Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5477   OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL)NO.735 OF 2011)

CHEBROL SRIRAMALU ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

VAKALAPUDI SATYANARAYANA ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The  Plaintiff/  Respondent  herein  had  filed  a  Suit  for  

Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale, dated 23.08.1997. The  

Trial Court by its order dated 20.07.2004 has decreed the suit.  

Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the Defendant/ Appellant  

had preferred an appeal before the High Court.  The High Court by  

the impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2010 has dismissed the  

appeal.  Being aggrieved by the same, the Defendant/ Appellant is  

before us in this appeal, by Special Leave.  

3. Heard Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior counsel for  

the Defendant/ Appellant and Shri S.N. Bhat, Learned counsel for the  

Plaintiff/ Respondent.  

4. Shri Patil, learned senior counsel takes us through the  

evidence deposed by P.W.1 wherein a specific question was put to the  

Defendant as to whether he was aware that the suit property is an

Page 2

2

ancestral property or not.  In response to the said question, the  

Defendant/ appellant has stated that the property is a joint family  

property. In spite of those statements, the Trial Court has not  

thought it fit to frame an additional issue and decided the  lis  

between the parties. In our view, the said issue is wholly relevant  

and significant for the effective disposal of the suit filed by the  

Plaintiff/ Respondent.   

5. In that view of the matter, we cannot sustain the judgment  

and order passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.  

Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned judgment and order, we  

remand the matter back to the Trial Court with a specific direction  

that the Trial Court would frame the additional issue insofar as the  

status of the property is concerned after affording opportunity to  

both the parties to lead their further evidence.

6. We are informed by the learned counsel Shri Patil that the  

Defendant/appellant  is  in  possession  of  the  property  and  his  

possession shall not be disturbed either by the Plaintiff/respondent  

or his representatives till the disposal of the Suit.

7. Under these circumstances, we direct that the title of the  

property  in  possession  of  Defendant/  appellant  shall  not  be  

disturbed either by the Plaintiff/respondent or his representatives  

till the disposal of the Suit.

Page 3

3

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Ordered accordingly.    

...................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI; JULY 12, 2013