IN THE COURT OF ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADAPA

I.A No 730/2018
In
O.S No.266/2018
Kona Sulochana …Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
Narala Narayanamma …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. The written state of the defendant may kindly be read as
part and parcel of this counter.

3. The respondent/defendant humbly submits that this

petition and suit are barred by limitation. This petition and suit are
instituted after prescribed period of limitation. Hence this petition and
suit are liable to be dismissed under section 3 of Limitation Act.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale

with the respondent/defendant on 28/04/2016 for purchasing the suit
property for Rs. 10,50,000/- by paying an advance amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent/defendant for getting regular
registered sale deed from the respondent/defendant with in five
months i.e on or before 28/09/2016. The petitioner/plaintiff was not
ready and willing to get registered sale deed from the
respondent/defendant on or before 28/09/2016 even though the
respondent/defendant was ready and willing to take balance sale price
of Rs.8,00,000/- and execute registered sale deed in favour of the
petitioner/plaintiff on or before 28/09/2016. The petitioner/plaintiff
utterly failed to perform her part of contract as agreed upon in the
agreement of sale on or before 28/09/2016. The petitioner/plaintiff
paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant on 21/09/2016 and
got an endorsement on the beak of the agreement of sale for getting
registered sale deed from the respondent/defendant with in five
months from 21/09/2016 i.e on or before 21/02/2017 after paying the
balance sale price of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant. The
petitioner/plaintiff was not ready and willing to get registered sale
 :: 2 ::

deed from the respondent/defendant on or before 21/02/2017 by

paying balance sale price of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the
respondent/defendant even though the respondent/defendant was
ready and willing to perform her part of contract on or before
21/02/2017 for executing registered sale deed in favour of the
petitioner/plaintiff after receiving balance sale consideration of
Rs.7,00,000/- from the petitioner/plaintiff.

5. The suit agreement of sale further speaks that the

petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to get refund of advance amount in
case if the petitioner/plaintiff fails to get registered sale deed from the
respondent/defendant either on 28/09/2016 as per agreement sale or
on 21/02/2017 as per endorsement dated 21/09/2016 after paying
sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant either
on28/09/2016 or on 21/02/2017. The petitioner/plaintiff totally failed
to get registered sale deed from the respondent/defendant on
28/09/2016 or also on 21/02/2017 by paying balance sale price of
Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant. The agreement of sale
further clarifies that the petitioner/plaintiff has to file civil suit in the
court of law if the respondent/defendant refuses to take balance sale
price of Rs.7,00,000/- and also refuses to execute registered sale deed
in favour of petitioner/plaintiff either on 28/09/2016 or on 21/02/2017
by depositing Rs.7,00,000/- in the court and get registered sale deed
from the court. This agreement of sale came within the purview of
time is essence of contract. The time fixed for performance of contract
is on 28/09/2016 as per agreement of sale dated 28/04/2016 and
21/02/2017 as per endorsement dated 21/09/2016. The limitation for
agreement of sale expired on 22/09/2016 and the limitation for
endorsement expired on 22/02/2017 as per the terms of contact
entered between the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant.
So the petitioner/plaintiff has no right or authority to file this suit on
26/06/2018 and this suit is liable to be dismissed under section 3 of
Limitation Act. The first part Article 54 of Limitation Act applies to this
suit since the time is fixed in the agreement of sale for specific
performance. In the absence of a date fixed for performance of
contract, the limitation time does not start to run until there has been
 :: 3 ::

demand and refusal and date of limitation starts from the date when
the petitioner/plaintiff got the notice of refusal as per second part of
Article 54 of Limitation Act. So the first part of Article 54 of Limitation
Act is applicable to this suit since specific performance by virtue of the
principle of time is essence of contract is applicable to this suit.

6. The respondent/defendant has every right to sell her suit

property to third parties since this suit is filed after prescribed period of
limitation and this suit is liable to be dismissed as well as this petition.

7. The injunction can not be granted to the petitioner in this

time barred suit and that the petitioner has no right to pray for
injunction since the suit of the plaintiff is time barred and liable to be
dismissed Under Section 3 of Limitation Act.

8. The respondent/defendant is in need of money for

discharging her loans. The petitioner has no right to prevent the
respondent from selling her property to third parties for meeting her
urgent money requirements. The petitioner/plaintiff filed this false suit
in order to harass the respondent/defendant with malafide intention
for making wrongful gain of the suit property by causing unlaw full loss
and injustice to the respondent.

9. The petitioner has no primafacie case and balance of

convince in his favour and there is no loss to the petitioner if injunction
is not granted in favour of petitioner. The respondent will suffer from
heavy lass and injustice if injunction is granted to the petitioner.

10. Prayer: Therefore the respondent prays that Honourable court

may be pleased to dismiss this petition with exemplary 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 16th Day of July 2018.

Advocate for the respondent/defendant

 IN THE COURT OF ADDL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT KADAPA
I.A No 730/2018
In
O.S No.266/2018
Kona Sulochana

…Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

Narala Narayanamma

…Respondent/Defendant

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF

OF THE RESPONDENT

Filed by:

Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,

Advocate for the respondent/defendant,
Kadapa.