IN THE COURT OF ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KADAPA

I.A No 1120/2018
In
O.S No.266/2018
Kona Sulochana …Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1. N. Narayanamma
2. G. Madhuri …Respondents/Defendants
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 herein by these
Respondents/Defendants.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed this false petition for spreading

the litigation throughout the family of the first respondent by floating
the time barred suit O.S No.266/2018 against the respondents. The
first respondent gifted her property on 23-07-2018 to her daughter
who is the second respondent out her of love and affection to her
daughter.

4. This suit of the petitioner is barred by limitation and that

there is no necessity to add the second respondent as second
defendant. The petitioner is harassing the respondents by filing this
type of false and illegal petitions. The claim of the petitioner is time
barred and that the petitioner is not entitled to file this petition for
adding the second respondent as second defendant. There are no
merits in this petition and that the petitioner filed this petition with
malafide intention for illegally harassing the respondents.

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
respondents/defendants 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 respondents/defendants
either on28/09/2016 or on 21/02/2017. The petitioner/plaintiff totally
failed to get registered sale deed from the first respondent/defendant
 :: 2 ::

on 28/09/2016 or also on 21/02/2017 by paying balance sale price of

Rs.7,00,000/- to the first respondent/defendant. The agreement of sale
further clarifies that the petitioner/plaintiff has to file civil suit in the
court of law if the first 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 comes 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 first
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 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 first 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.
10. Prayer: Therefore the respondents pray that Honourable
court may be pleased to dismiss this petition with exemplary costs in
the interest of Justice.

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

 IN THE COURT OF ADDL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT KADAPA
I.A No 1120/2018
In
O.S No.266/2018
Kona Sulochana

…Petitioner/Plaintiff

Vs.

Narala Narayanamma
and another

…Respondents/Defendants

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF

OF THE RESPONDENT

Filed by:

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

Advocate for the respondents,
Kadapa.