IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.216 OF 2009 BETWEEN: A. Venkateswamy Yadav S/o.Papaiah Yadav …. Appellant AND Busireddy Satyareddy S/o. Somi Reddy and another …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.216 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment dated 28-11- 2008 in O.S.No.3013 of 2007 passed by the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 04-02-2006. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they arrayed in the suit. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 has agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him for a sum of Rs.5,82,000/- and executed an agreement on 04-02-2006. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.25,100/- towards part of the sale consideration and defendant No.1 signed on the agreement of sale acknowledging the receipt of the amount in the presence of witnesses. The plaintiff further pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 created a sale deed dated 08-09-2006. Therefore, he filed the suit seeking following reliefs: “a) To grant Judgment and decree for specific performance of contract of Agreement of sale Dt.4-2- 2006 in Respect of H.No./Mulgi23-38(plot No.78) Admeasuring (28.8 yds) in Sy.No.207, situated at Madhura Nagar, Shamshabad (Vill & Mdl), R.R. Dist. Covered by word and block No.23 (New), Old No.(1), by directing the def No.1 to execute the Regd sale deed infavour of plaintiff. Even inspite of decree if defendant No.1, failed to execute the sale deed, the honble court may be pleased to execute the same on behalf of def no.1, as well as directing the defendants to deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs herein. b) To grant Judgment and decrease, declaring the sale deed dac No.1067/06 Dt:8-9-06, executed by Def No.1, inf avour of Def: 2 as null, void, and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. c) To award the costs of suit. d) To grant relief (or) reliefs for which plaintiff entitled to, as the honble court deems fit and proper. 5. The defendants remained ex parte in the suit. 6. The plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked (6) documents as Exs.A-1 to A-6. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the plaintiff, proceeded to dismiss the suit by judgment dated 28-11- 2008. The judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge reads as hereunder: “Perused the record. Proof affidavit of plaintiff is filed and Ex.A1 to A6 are marked. Plaintiff failed to prove his case as he did not file any registered agreement of sale except the unregistered vikraya oppandam, basing on which he is not entitled for the specific performance of contract as prayed for. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.” 7. Hence, this appeal by the appellant under Section 96 of C.P.C. 8. The plaintiff filed ASMP No.692 of 2009 to send Ex.A-1 agreement of sale to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for impounding the same. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff and perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court without discussing the evidence brought on record and without referring the exhibits, proceeded to dismiss the suit. 11. On going through the judgment passed by the trial Court, I find every force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Learned Senior Civil Judge has not referred to the evidence adduced on record. However, the plaintiff came forward with an application to send Ex.A-1 agreement of sale to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for impounding. 13. Such is the situation, the judgment impugned in the appeal is set aside and the suit is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The plaintiff is at liberty to adduce any additional evidence apart from making an application to send Ex.A-1 suit agreement of sale to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District for impounding. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed. No order as to cost. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J November 05, 2009. KTL