuri Chaitanya, as well as D/o. Sri Lanka (Late) Jagannadham, Hindu, Aged 31 years, residing at 17 rajendranagar, visakhapatnam- 530016. ( Appellant Nos. 9 toll and 12 to 14 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of deceased 3rd and 2nd Appellant respectively vide court order dated 24.11.2023 in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 and I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in A.S.No. 609 of 2005.) Hindu, ...Petitioners AND Malla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Durgu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years Business R/o.Kothapalem via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondent / Plaintiff Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 2000 dated 31.03.2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri.M S R Subrahmanyam, Advocate behalf of the Appellant and Sri. S. Srinivas Reddy for Respondent. This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows;- , on 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby allowed; 2. That the suit in O.S. No.44 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Gajuwaka, be and is hereby dismissed; and 3. That there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ■’ V i SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. 2. Two CD Copies VNA HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS NO: 609 OF 2005 ALLOWING THE AS NO: 609 OF 2005 APHC010580372005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO AS NO: 609 AND 610 OF 2005 AND I.A.No.S of 2024 in A.s.NO.610 of 2005 AS NO: 609 of 2005 Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.44 of 2000 dated 31.03.2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. Between: 1. Smt. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma, W/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 78 years, 2. Sri Lanka Jagannadham, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 54 years. Advocate (Died per LRs 12 to 14) 3. Sri Lanka Subrahmanyam, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu , aged about 52 years, Hindu. (Died per LRs 9 to 11) 4. Dr.L.S.R.Krishna, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Nizam Institute of Medical Science, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 5. Smt. Akella Gowri Parvathi aged about 53 years, D/o. Late Venkateswarlu 6. Smt.Lanka Jalaja, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 42 years. 7. Sista Rama, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Gam R/o. at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16. 8. kfiflftiLanka Venkata Lakshmi, Advocate, aged about 42 years, ( Appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are all residing at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16). 9. Smt. Lanka Kameswari Devi, W/o. Late Lanka Subrahmanyam, aged 61 years, residing at, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam - 530016. Hindu, 10. Kumari. Dr. Lanka Venkata Lakshmi Swetha, D/o. Sri. Lanka Late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, aged 31 years. Paediatrician resideing at 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam -530016. 11. Lanka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sri. Lanka (Late) Subrahmanyam, Hindu, aged 27 years. Advocate, resideing at 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam -530016. 12. Smt. Lanka Lima, W/o. Sri Lanka (Late) Jagannadham, Hindu, aged 65 years. House wife. Residing at 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam -530016. 13. Smt. Lanka Keerthi, W/o. P. Trilok Chand, as well as D/o. Sri Lanka (Late) Jagannadham,Hindu, aged 34 years, Residing at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam -530016. 14. Smt. Lanka Preethi, W/o. Yechuri Chaitanya, as well as D/o. Sri Lanka (Late) Jagannadham, Hindu, Aged 31 years, residing at 17 rajendranagar, visakhapatnam- 530016. ( Appellant Nos. 9 toll and 12 to 14 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of deceased 3rd and 2nd Appellant respectively vide court order dated 24.11.2023 in I.A.No. 1 of 2019 and I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in A.S.No. 609 of 2005.) ...Petitioners AND Malla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Durgu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business R/o.Kothapalem via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Respondent / Plaintiff * Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M S R SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. S SRINIVAS REDDY AS NO: 610 OF 2005 Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/03/2005, made in O.S.No.44 of 2000, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gajuwaka. Between: Malla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Durgu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years Business R/o.Kothapalem via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Smt. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma, W/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 78 years. 2. Sri Lanka Jagannadham, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 54 years. Advocate (Died per LRs 9 to 11) 3. Sri Lanka Subrahmanyam, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu , aged about 52 years, Hindu. (Died per LRs 12 to 14) 4. Dr.L.S.R.Krishna, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Nizam Institute of Medical Science, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 5. Smt. Akella Gowri Parvathi aged about 53 years, D/o. Late Venkateswarlu 6. Smt.Lanka Jalaja, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 42 years, 7. Sista Rama, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu R/o. at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16. 8. Kum.Lanka Venkata Lakshmi, Advocate, aged about 42 years, ( Appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are all residing at 17, Rajendranagar Visakhapatnam-16). 9. Smt Lanka Uma, W/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Hindu, House wife, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. 10. Smt Lanka Keerthi, W/o. P Trilok Chand as well as D/o. Sri Lanka Late Hindu, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Jagannadham, Pradesh . 530016. 11. Lanka Preethi, W/o. Yechuri Chaitanya as well as D/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Hindu Pradesh . 530016. R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra 12. Lanka Kameswari Devi, W/o. Late Lanka Subrahmanyam, Hindu Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. R/o. 13. Dr Lanka Venkata Lakshmi Swetha, D/o. Sri Lanka Late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, Paediatrician, Pradesh - 530016. R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra 14. Lanka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sri Lanka Late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, Advocate, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. (Respondents 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 are Proposed Legal Representatives of the deceased Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 are brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent nos. 2 and 3 vide Court order dated 18.12.2024 in I.A.Nos. 4 and 7 of 2024 in A.S.No.610 of 2005.) ...Respondents lA NO: 8 OF 2024 Between: Malla Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Durgu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years Business R/o.Kothapalem via Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Smt. Lanka Venkata Ramanamma, W/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 78 years, 2. Sri Lanka Jagannadham, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 54 years. Advocate (Died) 3. Sri Lanka Subrahmanyam, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu , aged about 52 years, Hindu. (Died) 4. Dr.L.S.R.Krishna, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 46 years, Nizam Institute of Medical Science, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. 5. Smt. Akella Gowri Parvathi aged about 53 years, D/o. Late Venkateswarlu 6. Smt.Lanka Jalaja, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu, aged about 42 years, 7. Sista Rama, D/o.Late Venkateswarlu Garu R/o. at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16. 8. Kum.Lanka Venkata Lakshmi, Advocate, aged about 42 years, ( Appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are all residing at 17, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam-16). 9. Smt Lanka Uma, W/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Hindu, House wife, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. 10. Smt Lanka Keerthi, W/o. P Trilok Chand as well as D/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Pradesh . 530016. Hindu, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra 11. Lanka Preethi, W/o. Yechuri Chaitanya as well as D/o. Sri Lanka Late Jagannadham, Hindu, Pradesh . 530016. R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra ...Respondent 9-11 are the Proposed Legal Representatives of the deceased Respondent No.2 in I.A.No.4 of 2024 12. Lanka Kameswari Devi, W/o. Late Lanka Subrahmanyam, Hindu Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. R/o. 13. Dr Lanka Venkata Lakshmi Swetha, D/o. Sri Lanka Late Subrahmanyam Hindu, Paediatrician Pradesh - 530016. R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra 14. Lanka Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sri Lanka Late Subrahmanyam, Hindu, Advocate, R/o. 17 Rajendranagar, Visakhpatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 530016. ...Respondent 12-14 are the Proposed Legal Representatives of the deceased Respondent No.3 in I.A.No.7 of 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to allow the present Interlocutory Application by marking the documents which are already part of the record of the Court below: I. Photostat Copies of the proceedings, dt. 10.01.1978 as Ex. A6; II. Photostat Copies of the Notice and Affidavits of Dr. Lanka Satyarama Krishna, Lanka Subramanyam, Lanka Jaggannadham, Lanka Venkateshwarulu as Ex.A7 collectively on record and consider them as additional evidence on behalf of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. S SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. M S R SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following Common Order: 1 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24 as 610 05 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Appeal Suit Nos.609 and 610 of 2005 and l■A■No.8/2024 in A.S.No.610 of 2005 Common Judgment: Appeal Suit No.609 of 2005 is filed by the defendants 1 to 8 against the alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest granted by the trial Court and Appeal Suit No.610 of 2005 is filed by the plaintiff for not awarding main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale by the trial Court. 2. Both these appeals A.S.Nos.609 and 610 of 2005 are filed against the judgment and decree, dated 31-3-2005, passed in O.S.No.44 of 20.00 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. Therefore, both these appeals are clubbed and common judgment is being pronounced in these appeals. It is expedient to refer the parties as they are originally arrayed in the suit so as to avoid any confusion and for better understanding of the matter. 3. The suit in O.S.No.44 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 8 for specific performance of the suit agreement by giving a direction to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed for the suit schedule property in terms of the said agreement and to register the same at the plaintiff’s costs, and in case if the defendants failed to do so within the time prescribed by the Court, that the Court may be pleased to execute a sale deed on their behalf and get it registered or for an alternative relief of payment of Rs.9,00,000/- towards damages as compensation for the breach of contract with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit. 2 VGKR, J. ^ as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 4. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows; (a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for defendant specific performance of sale agreement dated 18-11-1988. The 1 IS the wife of late Lanka Venkatewarfu and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 8 are the daughters of late Lanka Venkateswarlu. The schedule property is of an extent of Ac.0-62 cents, which forms part of total extent of Ac.3-00 covered by Survey No.101/2 of Chinagantyada Village, Gajuwaka Mandal and the same was absolute property of deceased Lanka Venkateswarlu and the total land having been purchased by a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1961 from one Gonna Appanna, who is the original owner. Out of the said Ac.3-00. an extent of Ac.0-62 cents of land i.e. schedule property which forms the northern portion of Ac.3-00 of land him under covered by the sale deed dated 15-7-1961 was agreed to be sold by Lanka Venkateswarlu to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-. (b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was in look out for purchase of a suitable site around Gajuwaka and in February, 1987 or so, Lanka Venkateswarlu coming to know the said intention of plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule vacant land to an extent of Ac.0-62 cents plaintiff that he is the absolute representing to the owner of total extent of Ac.3-00 of land mentioned supra and that it is his self-acquisition, purchased by him under the registered sale deed dated 15-7-1961 and he was in need of money for construction of a building. The bargain was settled between the parties and the sale price was fixed at Rs.3,75,000/- and a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in two installments was paid by the plaintiff to Lanka Venkateswarlu in the presence of his wife, the 1®‘ defendant herein. On both month of February, 1987 when Rs. 1.00.000/- was paid and when an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid for the 2 1®* defendant was present. occasions i.e. in the nd time in September, 1987, the 3 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 (c) It is further pleaded that thereafter, on the instructions of Lanka Venkateswarlu, the plaintiff purchased stamp papers in the year 1987 itself and handed over the same to Lanka Venkateswarlu, who promised to get an agreement of sale typed on the same acknowledging the total amounts received by him as advance. Finally, late Lanka Venkateswarlu got prepared a sale agreement styled as sale deed agreeing to convey title to the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- wherein also, he mentioned that he had already received Rs.3,00,000/- as advance and that the balance of amount to be paid at the time of transformation i.e. on the date The said document was signed by Lanka Venkateswarlu and got attested by two attestors and handed over to the plaintiff. The Photostat copy of original sale deed dated 15-7-1961 taken in his favour was also given to the plaintiff along with a plan, (d) It is further pleaded that the plaint schedule property was also delivered to the plaintiff after duly measuring the same with a plan. After execution of the said agreement, sale document dated 18-11-1988, the plaintiff on several occasions requested Lanka Venkateswarlu to accept the balance of sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and execute a registered sale deed, but Lanka Venkateswarlu postponed the same and unfortunately, he died in or about April, 1991, without executing a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On the death of Lanka Venkateswarlu, the defendants herein, who are his wife and children, have inherited all his properties as his legal heirs and hence they are bound to execute a registered sale deed in terms of the suit agreement of sale, after receiving the balance of sale consideration, (e) It is further pleaded that when the plaintiff approached and requested the wife and children of deceased Lanka Venkateswarlu to complete the transaction by registering a sale deed in his favour, while promising to do so, they have been postponing, the event and as such, the plaintiff was compelled to issue a lawyer’s notice dated 07-8-1991 and the of execution of sale deed. 4 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 same was received by some of the defendants and a contentious reply was sent through an advocate on 20-8-1991 with all false allegations denying execution of the document dated 18-11-1988 and also the receipt of advance amounts. (f) It is further pleaded that he is always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and was offering to Lanka Venkateswarlu during his life time and later to the defendants. But it is the defendants and their father during his life time that was postponing the execution of sale deed on one ground or the other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale document dated 18-11-1988 or for an alternative remedy of damages of Rs.9,00,000/-. 5. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2, which was adopted by defendants 3 to 8 by filing a memo, are as follows: (a) The defendants denied the execution of agreement of sale and receipt of consideration under the agreement of sale. It is contended that the plaint schedule property was never delivered and the agreement was never executed and no amount was received. The plaintiff also never offered to pay Rs.75,000/-. No sale agreement was executed by Lanka Venkateswarlu. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief claimed, either for specific performance or the damages as there was no contract at all. Venkateswarlu never made any attempt to sell nor offered the suit schedule Lanka property for sale to the plaintiff, much less Ac.0-62 cents as mentioned in the plaint schedule, (b) It is further stated that the 2 an advocate and joined his father in October, 1972 and late Lanka nd defendant enrolled himself as Venkateswarlu was practising at Visakhapatnam as an advocate from 1950 till 31-01-1990. He was an advocate of eminence and was havinq good 5 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 reputation. He was quite aware of difference between ‘agreement of sale’ and 'sale deed’. (c) It is further contended that Lanka Venkateswarlu had lucrative practice and high reputation of nearly 40 years would not have or could not have forgotten the principle of doctrine of lis pendence and entered into any agreement of sale nor did he offer the suit schedule property for sale either to the plaintiff or to anyone else. Late Lanka Venkateswarlu never received any consideration of advance for the property covered by O.S.No.83 of 1981 on the file of IV Additional District Judge against which, an appeal preferred by the State is pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: Whether the sale deed dated 18-11-1988 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ? Whether late Lanka Venkateswarlu received Rs. 1,00,000/- in February, 1987 and Rs.2,00,000/--in September, 1987 from the plaintiff towards part of sale consideration ? Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of suit agreement against the defendants ? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages, and if so, to what amount ? Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief ? and To what relief ? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. VGKR, J, as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides the trial Court partly decreed the suit against the defendants 1 to 8 granting amount of per annum from the date of sale deed dated 18-11-1988 till the date of decree and also for subsequent interest 6^ per annum from the date of decree till the realisation Rs.3,00,000/-, while dismissing the rest of the suit claim. alternative relief to the plaintiff to the extent of return of advance Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 12% at of amount on 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in partly decreeing the suit, the defendants 1 to 8 filed A.S.No.609 of 2005 alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest granted by the trial Court and the plaintiff filed A.S.No.610 of 2005 for awarding main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale by the trial Court: against the not 10. During the pendency of these appeals, appellants 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased appellants 2 and 3, respectively, vide Court order dated 24-11-2023 in I.A.Nos.1/2019 and 1/2021 in A.S.No.609 of 2005; Respondents 9 to 11 and 12 to 14 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased respondents 2 and 3, respectively, vide Court order dated 18-12-2024 in I.A.Nos.4/2024 and 7/2024 in A.S.No.610 of 2005. 11. The specific case of the plaintiff is that one Lanka Venkateswarlu is a senior most advocate at Visakhapatnam and he is absolute owner of plaint schedule property and other property, total extent of Ac.3-00, purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1961 he offered to sell the vacant land of Ac.0-62 cents i.e. plaint schedule property and the bargain was settled between the parties and the sale price was fixed at Rs.3,75,000/- and in having and the morith of February, 1987, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the said Lanka Venkateswarlu and in the month of VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 September, 1987, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the said Lanka Venkateswarlu. The plaintiff further contended that Lanka Venkateswarlu, the plaintiff purchased stamp and handed over the same to the said Lanka Venkateswarlu, who promised to on the instructions of papers on 13-10-1987 get an agreement of sale typed on the same acknowledging the total received by him as advance. amounts The plaintiff further pleaded that Lanka Venkateswarlu got prepared a sale agreement styled as a sale deed agreeing to convey the title for consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- and he mentioned in Ex.A-5 suit document that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was already received as advance and the said document was signed by Lanka Venkateswarlu got attested by two attestors and handed over the same to the plaintiff and photostat copy of the sale deed dated 15-7-1961 and was handed over to the plaintiff along with a plan. The plaintiff further pleaded that the said Lanka Venkateswarlu died in or about April, 1990 without executing a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants, who are the wife and children, have inherited all his properties, as his legal heirs and though he demanded the defendants to receive balance of sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and to execute a registered sale deed, they failed to do so and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit. 12. Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri P. Veera Reddy learned Senior Counsel behalf of Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned on counsel for the defendants. 13. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, contended that the suit schedule land in O.S.No.83 of 1981 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, is no way connected with the present suit schedule property and Survey number in A.S.No.8 of 1995 is 73/12, whereas the suit schedule property Survey number is 101/2. He would further ^contend that though the Court below came to the conclusion that 8 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ^ ia_8_24_as_610_05 Ex.A-5 suit document is proved, the learned trial Judge has not awarded the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. Judge came to wrong conclusion that since the plaintiff has not deposited the balance of sale consideration and that he is not entitted to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale and alternative relief of refund advance amount is ordered by the trial Court. 14. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel defendants, would contend that Ex.A-5 alleged suit document and not executed by the said Lanka Venkateswarlu Judge committed an error awarding the alternative relief of refund amount with interest. 15. In view of the said contentions, the following points would for determination in the present two appeals; (1) Whether Ex.A-5 suit document is true, valid and binding on the defendants and whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is. entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale styled as sale deed ? (3) Whether the trial Court is justified in ordering alternative relief of refund of advance amount with interest ? and (4) To what extent ? The learned trial of on behalf of the was not true and the learned trial of advance emerge 16. Point No.1: Whether Ex.A-5 suit document is true, valid and binding on the defendants and whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? The suit is based on Ex.A-5 document named (unregistered) said to have been executed by one Lanka Venkateswarlu. Since the plaintiff approached the trial Court for seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, initial burden casts prove that Ex.A-5 suit document is a genuine one. The execution of alleged as sale deed upon the plaintiff to r 9 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 suit document Ex.A-5 by Lanka Venkateswarlu was strongly disputed by the defendants in the reply notice said to have been issued to the counsel for plaintiff and also in the written statement itself. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, he relied on the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2. P.W.1 is none other than the plaintiff and P.W.2 is one of the attestors to the alleged suit document. 17. In a suit for specific performance of contract, the Court is required to pose into itself the following questions viz., (1) whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and the vendee; and (2) whether the plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? 18. It is well settled that even in a first appeal, the first appellate Court is duty bound to examine all the material placed on record. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and then all the questions of fact and law decided by the trial Court are open for reconsideration. Therefore, the first appellate Court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. The Court of first appeal must record its findings only after dealing with all issues of law as well as facts and evidence, oral and documentary led by the parties. It is also equally well settled that judgment of first appellate Court must display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions of the parties. 19. The suit is based on Ex.A-5 agreement of sale styled as sale deed dated 18-11-1988 said to have been executed by Lanka Venkateswarlu. The defendants specifically pleaded in the reply notice under Ex.A-4 and in the written statement itself that Ex.A-5 is forged and fabricated document and Lanka Venkateswarlu had no need to alienate the suit schedule property either to the plaintiff or to any other person. Since the defendants specifically 10 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 denied the execution of Ex.A-5 suit document, the initial burden lies plaintiff who approached the Court for seeking relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. The burden of proof is always static and does not shift. If the plaintiff discharged the burden casts upon him, then the onus of proof shifts to the defendants to substantiate the stand taken by them. The burden on the of proof in the present suit undoubtedly lies upon the plaintiff who has. to establish the factum of Ex.A-5 suit document. As stated supra, to discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be scrutinized with due care and caution to ascertain whether Ex.A-5 suit document is true and genuine. P.W.1 is none other than the plaintiff and P.W.2 is the alleged attestor to Ex.A-5 suit document. 20. Ex.A-5 is named as sale deed dated 18-11-1988, it is an unregistered document. Ex.A-3 is the legal notice said to have been issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. The specific case of plaintiff is that Ex.A-5 was executed by one Lanka Venkateswarlu on 18-11-1988. It is a fact that during the life time of Lanka Venkateswarlu, the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice to the said Lanka Venkateswarlu with a demand to execute a regular registered sale deed and the said Lanka Venkateswarlu died in the month of April, 1990 and he issued a legal notice to the defendants, who are wife and children of Lanka Venkateswarlu under Ex.A-3 on 07-8-1991 and the defendants, in turn, issued a reply notice by denying the execution of Ex.A-5 suit document by Lanka Venkateswarlu. 21. The recitals in Ex.A-5 suit document are as follows: “Whereas the vendor wanted to sell a portion of the said land; Whereas the said land is near Ac.3.00 of agricultural land; Whereas the schedule mentioned land is of an extent of Ac.0,62 cents forming part of the said land; 11 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 Whereas the vendee herein agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only); Whereas the vendor agreed to sell the scheduled land to the said price, the vendor herein was paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only). At the time of transformation agreed to pay the balance of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). This deed of sale is executed by the vendor in favour of vendee. Thus the total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only) having been received. The vendor herein hereby delivers possession of the schedule mentioned property to the vendee and transfers the title absolutely in favour of the vendee. The vendee shall enjoy the property with absolute rights' including super soil, sub-soil and easementary rights from generation to generation without any interference from anybody whatsoever. The vendee herein shall get his name mutated in the revenue and panchayat records and pay the taxes due on the said land both to the Government and the Panchayat as on from to-day. 22. As noticed supra, in Ex.A-5 suit document itself, it was recited that total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- having been received and possession of the schedule property was delivered to the vendee and the vendee shall enjoy the property with absolute rights and the vendee shall get his name mutated in the Revenue and Panchayat records and to pay taxes to the Government and Panchayat from the date of suit document Ex.A-5. 23. In the plaint itself, it was pleaded that in the month of February, 1987 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to Lanka Venkateswarlu and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the said Lanka Venkateswarlu for 2 time in the month of September, 1987 in t,he preserice of his wife i.e. 1®* defendant. There is no whisper in the plaint itself that at the time of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of February, 1987 and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of September, 1987, both the attestors in Ex.A-5 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 document were present. It was also not specifically stated in Ex.A-3 legal 1 notice that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid in the month of 1 February, 1987 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid in the month of ' September, 1987 to the said Lanka Venkateswarlu. said to have been issued by the plaintiff to 12 In Ex.A-3 legal notice the defendants, it was simply mentioned that a sum of Rs,3,00,000/- was paid by 18-11-1988. 24. The law is well settled that edifice of Pleadings form bedrock in a civil suit is built on pleadings, a civil suit. Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with pleadings. The word “pleading' encompasses in it all material facts Which give rise for cause of action. It is needless to say that any amount of In the plaint itself, it was oral evidence without a pleading, is of no avail specifically pleaded that the plaint schedule property was delivered to the same with a plan, whereas in the evidence in -I that it is nominally mentioned in plaintiff after duly measuring the chief-examination itself, the plaintiff stated Ex.A-5 suit document that possession was delivered, in fact the possession cross-examination, when the defendants’ counsel possession was not delivered to the plaintiff, the suggestion. was not delivered. In the suggested to P.W.1 that the plaintiff denied the said possession is with the defendants and the Whereas, P.W.2 affirmed that the possession is not at all delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint itself that at the time of alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of February, 1987 and Rs.2,00 000/- in the month of September, 1987, to Lanka Venkateswarlu, the 1^' defendant alone was present, whereas in the evidence of P.W.1, he stated that presence of P.W.2 and another attestor, he made in the two payments, as noticed supra, at the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu. in his evidence in cross- But, P.W.2 categorically stated examination that he never went to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu any other day except on the date when he signed Ex.A-5 suit document i.e. on 18-11-1988. on on 13 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610 05 25. The plaintiff i.e. P.W.1 stated in his evidence in chief-examination itself that one Karanam of China Gantyana Village, by name Shram Murthy, informed him that Lanka Venkateswarlu was intending to sell the suit land, thereupon he approached the said Venkateswarlu and prior to that, he did not have acquaintance with the said Lanka Venkateswarlu. Whereas, in his evidence in cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he knew Lanka Venkateswarlu from the year 1983 and he is a client of the said Lanka Venkateswarlu. In Ex.A-3 legal notice, there is no whisper that the plaintiff the client of the said Lanka Venkateswarlu. IS In Ex.A-3 legal notice, it was simply affirmed that the plaintiff came to be acquainted with Lanka Venkateswarlu for some years before 1987. As noticed supra, the plaintiff deposed in his evidence in chief-examination itself that though it nominally mentioned in Ex.A-5 suit document that possession was delivered, but the possession was not delivered. In the plaint, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the possession was delivered to hirn. P.W.2 also admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that possession of the plaint schedule property is with the defendants and the possession was not delivered to the plaintiff. Whereas, there was a specific recital in the suit document Ex.A-5 itself that possession of the plaint schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff on 18-11-1988 i.e. on the date of document itself and the vendee has to enjoy the plaint schedule property with absolute rights and the vendee herein shall get his name mutated in the Revenue and Panchayat records. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not in consonance with the averments mentioned in the suit document Ex.A-5 and with the averments mentioned in the plaint. was 26. P.W.1 stated in his evidence itself that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to Lanka Venkateswarlu in the month of February, 1987 and he paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of September, 1987 and he further reiterated that on the dates of above two payments, both the attestors were 14 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 present. P.W.2, who is one of the attestors to the suit document, deposed i . his evidence in chief-examination itself that in the month of February, 1987 he accompanied the plaintiff to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu and in his presence, the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to Venkateswarlu. in P.W.2 further deposed in his evidence in chief-examination itself that in the month of September, 1987 he accompanied the plaintiff to the house of Venkateswarlu and in his presence, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to Venkateswarlu, but whereas in his evidence in cross-examination, he categorically stated that he never went to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu except on the day i.e. on 18-11-1988 on which date, he signed on Ex.A-5 suit document. Further, there was a clear admission made by him in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he did not know the contents of Ex.A-5 suit document. As noticed supra, the presence of P.W.2 at the time of alleged aforesaid two payments made in the months of February, 1987 and September, 1987, respectively, is not spoken by the plaintiff either in the plaint or in Ex.A-5 suit document or in Ex.A-3 legal notice, which is said to have been issued prior to institution of the suit. 27. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on the instructions given by Lanka Venkateswarlu, he purchased stamp papers on 13-10-1987 and handed over the same to Lanka Venkateswarlu to get the agreement of sale prepared. Here, the alleged suit document is named as a sale deed dated 18-11-1988, it is unregistered document. No reasons were assigned by the plaintiff either in the plaint or in the evidence that though substantial amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were paid in the months of February and September, 1987, what prevented him to obtain receipts from the said Lanka Venkateswarlu. As per the case of the plaintiff, he purchased stamp papers on 13-10-1987 and handed over the same to Lanka Venkateswarlu for own getting prepared the sale agreement. But, the alleged document styled sale deed (unregistered) is dated 18-11-1988. In those days in the year 1987, as 15 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is a huge amount. As noticed supra, admittedly no receipt is obtained by the plaintiff either in the month of February, 1987 or September, 1987 in order to prove the alleged payments of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively. 28. P.W.1 specifically stated in his evidence itself that on the dates of payment of advance amount on two occasions, both the attestors were . present at the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu. But, P.W.2 affirmed in his evidence in cross-examination that on the date of Ex.A-5 only, he went to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu and except on the date of Ex.A-5, he never went to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu on any other occasion. Another important suspicious circumstance to doubt the case of the plaintiff is that the recitals in the suit document shows that the possession was delivered to the plaintiff under Ex.A-5 as on the date of document itself i.e. on 18-11-1988, but whereas the plaintiff admitted in his evidence in chief-examinat ion itself that though in Ex.A-5 suit document nominally mentioned that the possession was delivered but the possession was not delivered to him. In the plaint itself, it was reiterated that “the property was delivered to the plaintiff after duly measuring the same with a plan”. P.W.2 affirmed in his evidence in cross- examination that the possession of the plaint schedule property is with the defendants and the possession of the property is not at all delivered to the plaintiff. 29. As stated supra, it is in the evidence of P.W.1 that on the dates of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively to Lanka Venkateswarlu, P.W.2 and another attestor, by name Shram Murthy, were also present. The plaintiff examined one of the attestors to the suit document as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed in his evidence in chief-examination itself that he accompanied the plaintiff to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu in the months of February, 1987 and September, 1987 and payments were made by the plaintiff to Lanka Venkateswarlu in his presence. He further deposed in 16 V<3KR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 his evidence that at the request of the plaintiff, he Lanka Venkateswarlu in the month of November, 1988 on which date, Ex.A-5 suit document was obtained. But in his evidence in cross-examination itself, he specifically admitted that he Venkateswarlu on any other occasion proceeded to the house of never went to the house of Lanka except on the date when he signed Ex.A-5, dated 18-11-1988. The said discrepancy is not at all explained by the plaintiff. As per the case of the plaintiff, another attestor, Murthy, is no more. In order to prove the same, family members of the said Shram Murthy were not examined by the plaintiff learned trial Judge had not discussed the admissions on by name K. Shram but unfortunately, the of P.W.2 in his evidence in cross-examination and without taken into consideration of the P.W.2 in cross-examination, the learned trial Judge that P.W.2 stated that i admissions of came to the conclusion in the presence of himself and Shram Murthy the plaintiff p^aid the amount on two occasions and the agreement was obtained on the 3"' occasion on which date, i.e. on 18-11-1988 Ex.A-5 suit document was obtained. 30. The learned trial Judge held in the judgment that "Lanka Venkateswarlu is an eminent and high reputation and the plaintiff also know him cannot dare to forge the signature of his advocate”. senior advocate having roaring practice and as an advocate and so he The learned trial Judge, who pronounced the judgment, is not supposed to import her personal knowledge in the judgment.. The plaintiff herein approached the trial Court and filed a civil suit under Section 26 read with Order VII, Rule 1 of CPC. The learned trial Judge, instead of importing her personal knowledge, has to pronounce judgment by following the provisions under Sections 101 to 104 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deal with 'burden of proof. As stated supra, the real controversy between the parties in the suit is whether Ex.A-5 suit document is genuine or not. The learned trial Judge, instead of importing her 17 VGKR. J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 personal knowledge in the judgment, has to deal with the suit in pursuance of the provisions dealt as per law. 31. The defendants specifically and unequivocally denied that Lanka Venkateswarlu never executed Ex.A-5 suit document and it is a forged document. Therefore, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A-5 is a genuine document by producing evidence. As noticed supra, the evidence of P.W.2 is not inspiring confidence on the Court to come to the conclusion that Ex.A-5 is proved. The defendants also relied on the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. D.Ws.1 and 2 affirmly stated in their evidence that Ex.A-5 is a fabricated document and Lanka Venkateswarlu had no need to alienate the schedule property either to the plaintiff or any other person. 32. The learned trial Judge held in the.judgment that the plaintiff proved his burden by examining one of the attestors in Ex.A-5 as P.W.2, but the defendants failed to discharge their burden, to prove that Ex.A-5 is a fabricated document and though the signatures of Lanka Venkateswarlu, an.Advocate, are available in the year 1988, the defendants did not take any steps to send Ex.A-5 to a handwriting expert. As stated supra, the evidence of P.W.2 fails to establish that Ex.A-5 is a genuine document. The evidence of P.W.1 is not at all corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 is not in consonance with the plaint averments and also with the recitals mentioned in Ex.A-5 suit document. Moreover, opinion of a handwriting expert is not a conclusive proof. The opinion of handwriting expert and evidence of handwriting expert, if any, has to be read along with other evidence. Here, the evidence of P.W.1 is. not in consonance with the suit document and also not in consonance with the plaint averments. Moreover, P.W.2 specifically admits in his evidence itself that he is childhood friend of the plaintiff and both belong to same caste and P.W.2 affirmed in his evidence in cross-examination that on the date of alleged payments of Rs.1,00,000/- in the mbhth of February, 1987 and Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of September VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610 05 Venkateswarlu. Moreover, the ^ by the plaintiff to Lanka Venkateswarlu 1 in the months of February, 1987 and September either, in Ex.A-3 legal notice 18 1987 he was not present at the house of Lanka alleged aforesaid two payments made , 1987 are also not mentioned or also in the suit document Ex.A-5. The recitals of suit document show that it Venkateswarlu. The was alleged to have been executed by Lanka presence of family members of Lanka Venkateswarlu is not at all mentioned in suit document or the plaintiff did Signatures of defendants not obtain the on Ex.A-5, The learned trial Judge ignored all the aforesaid aspects and came to conclusion that Ex.A-5 is proved. 33. The learned trial Judge held in the judgment that the plaintiff ISC arged his burden by examining one of the attestors in Ex A-5 suit document as P.W.2, but the defendants failed to discharge their burden though admitted signatures of are available, but the a handwriting expert, to establish that Ex.A-5 is to prove that Ex.A-5 is a fabricated document and late Lanka Venkateswarlu relate to the year 1988 defendants have not taken As stated any steps to sent Ex.A-5 to supra, the evidence of P.W.2 fails a genuine document. The evidence of P.W.1 IS not at all corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 is not in plaint averments. consonance with the As stated supra, the evidence of P.W.1 is also not in mentioned in Ex.A-5. consonance with the averments For the aforesaid view that Ex.A-5 is not proved by the plaintiff, to prove that Ex.A-5 suit document is a valid document, therefore, the same is not binding on the defendants. reasons, I am of the considered vi Since the plaintiff failed 34.(a) The learned counsel for plaintiff placed a reliance on Lanka The ratio laid down in the present facts of the case on hand, Ex.A-5 suit document itself is not proved. Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs V. State of A.P.\ aforesaid case law is not at all applicable to the because in the case ' (2011) 4 see 363 19 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as 610 05 (b) The learned counsel for plaintiff placed a reliance on K. Prakash v. B.R. Sampath Kumar^ and also on Dudala Sarojinamma v. Vannepenta Ramanamma^. In the present case on hand, as noticed supra, Ex.A-5 suit document itself is not validly proved and therefore, the request for passing a decree of specific performance does not arise. (c) The learned counsel for plaintiff relied on Krishnan v. Backian"^ The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law relates to the second appeal proceedings, whereas the present case proceedings are the first appeal proceedings. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is not at all applicable to the present case on hand, (d) The learned counsel for plaintiff relied on K. Arjuna Rao v. Katuru Yedukondalu^. The common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held in the said case as follows; “7. It is needless to say that Sections 101 to 104 of'the Evidence Act deal with burden of proof. It is a settled principle of law that burden of proof lies on the person, who would fail if no evidence is adduced on either side. The burden of proof is always static and does not shift. If the plaintiff discharges the burden cast on him, the onus of proof shifts on the defendant to substantiate the stand taken by him. The onus of proof shifts from one party to the other party depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. If both parties adduce evidence, the onus of proof loses its significance. The basis to begin the suit depends upon whom the burden of proof lies on the main issue.” (e) The learned counsel for plaintiff relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in M/s. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Debbad Visweswara Rao^ and also placed a reliance on a decision of the Apex. Court in M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy^ ^(2015) 1 see 597 ^ MANU/AP/1079/2023 "(2007) 12 see 190 ®2017 see Online Hyd 106 ® AIR 2021 Telangana 161 (He) ^ 2024 I N SC 861 20 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia 8 24 as 610 05 In the present case on hand, as stated supra, the suit document Ex.A-5 itself is not validly proved by the plaintiff. As stated supra, the plaintiff approached the trial Court for seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff failed to discharge his initial burden to prove that Ex.A-5 suit document is true and valid document. 35. The alleged Ex.A-5 suit document is surrounded by several suspicious circumstances, those are as follows: (1) It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he paid cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-. to Lanka Venkateswarlu in the month of February, 1987 as advance and in the month of September, 1987, he also paid further advance of Rs.2,00,000/- to Lanka Venkateswarlu and on both the said two occasions, both the attestors were present. But, there is no whisper either in Ex.A-5 suit document or in Ex.A-3 legal notice about the alleged two payments made to Lanka Venkateswarlu by the plaintiff and also the presence of the attestors on both the aforesaid two occasions. There is no whisper in the plaint itself that at the time of alleged two payments, as stated supra, both the attestors were present. In the plaint, it was mentioned that by the date of aforesaid two payments, the 1®‘ defendant was present. It is also relevant to say that P.W.2, one of the attestors in Ex.A-5 suit document, deposed in his evidence in chief- examination that P.W.1 requested him in the month of February, 1987-to accompany him and to witness for a sale transaction with Lanka Venkateswarlu and he accompanied P.W.1 to the house of said Lanka Venkateswarlu, Advocate. .P.W.1 also further deposed in his evidence in chief-examination that in the month of September, 1987, when P.W.1 requested him to accompany him to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu, he accompanied P.W.1 to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu and P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to Lanka Venkateswarlu. He further stated in his evidence in chief-examination that P.W.1 again requested him to accompany him to witness sale transaction in the month of November, 1988 and f 21 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 he proceeded along with P.W.1 to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu; Whereas, in his evidence in cross-examination itself, P.W.2 admits that he never went to the house of Lanka Venkateswarlu except when he signed on Ex.A-5 in the month of November, 1988. In fact, the above discrepancy is not at ail explained by the plaintiff. Therefore, the presence of two witnesses at the time of alleged two payments to Lanka Venkateswarlu is highly doubtful. (2) It is the specific case of the plaintiff in the plaint itself that he paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to Lanka Venkateswarlu and he has to pay the remaining balance of Rs.75,000/- to Lanka Venkateswarlu. But, in Ex.A-5 suit document, it was recited as follows; “Whereas the vendee herein agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only; Whereas the vendor agreed to sell the scheduled land to the said price, the vendor herein was paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only). At the time of transformation agreed to pay the balance of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). This deed of sale is executed by the vendor in favour of vendee. Thus the total consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only) having been received. The vendor herein hereby delivers possession of the schedule mentioned property to the vendee and transfers the title absolutely in favour of the vendee. The vendee shall enjoy the property with absolute rights including super soil, sub-soil and easementary rights from generation to generation without any interference from anybody whatsoever. The vendee herein shall get his name mutated in the revenue and panchayat records and pay the taxes due on the said land both to the Government and the Panchayat as on from to-day.” (3) It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that on the dates of payment of Rs-.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- to Lanka Venkateswarlu, his wife i.e. the 1®‘ defendant was also present. Whereas the presence of 1®' defendant at the 22 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 time of alleged payments made by the plaintiff to Lanka Venkateswarlu is silent in the evidence of P.W.1. As per the material on record, the attestor is not alive, but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine any of the family members of the 2""^ attestor as a witness before the trial Court since the evidence of attestor i.e. P.W.2 is not inspiring confidence to prove Ex.A-5 suit document. (4) As per the case of the plaintiff, he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of February, 1987 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of September, 1987, but no receipt was obtained to prove the above payments. In those days, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is not a small amount. It is not at all the case of the plaintiff that Ex.A-5 suit document was executed either in the month of February, 1987 or in the month of September, 1987 and the suit document was executed in the month of November, 1988. In such circumstances, what prevented the plaintiff to obtain receipts from late Lanka Venkateswarlu to prove the alleged two payments viz., Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on the instructions of Lanka Venkateswarlu, he purchased stamp papers 13-10-1987 and handed over the same to Lanka Venkateswarlu. But, the alleged suit document was obtained on 18-11-1988, after a lapse of more than one year and the same is unexplained by the plaintiff. on (5) In the suit document itself, it was recited that the vendor delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and the vendee shall enjoy the property with absolute rights and the vendee herein shall get his name mutated in the Revenue and Panchayat records. In the plaint, the plaintiff affirmed that the property was delivered after duly measuring the same with plan. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in chief-examination itself that though it was nominally mentioned in the suit document that possession was delivered, but Lanka Venkateswarlu had not delivered possession to him. When it was suggested to P.W.1 in cross-examination by 23 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 the learned counsel for defendants that possessfon was not delivered to him, the said suggestion was denied by P.W.1. P.W.2 also specifically admitted his evidence in cross-examination itself that possession of the plaint schedule property is with the defendants and the possession was not delivered to the plaintiff. in 36. As noticed supra, the specific case of the plaintiff is that he paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and he has to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to Lanka Venkateswarlu as on the date of suit document, whereas the recitals in the plaint and evidence of P.W.1 are not at all corroborated with Ex.A-5 suit document. 37. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that Ex.A-5 suit document is surrounded by several suspicious circumstances, those are not removed by the plaintiff. Ex.A-5 is not proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, the alleged Ex.A-5 suit document is not true and not valid and binding on the defendants. Since Ex.A-5 suit document is not proved, the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff or defendants does not arise. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the plaintiff. 38. Point No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale styled as sale deed ? In view of my discussion on point No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, since the suit document Ex.A-5 is not .proved. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the plaintiff. 39. Point No.3: Whether the trial Court is justified in ordering alternative relief of refund of advance amount with interest ? In view of my specific findings on points 1 and 2, as stated supra, I arjx of the considered view that the. trial Court is not justified in ordering the alternative relief of refund of advance amount with interest. Since Ex.A-5 suit 24 VGKR, j T as_609&610_2005& \ ia 8 24 as 610 05 document itself is not proved, the question of granting main relief or alternative relief of refund of advance amount does not arise. Accordingly, this point is also answered against the plaintiff. l■A■No.8/2024 in A.S.No.610/2005: 40. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the present application, averments in the affidavit of the petitioner are as follows: During the pendency of the suit, after completion of evidence, when the matter was taken up for arguments, the plaintiff filed three interlocutory applications (1) to reopen the suit for adducing additional evidence, The brief (2) marking of additional documents and (3) recall of P.W.1 for marking the said documents in the original suit. The petitioner further pleaded that two interlocutory applications filed seeking to reopen the suit proceedings for adducing additional evidence and to recall P.W.1 were dismissed by the learned trial Judge. The petitioner further pleaded that however, the trial Court took the documents filed along with the petition as additional documents without marking them as exhibits, the said documents were referred during the cross-examination of P.W.1 in the suit for the purpose of better appreciation of evidence and for the purpose of circumstantial evidence. 41. A counter affidavit is filed by the 8*^ respondent. The respondent contended that various allegations contained in the affidavit of the petitioner are all untrue and incorrect and the present application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC is not at all maintainable as the trial Court, while dismissing the said application, had taken into consideration ail the documents filed before it at the stage of final arguments and referred to those documents in the judgment of the Court below. 42. Heard both sides counsel on record. 25 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_610_05 43. Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC reads as under: “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if— (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted (aa) the party seeking to produce additional notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission. The general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, enable the appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances only. The proviso under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. permits the party to produce additional evidence before the appellate Court provided it has to be under the ambit of order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code.” , or evidence, establishes that was not within his or any witness to be come 44.(a) The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff placed a reliance on Amar Nath Agarwalla v. Dhillon Transport Agency^. The Apex Court held in the said case as follows; ‘4. It appears that along with his written submission, the plaintiff filed certain documents which were not exhibited at the trial to prove sub-letting. In our view those documents cannot be looked into since they were not put in evidence and the defendant had opportunity of replying to those no documents.” (b) The learned counsel for plaintiff also placed another reliance Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutf. on (2007XSCC 306 ^GKR, j as_609&610_2005& 'a_8_24_as_610__05 another reliance on ^ • "^he Apex Court held i ' ' • 26 (c) The learned counsel for plaintiff also placed A. Seetharama Reddy K. Venkataramaiah v. said case law, 10 in the as follows: 9. wa are clearly of opinion that even if it was found that the High Court erred in taking the additional jurisdiction but would be evidence that would not be a case of Jack exercise of jurisdiction. of an error in the pointed out however by this Court i see 178], “The discretion As was <h Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh U1951) 1 arbitrary one, but is a tudicial 0^7 Order 41, Rule 27 an by the limitations of the Code of Civil Procedure” case the High Court specified in The question whether i the present therefore to be in • e>^ercised the discretion ijudicially has examined by us. Admittedly, in the case application with OP hand, the petitioner filed the receive the documents vi present a specific prayer to copies of - VIZ., Photostat as Ex.A-6 and Photostat copies of proceedings dated 10-01-1978 notice and Photostat copies of affidavits of certain proceedings. The persons as Ex.A-7 in the first appeal proposed documents to Photostat copies of documents attested by Revenue be additional evidence received as those documents are officials or any other official, therefore, those and the same Photostat copies of documents inadmissible documents. cannot be looked into It is well settled that are even in a first appeal, the first placed on record, to all the issues and appellate Court is duty bound to The first appellate Court i examine all the material IS required to address itself decide the case by giving reasons findings only after dealing oral and The Court of first with all issues of law appeal must record its as well as facts and evidence documentary led by the record, I am of the parties. On considered view that the appreciation of the evidence documents to be on additional evidence judgment in received as pronouncement of any grounds to allow the are no more i a first appeal. Therefore, required for the purpose of I do not find ®q(2018) 10 see 484 1963 sec Online SC 216 27 VGKR, J. as_609&610_2005& ia_8_24_as_€10_05 application in I.A.No.8 of 2024 filed by the petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I.A.No.8 of 2024 is dismissed. 45. In view of the findings on points 1 to 3 in the appeal, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to establish .his case and failed to prove the suit document Ex.A-5. The findings and conclusion recorded by the trial Court that “Ex.A-5 is proved" is nothing but an erroneous finding. Without proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to the said conclusion and awarded the alternative relief of refund of advance amount, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 46. Point No.4: To what extent ? In the result, A.S.No.609 of 2005 is allowed and A.S.No.610 of 2005 dismissed. Resultantly, the suit in O.S.No.44 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge s Court, Gajuwaka, is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. IS Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gajuwaka. (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. M S R Subrahmanyam Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. S Srinivas Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. Two CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS NO: 609 AND 610 OF 2005 AND I.A.No.8 of 2024 in A.s.NO.610 of 2005 ALLOWING THE AS NO: 609 OF 2005 DISMISSING THE AS NO.610 OF 2005 I.A.No.8 of 2024 in A.s.NO.610 of 2005 IS DISMISSED