You are on page 1of 8

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT

KADAPA
I.A No.308/2018
In
O.S No.313/2018
V.Sailaja …Petitioner/plaintiff
Vs.
P.Pavan Kumar Reddy … Respondent/ Defendant
COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on


facts.

2. The petitioner is put to strict proof on all the allegations


made in the affidavit which are not expressly admitted here in by this
Respondent.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff executed an agreement of sale on 17-


07-2015 in favour of respondent/defendant by agreeing to sell the
schedule property to respondent/defendant for Rs. 6,00,000/- and that
the petitioner received an advance amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- from
respondent and that petitioner should execute regular sale deed in
favour of respondent on or before 31-01-2016 after receiving the balance
sale price of Rs. 10,000/- by settling all the disputes if any, clearing Bank
loans, mortgages, surveying, giving E.C and bank clearance certificate to
respondent/defendant on or before 31-01-2016. The respondent has
been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement from the very
beginning. Whereas the petitioner is not ready and willing to perform her
part of contract. The respondent paid the balance sale price of Rs.
10,000/- to the petitioner on 20-01-2016 itself.

4. The petitioner made an endorsement on the back of that sale


agreement on 20-01-2016 by stating that petitioner received the balance
sale price of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent on 20-01-2016 and that
the petitioner could not clear off that Bank loans, mortgages, surveying,
delivering E.C and clearance certificate to the respondent and that the
petitioner required some time for completion of those works (acts) and
that the petitioner will inform to the respondent to execute regular sale
deed either in favour of the respondent or in the name of the person as
:: 2 ::

required by respondent as and when the respondent demands petitioner


to execute regular sale deed to that effect and that the petitioner agreed
and stated that the sale agreement is not barred by limitation as per
endorsement made by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner did not give E.C, Clearance certificate etc to


the respondent as per endorsement made by the petitioner on 20-01-
2016 on the back of the agreement of sale dated 17-07-2015. The
respondent was waiting since long time for the call of the respondent for
getting that registered sale deed from the petitioner. But, the petitioner
has been keeping quiet without calling respondent to take registered sale
deed from the petitioner. The respondent is paid the entire sale
consideration to the petitioner as per the terms of agreement of sale by
performing his part of contract but the petitioner is lagging behind from
performing her part of contract.

6. Hence the respondent issued legal notice to the petitioner on


17-05-2018 by calling upon the petitioner to come to sub-registrar office
Rural Kadapa on 31-05-2018 for executing regular sale deed in favour of
the respondent for the suit schedule property. The petitioner has to
execute registered regular sale deed in favour of the respondent on 31-
05-2018 for the suit schedule property as demanded by the respondent
in his legal notice dated 17-05-2018.

7. The petitioner issued legal notice dated 16-05-2018 to the


respondent by stating that the petitioner received Rs. 5,90,000/- from
the respondent and granted time upto 31-01-2016 for payment and
accordingly the petitioner paid that amount to the respondent and that
the petitioner cancelled that sale agreement are all totally false and
concocted by the petitioner for escaping from the responsibility of
executing registered sale deed in favour of the respondent on 31-05-
2018. The truth is that the petitioner executed agreement of sale in
favour of respondent as stated in Para No: 3 of this counter. The
petitioner did not pay Rs. 5,90,000/- to the respondent on 31-01-2016.
The petitioner is falsely thinking that an agreement of sale executed by
the petitioner is a promissory note and not an agreement of sale. The
agreement of sale executed on 17-07-2015 is not nominal agreement of
:: 3 ::

sale but it is true and correct agreement of sale executed by the


petitioner for selling the schedule property to the respondent. How can
the petitioner pay Rs. 5,90,000/- to the respondent when the respondent
paid the balance sale price Rs. 10,000/- on 20-01-2016 to the petitioner
and that the respondent was ready and willing to take registered sale
deed on 31-05-2018 as demanded by the respondent in his legal notice
dated 17-05-2018. The petitioner should know that agreement of sale
dated 17-07-2015 is not promissory note at all. The petitioner did not pay
Rs. 5,90,000/- to the respondent as alleged in the suit plaint. The
agreement of sale dated 17-07-2015 is not cancelled and that the
respondent has filed O.S No.246/2018 in ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUGE COURT
AT KADAPA for specific performance of that agreement of sale since the
petitioner failed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the
respondent on 31-05-2018. The petitioner fully received the sale
consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- form the respondent.

8. The petitioner/plaintiff did not file the agreement of sale


dated 17-07-2018 with endorsement dated 20-01-2016 on the back of
the agreement of sale made by the petitioner/plaintiff after receiving
balance price of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent in the court. The
petitioner with fraudulent intention hidden the truth of endorsement
made on 20-01-2016 made by the petitioner on the back of agreement of
sale for making wrong full gain of the suit schedule property by causing
unlawful loss and injustice to the respondent.

9. The petitioner has to deliver the possession and enjoyment of


the suit schedule property to the respondent by executing registered sale
deed in favour of the respondent. The petitioner is bound to execute the
registered sale deed in favour of the respondent as per the agreement of
sale dated 17-07-2015 and endorsement dated 20-01-2016. The suit itself
is not maintainable for permanent injunction. There are not merits in this
application and the petition is liable to be dismissed. This suit is to be
tried along with O.S No.246/2018 for appreciation of the truth and decide
all the issues fully and completely since the subject matter in both the
suits is one and the same property. The petitioner is not entitled for
injunction order since the plaintiff is playing fraud on the defendant.
:: 4 ::

10. Prayer: Therefore the respondent pray that Honourable court


may be pleased to dismiss this injunction petition with costs in the
interest of Justice.

The above stated facts are verified and those facts are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and signed
this at Kadapa on 9th Day of July 2018.

Advocate for the respondent/defendant


IN THE COURT OF
PRINCIPAL JUNOR CIVIL JUDGE
COURT AT KADAPA
I.A No.308/2018
In
O.S No.313/2018
V.Sailaja
…Petitioner/plaintiff
Vs.

P.Pavan Kumar Reddy


… Respondent/ Defendant

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF


OF THE RESPONDENT

Filed by:
Sri. M. Ramjaneya Reddy, M.A., B.L.,
Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,
Advocates for respondent/ defendant,
Kadapa
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT
KADAPA
I.A No. 560/2018
In
O.S No. 229/2018
1) V.Priyanka
2) Reddappa Reddy
…Petitioner/plaintiff
Vs.
1) V.Ramanjula Reddy
2) K.Vijaya Lakshmi
3) C.Lakshmi
4) P.Pavankumar Reddy
… Respondents/ Defendants
COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

1. The petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on


facts.

2. The petitioner is put to strict proof on all the allegations


made in the affidavit which are not expressly admitted here in by this
Respondent.

3. The petitioner filed this false and vexatious suit against this
fourth respondent/defendant unnecessarily even though this respondent
is nothing to do with suit schedule property. The petitioners should have
filed this suit for declaration and consequential injunction instead of filing
this false suit for partition and permanent injunction. The question of
permanent injunction does not arise in partition suit.

4. This respondent is not the owner of the suit schedule


property and that there is no registered sale deed or gift deed in favour
of this respondent. This respondent never bothered about this suit
schedule property. This respondent never tried to sell this suit property
since the respondent is not the owner of this suit property. The question
of alienating this suit property by this respondent does not arise since
this respondent is not interested and not concerned with this suit
property.
:: 2 ::

5. The petitioners unnecessary took injunction order even


against this respondent even though this respondent is not owner of this
suit property. The petitioners filed this false suit without knowing the
ownership of the suit property. This injunction petition is lacking merits
and this petition is liable to be dismissed since there are no merits in this
suit as well as in the petition. The petitioners misconceived real facts and
sailing in wrong path.

6. Prayer: Therefore the fourth respondent prays that


Honourable court may be pleased to dismiss this petition with costs in
the interest of Justice.

The above stated facts are verified and those facts are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and signed
this at Kadapa on 9th Day of July 2018.

Advocate for the respondent/defendant


IN THE COURT OF
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
COURT AT KADAPA

I.A No. 560/2018


In
O.S No. 229/2018

1) V.Priyanka
2) Reddappa Reddy
…Petitioner/plaintiff
Vs.

1) V.Ramanjula Reddy
And 3 others
… Respondent/ Defendant

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF


OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

Filed by:
Sri. M. Ramjaneya Reddy, M.A., B.L.,
Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,
Advocates for fourth respondent/
defendant,
Kadapa