INTHE COURT OF THE HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:NALGONDA. ATBHONGIRL ©.S.No. 64 of 2018 Between: ‘Mis. Incredible India Projets Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by it’s C.0.0 and Director Mr. Praveen Kumar N, PLAINTIFF AND (Mis, Aurora Educational Society Rep. It's President Mr. N. Raja Bubu & Others, DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANT No.3 ‘he address and description of the defendants is same as shown in the cause tte, The adress ofthe defendants forthe purpose of service natices et, i that of i's Counsels Mis. CV, Narayan Rao & D. Vidya Sagar, Advocates, Flat No.9, MIG-I, Block No. 27, Baglingampally, Hyderabad. 500 044 1. The defendant has gone through the contents of the plant and having ‘under the same in correct perspective denies all the adverse allegations ‘made therein as not true and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all allegations except those which are specifically admitted. 2, The suit as framed and pleaded is neither maintainable on fis nor in Jaw and as such the suis able to dismissed in i siecut 3. It is submited that since the suit fled is for specific performance of alleged agreement of sae, which isan equitable one, the plaintiff should approach the Hon'ble court without suppression and misrepesenaton of ‘acts, The plaintiff having suppressed and misrepresented the tue facts the suits liable tobe dismissed 4. ICs submited that admittedly there is no written agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the sit schedule Property fixing the terms of sale ete, viz, rate per Acre, mode of payment,2 and time for payment ete. The plant in para 3 categorically sites the “NO SEPARATE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO3". 6. kis fuer submitted that the alleged receipe dated 12-6-2015 can never bbe treated as agreement of sile, The alleged receipt dt 12-6-2015 categorically sates that “WITH THE ADVISE OF ROTH PARTIES, LEGAL ADVISORS WILL BE SIGNING — MOU-CUM- AGREEMENT OF SALE AT EARLIEST INSTANT". In fict the alleged receipt speaks of only development of land in the std Survey "Numbers on 50:50 basis and admitedly the proposal of development fell ‘through, I is submited that even the plain doesnot speak of settlement of any orl terms for sale indicating the rate per Acre, time and mode of payment ete, Therefore it is clear that there was even no oral understanding between the plaintiff andthe defendants to deal with the suit schedule property. I is Further submited that the alleged document dt. 12- 6.2015 is not even a receipt an is inadmissible in evidence. “7. Ris submited that when the plaintiff approached the defendant society ‘with a proposal to purchase the lands held by it, the society refused to sll ‘the lands. At tha juncture, the defendant society put up a proposal that it ‘would entrust some portion ofthe lands held by it for development on 50:50 basis, with a view to retain developed lands for Fue use of the defendants societies, And the society was willing only to entust about Ac. 250.00 out of total lands held by it. Under such context the alin paid Re, 10,00,00,004/- as woken advance consideration towands the development ofthe lands 8 Itis further submited thatthe dafendant society i, defendant No.1 and efendants 7 10 9 never intended to sll the total extent of lind by them, Forth same reason the document t. 126.2015 does not spk about any fixed terms of sale etc, and that document remained inconclusive one in respect of any sale tems and conditions ee.‘9. The prime reason for the defendant No.1 and 7 09 for not intending to sell ther total extent of lands is that the suid societies wanted te retain Jands for their future use, As stated carl, sine the idea of development ‘of lands fell through and consequently the defendant societes ic, defendant No. | and 7 t0.9 agreed to sell only about AC, 250-00 out of the lands eld by them. 10, Under such circumstances the defendant societies 2, defendant No.1 Society exscuted registered sale deeds in favour ofthe plaintiff over an extent of Ac. 24634 guntas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 34,01,04,128. The defendant No. 7 to 9 societies executed registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff society for an extent of Ac. 7-34 guntas for atoll sale consideration of Rs 2,64,93,750/= 11. Therefore the defendant No, | and 7109 societies as intended in total sold an extent of Ac. 254-28 guntas ( Ac 246-34 + AC. 7-34) fora total sale consideration of Rs. 36,65 97,875! 12, this submited that Mis, N. Raja Babu and N. Ramesh Babu in their individual capacities sold Ac. 11-31 guntas of their personal lands in favour of the plaintiff society for a total sale consideration of Re 3,67,87,500-It is submitted that M's. N. Raja Babu and N, Ramssh Babs ‘are not made parties tothe suit in their individual capacities as vendors! land owners. 13. is further submitted that one Mrs. Kukuntla Balamani and sx others ‘executed four registered sale deeds in favour ofthe plaintiff for an extent of Ac. 14.30 guntas for a valuable consideration in respect of ndividual ‘extent of land held by them 14. The plain as suppressed ll the above facts and filed te present suit as ifthe suit schedule properties also were intended to be sold by the defendant societies.4 15 This submitted that as per Section 17 of Registration Act (As amended {or the State of Andhra Pradesh), an agreement of sale of immovable property of value of Rs, 100! and upwards is compulsorily rgiterable. ‘The said Section categorically implies that an agreement of stle of {immovable property valued above Rs. 100/- should be necessarily be a ‘wtten agreement. Therefore the suit is not maintainable in the absence of ‘written agreement of sale, 16, I's further submitted thatthe plsint doesnot disclose any consensus ad idem and also does not disclose any binding and conculed contract, between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the sit schedule property and in fact there is no consensus ad idem and binding and concluded contract between the plaintiff andthe defendans in respect of suit schedule properties. The plaint even does not aver any existence of ‘oral understanding between the plaintiff andthe defendants in respect of suit schedule property with regard tothe settlement of oral tems ike rate per acre, extent and time schedule per the payment of sale consideration ‘etc. Therefore the plaintiff can no way, file the suit for specific performance egainst the defendants in respect of the sit schedule property. 17-Itis submited that therefore the suit ile by the plaintiffs vexatious * fn nature and therefore it is able to be dismissed on this poin lone, 18 tis further submitted that the plintifT states that in tom it has pid Rs, 33,39,28,129/- including Rs. 10,00,00,004- which is paid as refundable deposit for development of land on 50:50 basis. The last installment of Rs. 94,95,0001- is claimed t have been paid on §-6-2015 ( which is part of Rs. 10,00,00004)-). Since the understanding of development of land on 50:80 basis fll trough, the said amount of Rs 10,0,00,004/- was treated as advance sale consideration andin fact it was appropriated as part of sale consideration by the defendant societies wile executing repistered sale deodsforan extent of Ac. 254-28 gentas.s 19. tis submitted that 6-8-2015 isthe date of 1 repstration of Ac. 13-37 ‘guntas under document No, 10597 of 2015 andthe lat date of registration js 99-2016 under document No. 10721 of 2016. Therefore by 20 stretch of {magination Rs. 10,00,00,0041-elsimed to have been paid by the plintift under alleged receipt dt. 12-6-2015 can be weeted as aivance sale consideration forthe suit schedule properties. Similarly, the alleged claim ‘of payments under receipts as detailed in pars 3 ofthe plant can never be {reited as sale consideration for the suit schedule properties. Therefore the pleadings of the plaintiff that Rs. 33,39,28,129/- is towards the sale ‘consideration for the suit schedule properties is an out and out false 20. It is submitted that for the consideration paid by the alsin, the defendants have registered lands ageregating Ac. 254-28 guns. 21, The above facts categorically prove thatthe plaintiff has not paid any sale consideration forthe suit schedule properties nor there is an offer of any sale consideration by the plaintiff towards the suit schedule properties. ‘Therefore the demand for the plaintiff in seeking relief of specific performance in respect of the suit schedule properties isnot supported by any consideration. This plea is taken without basic defence of the defendants thatthe suit schedule properties were never intended tobe sold to the plaintiff, Therefore the valuation shown by the plas that Rs 33,39,28,129) is paid towards the reli of specific performance is not ‘only and an out and out baseless one but alo false one and on this point lone the suits Habe to be dismissed 22, Therefore it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has approached the Hon'ble court by suppression and misrepresentation of facts seeking ‘equitable relief of specific performance. Therefore on this point alone the ite linble tobe dismissed ay 23. In reply to Para 1 of the plait i is submitted as follows: The contents ofpara I of the plait are denied for want of knowledge and therefore the6 same are denied and they are put to stret proof thatthe ignatory ofthe plait is authorized to sign the plant, etc. on behalf of the pint. It is furter submitted that document No, 2, socalled Resolution of the plintift ‘company authorizing Mr. Praveen Kumar. N, to sign the plant ete, es, prima facie does not create any power onthe signatory of te plant to sign the same ete. Therefore presentation ofthe paint on behalf ofthe plaintef Is improper and on this point alone the plant has to be retamed. 24, In eply to Para 2 ofthe plant itis submited as follows: I is true that defendant No, 1 is a registered society runing Educational Insitutions represented by defendants 2 to 6. Similarly defendants 7 and 9 are also registered Educational societies 25, In eply to further pleadings in Para 2 of the plant it is submited that the defendant 1 and 7 to 9 societies intended to deal with only Ae. 250-00 ‘of land out of total extent held by them but not entire extents held by them ‘The other contents ofthe para are already replied. 26. mn reply to Para 3 ofthe plain it is submited as follow: The contents ‘of para 3 in so far ast relates to “defendants agreed to sell above lands” is ‘4 mischievous statement. The plant pleadings does not disclose the real imention of defendants to deal with only about Ac. 250-00 of land and it ‘conveys the meaning as ifthe defendant socoties intended to del with Ac, 400-00 of land wich is false and not tre. It is tue that there is no writen agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant societies ore particularly with regard to the suit schedule properties specifying any tems of sale ete, since the defendants never intended to sell the suit schedule property. The amounts pad by the plant was towards the sale consideration for an extent of Ac. 254-28 guntas which was sold by way of registered sale deeds by the defendant societies under 28 registered sale ‘deeds in favour ofthe plain. 27, As stated carlicr, the claim of the plainifT that it has paid Rs. 33,39,28,128/. as sale consideration towards purchase of Ac, 280-05- pms is an ot and out false aaement The psn tas Fie Rs, sass97 875. othe defendant sociin aso sate consideration Ne purchase of Ac. 25428 guns fom the defendant societies defendant No.1 and 7109. ag, Ax sated crir Mls. N. Rj Babu aod Ramesh Babs in sel vidual eapaiis sold As 11-31 gts and oer individ 218 A wi pts to the pit. Therefore he lim ofthe pli att at paid Re, 3339.28 129 othe defendant seis for the putas of Ac. 1260-05 guntas isan absolutely fale statement, do. The elim of the plait ta thas mae repented demands on reavess on defendants 11310 red the lige balance of AS 0. 7 and Ye guntas is an out nd ot ae statement, The plans ses 259 arch date and me sch demands ae made on deferens 1105 THE Nefedants vebamentiy deny sich allegations ty he psi: THe Gefeadants assert thatthe plait never mde any Kind of ch demands con defendants 1 10:3 or on any other defendants “Tae other contents of the para which slate to allegafons thatthe apjeadans 1103 are making alleged tepals te suit shed propery ec, Such allogation af fs and ence denied. The dient sever made such Kind of aempts as csined by the psi. Such fe claims are made only to prejudice the Hon'ble cout tn submite thatthe alleged public nice t 27-62015, published in Deccan Chronicle is notin the Knowledge ofthe defendants. Even vanervise, by 27-62015 not asngle ussaction tok pice betwee sh pif and he defendants and ifthe defendants ave made any aed fowmpts il the lands aler 12-7-2017, the plain could not eve published the paper notice on 276-2015. ict furter submited thatthe alleged publi note dt, 276-2015 pushed in Decan Chronicles mischievous and fxulest oe 8 vie tat there is neither an apreeent of sale between the pln& and the defendants nor there isa agreement of sale-cum-GP/ between the plaintiff and the defendant societies, The defendant societies never executed any agreement of sale-cum-GPA or agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of lands as mentioned therein, It is further submited thatthe fact thatthe plaintiff has not fited any such alleged ‘agreement ofsale-cum-GPA along withthe paint nor mentioned about the same in the plant, shows that the plaintiff is making fake claims of existence of such alleged agreement of sle-cum-GPA. 532. In fet the defendants forthe ist time have come to know about such Paper publications only after receipt of plant copy along with the documents. It isa clear case of intentional false statement by the paiti 33. In eply to Para 4 ofthe plant itis submitted as follows: The contents of para 4 ofthe plaint are nothing to do with the defendants nor with the ‘elie claimed in the suit. The letter dt. 2-2-2018 only refers to AC. 52-16 ‘Buns but not the total extent purchase by the plait 34, Its submitted that the authorities of Town and Country Planning are nothing todo with the suit transaction and prima facie itis clear that the plaintfT has applied forthe approved layout for an extent of Ac. 52-16 {untas and the same was approved. Therefore the claim of the plant that ‘unless and uni the remaining extents of lands are registered in his favour, the development project would be stopped is a baseless and mischievous statement, 35. The allegation ofthe plait tha sine thre is increase inthe value of the land after stating of development activity, the defendants are trying to lente the suit schedule properties to third parties isan out end out false Statement and therefore denied, AS sated the suit schedule property was ‘never proposed tobe sold bythe defindants tothe plant : 36. In reply to Para 5 ofthe plait itis submited as follows: The contents ‘of said paragraph are out and out false statements and hence denied. Theo plaintiff is put to strict proof ofthe same, It is necessary to state thatthe plain itself took the responsibility of drafting and preparing the sale deeds for registration 37, It is submited that the plaintiff is making false claims of alleged double registration and alleged excess registration with mala fide intentions. Infact, eater to rgistration of Ac. 250-00 of land purchased by it the plaintiff got measured and fixed thé boundaries of entire extent ‘of AC, 250-00. Therefore the claim of the plaintiff that there is excess registration isa faze statement, Therefore all such allegations are denied snd the plain is put to sit proof of such allegations made in para S and 6 ofthe plait 438, It is submitted that Sy. No, 801 covers large extent of and and there fre multiple sale deeds in favour of the defendant society covering ferent extents tis submitted that the defendant society has purchased ‘Ac. $21 guntas under document No, 1342 of 2014 and 3478 of 2001 under Sy..No, 801 cong aNd 801) coey «Hes submited that under document No, 10720) 16 the plaintiff purchased Ac, 5-21 guntas under above sid Sy. Nos. And under document No. 6265 of 2017 the plaintft purchased only Ac. 2-31 guntas out of Ac. 625 guntas in Sy. No, 801/.n- Tes submited thatthe defendant society had purchased Ac, 4- (00 in Sy. No, 801 under document No, 2341 of 2002 and Ac, [-04 guntas under document No. 4890 of 2000. Therefore the claim of the plain that there is a double registration of Ac, 1-21 gunta is an out and out false statement 39, Iti further submited that under document No. 10721 0° 2016, one ‘Yeala Uppalaiah and two others sold Ac. 1-38 guntas in favour of the plaintiff. Under document No. 6267 of 2017 Mr. N. Raja Babu in his individual capacity, as a owner of the land, executed register sale deed in favour ofthe plaintiff for an extent of Ac, 3-38 guntas having purchased the same from one Sadaboina Balakrishna covecing an extent of Ac, 3-0010. ‘under document No, 3761 of 2003 and Ac, 035 guntas under document No. 9471 of 2006, Therefore the lands covered under document No, 1072 ‘of 2016 and document No, 6267 of 2017 are diferent extents of lands undor Sy. No. 801. Therefore it can not be said that the schedule of properties under document No. 1072 of 2016 and 6267 of 2017 are one and the same. Even otherwise, the above two refered dicuments are not executed either by the 1* defendant socicty or defendant No, 7 to 9 societies. Therefore no claim of refund can be made against the defendant societies. Even otherwise, the vendors under document No. 10721/16 and 6267 of 2017 are made partes to the suit, It is submited that they are reeessary parties to the suit. 40, Its further submited thatthe I" defendant society purchased Ac. 3- (05 gu mtas under docuemt No. 3560 of 2000 and Ac. 5-06 under document 'No. 4496 of 2001. Therefore the total extent is Ac. 8-05 guntas but not Ac 6-05 guntas as claimed by the plintif Its submitted thar under document [No. 5972 of 2016 the 1* defendant society sold an extent of Ac. 15-00, ‘The said extent of land was purchased by the defendant society under ‘document No, 3883 of 2000, Therefore the lands covered under document Nos. 4496 of 2001, 3883 of 2000 and 3560 of 2000 are diferent extents of lands altogether. Therefore the claim ofthe plaintiff thatthe 1 defendant society has sold lands in excess of lands avilable under the above three documents is absolutely false statement. Even otherwise the plaintiff has not filed any proof to say thatthe land was acquired and also did not file any proof to show thatthe alleged acquisition is out of lends purchased by the I defendant society under particular document. Therefore the plaintiff is pu to strict proof of all allegations. 41. is submitted that the claim ofthe plaintiff that there isan excess registration of Ac. 3-07 guntas under te registered sale deeds Nos, 5972 of 2016, 8972 of 2016, 8971 of 2016 and 8977 of 2016. It is submited that the plaintiff is making intentional false statements and there is no excess registration as claimed by the plan The plant is put to strict proof ofthe same,oe 42. It is submitted thatthe I" defendant society had purchased Ac, 22-20 ‘guntas under document Nos. 3509 of 2000, $608 of 2000, 4434 of 1999, 12035 of 2000, 2930 of 2000. Under document Nos, 9050 of 2016 thelst efendant society has sold only Ac. 4-32 guntas from out of Ac, 2220 _guntas and tobe specifi, only Ac, 0-31 guntas was sold outof Ac, 2-00 in Sy. No. 771. 43. Its further submitted that under document No. 669 cf 2017 the I" defendant society sold AC. 5-18 guntas in favour ofthe pin. tis tobe seen that even as per the description of the ownership of 1* defendant society over different extent of lands, the 1" defendant society is holding ‘Ac, $-18 punta in Sy. No. 771. Therefore the elsim ofthe plaintiff tha the 1 defendant society as executed two sale deeds covering te same extent in same Sy. No, of 771 is absolutly false statement, Therefore the claim ‘ofthe plaintif is denied in toto and the pli is put to stit proof of his 44 tn copy to Para 6 ofthe plant i is submitted as follows: The plintst is making all kinds of false sllegations and claims. Even a per the said paragraph, Smt. Kukuntla Balamani, Yendla Uppalaih, Yendla Nageswar, -lakanti Mohan are necessary parties to tis suit, sine they have exeouted registered sale deds in favour ofthe lanl in their owm right as ovmers of lands held by them, Is false to allege that only Ac. 88-00 is available ‘on the spot out of Ac. 112-39 guntas purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also not specific as to which part ofthe land in Sy. No. 8OL covered under the referred sale ded is affected. Therefore the allegation of the plaintiff is denied, It is also denied that there is an excess registration of Ac, 23-05 guntas, The plsintif's claim for refund of Rs. 1136,00,0000- forthe alleged double registration etc, is nat ony baseless but also concocted, Therefore the defendant societies are not liable for ny refund of money. . 45, The claim of the plain that it has paid Rse333928292 tothe Gefendants is note. The plain in ol hes poids BO6STRTST tOoe the defendants ie, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 7 to 9 societies tovwards the total sale consideration of Ac, 254-28 guntas Therefore the question of adjusting the same towards sale consideration for the suit schedule property and for reduction! deduction or claim cf refund of Rs. 1,36,00,000/- isnot only baseless but aso legal. It is submited thatthe plaintiff has hopelessly filed to substantiate the claim fr refund of Rs. 11,360,000. from the defendant. Therefore the question of refunding of Rs, 11,36,00,000/- does not arise and consequently the cliim of payment interest @ of 24% on such refund does not arse. It is futher subsitted thatthe claim ofthe plant for refund of Rs. 11,36,00,000 is not tenable cither on Fets or in Jaw and therefore it has tobe rejected in totality: 46, In reply to para 7 ofthe pin itis submitted as follows: Its submitted thatthe 1* defendant society is not the owner of entire extent of suit schedule properties. It submitted that N. Raja Babu is the owner of Ac. 6- 36 guntas in Sy. No, 765 and 766 having purchase under document No. 2637 of 2003 and Ac. 4-12 guntas sin Sy. Nos. 765 and 766 purchased ‘under document No, 4396 of 2004 in his individual capacity. It is not legally comect to say that defendants 2 and 3 are the owners ofthe suit schedule property, They are only representatives of defendant No. 1 society which is «jurist person. And consequently, no relief can be claimed agsinst N, Raja Babu and N. Ramesh Babu in their individual capacities, It is false to state thatthe plaintiff has mace advance sale considerations towards the purchase of suit schedule properties, 47. is fale to allege that the defendants 1 to 3 allegally stopped the registration of lands in favour of the plaintiff, The question of alleged stopping of registration of suit schedule property does nc arse since the suit schedule properties were never intended to be alienated by the I* defendant society. The plintif is making false and baseless allegations against the 1* defendant society that itis making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties. As stated earlier, the I defendant society has no intention to alienate the suit schedule properties. Therefore the contents of para 7 are denied as not true and the pli proof ofthe same Tis put to strict.{ | a3 48. Its further submitted that there is no cause of ation forthe plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendants seeking the rlit of specific performance in respect of the suit schedule properties. I is submitted that the dates mentioned in the cause of action Para are no wey related to ving cause of action to seck the lof specific performance against the ‘defendants. The ssid dates pertain to execution of registered sale deeds by ‘the defendants in favour ofthe plaintiff which doesnot createsny cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit in respec ofthe uit schedule property. 49, Its submited that though the para of cause of action makes & claim that the plaintiff has made several alleged requests and demands on the defendants 1 to 3 to register the lands ints favour, It does not disclose any ate on which it made alleged demands on the defendants to execute registered sale deed! deeds nor it takes any specific plea of making aiy demand ether on defendants 1 t0 9 collectively o individually. te false ‘to state thatthe plain has made alleged demands on defendants | to 3 demanding registration of suit schedule property in its fwvour, The defendants assert that the plaintiff never made any kind of demands or requests on defendants 1 to 3 individually or collectively at any point of time demanding registration of suit schedule property in its favour, Infact, there is no communication between the plaintiff and the defendant societies after execution of lst registered sale deed in the menth on July, 2017. It is submitted thatthe alleged paper publications issued on 27-6- 2015 and 28-6-2015 prima ficie does not crest any cause of etn fr the pls to seek the suit relief. Therefore itis crystal clear thi ther is no ‘cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit seeking relief of specific performance. 50. Ic submited that even as per the plant pleadings the suit is under valued. Since the plaintifT claims that it has paid Rs, 3339,28,129/- allegedly towards sale consideration forthe suit schedule properties thea4 plaintif has to value the suit @ Rs. 33,39,28,129/, tis further submited that the plaintiff can not make any deductions from Rs. 33,39,28,129/- towands alleged deductions for double and excess registrations, Therefore the suit has tobe retumed for under valuation, ‘Therefore in view of the above, the suit is liable to be dismissed with ‘exemplary costs Date: 6.82018. Place: Hyderabad, 1N. RAMESH BABU Secretary, Aurora Educational Society. VERIFICATION 1, N. Ramesh Babu, S/o, Late Seothaah, aged about 50 years, Oce: Secretary, 1% Defendant Society, do hereby verify the exntens of the ‘written statement as true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliet. Date: 6-8-2018. Place: Hyderabad, N. RAMESH BABU. Secretary, Auora Educational SocietyINTHE COURT OF THE HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:NALGONDA. ‘ATBHONGIRL 0.5.No. 64 of 2018, Between: ‘Mis. Incredible India Projects Pvt Li. Rep: by it's C.0.0 and Direstr Mr, Praveen Kumar N. PLAINTIFF AND Mis. Aurora Educational Society ‘Rep. It's President Mr. N. Raja Babu & Others. DEFENDANTS. WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY. DEFENDANT No. Rep, BY DERENDANT No.3 FILED ON: 782018 FILED BY Mis. CV. Narayan ao & D. Vidya Sagar ‘Advocates COUNSELS FOR DI TODS FlatNo, 9, MIG Block 27, Baglingxnpelly Hyderabad: $00 04.