CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — concurrent findings on facts — readiness and willingness — forgery — ouster of jurisdiction — no substantial question of law — dismissal of Second Appeals. In a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 361 of 2007) and a connected eviction suit (O.S. No. 145 of 2009), both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently held that (i) the plaintiff/tenant failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as required under S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, (ii) failed to prove execution of the unregistered agreement of sale alleged to be forged, and (iii) the civil court’s jurisdiction was not ousted by S.32(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. High Court, in Second Appeal, held that no substantial question of law arose and declined to interfere. (Paras 10–11, 18–21, 27–31, 32)

1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — concurrent findings on facts — readiness and willingness — forgery — ouster of jurisdiction — no substantial question of law — dismissal of Second Appeals.
   In a suit for specific performance (O.S. No. 361 of 2007) and a connected eviction suit (O.S. No. 145 of 2009), both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently held that (i) the plaintiff/tenant failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as required under S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, (ii) failed to prove execution of the unregistered agreement of sale alleged to be forged, and (iii) the civil court’s jurisdiction was not ousted by S.32(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. High Court, in Second Appeal, held that no substantial question of law arose and declined to interfere.
   (Paras 10–11, 18–21, 27–31, 32)

2. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O.41 R.31 — Appellate judgment — form and content — substantial compliance — when non-compliance does not vitiate.
   Contention that the First Appellate Court’s judgment was vitiated for non-compliance with O.41 R.31 CPC rejected. Appellate Court framed a point for consideration and gave its own reasons concurring with the Trial Court. Relying on Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa and Nafbes Ahmad v. Soinuddin following G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai, High Court held that substantial compliance with O.41 R.31 is sufficient and that non-compliance per se will not vitiate the judgment when reasoning is discernible.
   (Paras 13–16, 19–21)

3. ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT & EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1960 — S. 32(c) as amended by Act 17 of 2005 — ouster of civil court’s jurisdiction — threshold based on rent — jurisdiction to be tested on plaint averments.
   After the 2005 amendment, A.P. Rent Control Act inapplicable where monthly rent exceeds Rs.3,500/- in municipal areas and Rs.2,000/- in other areas, w.e.f. 27-04-2005. The plaint in the eviction suit pleaded rent at Rs.1,100/- per month. Court held that jurisdiction must be decided on plaint averments, and in any event, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction on the facts pleaded; civil court was competent. Tenant’s objection under S.32(c) rejected.
   (Paras 18–19)

4. SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 — S. 16(c) — Readiness and willingness — requirement of pleadings, proof and conduct — mere assertion not sufficient — absence of notice and failure to prove payment of consideration — specific performance refused.
   Plaintiff/tenant failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness from date of agreement till notice; no notice demanding execution before suit; no proof of payment of balance consideration or contemporaneous conduct supporting readiness. Referring to Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi, Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy, and Baddam Prathap Reddy v. Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy, Court held that mere assertion is insufficient; plaintiff approached the Court without utmost good faith and was not entitled to equitable relief of specific performance.
   (Paras 10–11, 22–27, 31)

5. EVIDENCE — Agreement of sale denied as forged — burden of proof — unregistered document — duty of plaintiff to prove execution and payment.
   Where the defendant/owner denied his signature on an unregistered agreement of sale, it was for the plaintiff/tenant to prove execution of the document and payment of advance, in terms of the Evidence Act. Relying on Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, Court held that it is not the defendant’s burden to prove forgery; plaintiff failed to prove execution and receipt of Rs.3,90,000/- and therefore suit for specific performance was not maintainable.
   (Paras 10–11, 28–29)

6. EQUITABLE RELIEF — Specific performance — clean hands — forged document; unclean conduct — discretionary relief refused; concurrent findings upheld.
   Having found that the agreement set up was not proved, that the suit was an afterthought following eviction proceedings, and that plaintiff/tenant had not come with clean hands, the Courts below refused discretionary relief. High Court, referring inter alia to Parapati Garamma v. Sidapana Ratnalamma, Lourdu Mari David and Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, affirmed that technicalities cannot override a justice-oriented approach; plaintiff not entitled to specific performance.
   (Paras 10–11, 24–25, 27, 30–31)

7. LANDLORD-TENANT — Eviction — tenant acknowledging tenancy — eviction decree sustained; time to vacate.
   Tenant’s status as tenant having been acknowledged, and eviction decree affirmed concurrently, the High Court found no illegality or irregularity in decrees of eviction. However, on request of counsel for the appellant, six months’ time was granted to vacate the shop.
   (Paras 31–33; decrees in S.A. Nos. 563 and 575 of 2025)

II. STRUCTURED ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE)

A. Procedural Background (Paras 1–7)

• Two Second Appeals (S.A. Nos. 563 and 575 of 2025) arise from:

  • O.S. No. 361 of 2007 (specific performance suit by tenant) and

  • O.S. No. 145 of 2009 (eviction suit by landlord),
    tried together and disposed of by common judgment dated 26-12-2014 by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

• A.S. No. 8 of 2016 and A.S. No. 32 of 2015 before VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole were dismissed on 31-12-2024, confirming:

  • dismissal of specific performance suit,

  • decree in eviction suit.

• Second Appeals filed by plaintiff/tenant in O.S. No. 361 of 2007.

• Court standardizes nomenclature as Plaintiff/Tenant and Defendant/Owner (Paras 3–5).

B. Factual Matrix and Rival Cases (Paras 7–8)

1. Plaintiff/Tenant’s case (Para 7):

   • Defendant/Owner purchased suit property from his father-in-law Devathu Musala Rao under registered sale deed dated 19-05-1997.

   • Plaintiff/Tenant originally lessee; later purchased four surrounding shops.

   • Alleged agreement of sale dated 06-03-2005 for Rs.4,00,000/-; Rs.3,90,000/- claimed to have been paid; only Rs.10,000/- balance.

   • Defendant/Owner allegedly failed to execute sale deed despite readiness and willingness, compelling suit for specific performance.

2. Defendant/Owner’s case (Para 8):

   • Plaintiff/Tenant was tenant under father-in-law; registered sale deed in 1997; monthly rent Rs.1,100/- as per lease agreement dated 01-04-2003.

   • Tenancy said to have ended on 31-03-2006; tenant failed to vacate and delayed rent.

   • Statutory notice under T.P. Act issued on 01-06-2006 (Ex.A2); reply by tenant dated 14-07-2006 (Ex.A3) denying landlord-tenant relationship and limiting entitlement to damages.

   • In specific performance suit, allegation that plaintiff/tenant forged defendant/owner’s signature on the agreement.

C. Issues and Findings of Trial Court & First Appellate Court (Paras 9–11)

• Trial Court framed eviction issues (Para 9), and tried both suits together.

• Trial Court holdings (Para 10):

  • Plaintiff/Tenant failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness from agreement date till Ex.A2 notice.

  • No offer of balance Rs.10,000/-; sale agreement not proved; found to be rank forgery and afterthought following eviction suit.

  • No prior notice demanding execution; no documentary proof of payment of sale consideration.

  • Ex.A1 (agreement) is five years old; plaintiff/tenant approached Court with unclean hands and lacked utmost good faith.

  • Suit for specific performance dismissed; eviction decreed.

• First Appellate Court (Para 11):

  • Re-appreciated evidence and concurred with Trial Court; relied on Parapati Garamma (Died) by L.Rs. v. Sidapana Ratnalamma (2007 (3) ALD 769) on clean hands in specific performance.

  • Dismissed both appeals; confirmed common judgment.

D. Substantial Questions in Second Appeal (Paras 12–13)

• Appellant formulated several grounds; Court found only two substantial enough for consideration:

  1. Non-compliance with O.41 R.31 CPC by First Appellate Court.

  2. Non-consideration/misapplication of S.32(c) A.P. Rent Control Act regarding ouster of civil court jurisdiction.

• Appellant’s arguments concentrated mainly on first ground (O.41 R.31) relying on Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa (2020) 4 SCC 313 (Para 13).

E. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC — Substantial Compliance (Paras 14–21)

• Court extracted SC principles (Paras 14–15):

  • First appellate judgment must set out points for determination, record decision and reasons.

  • Even while affirming Trial Court, appellate court must substantially comply, though it need not restate evidence in full; a general agreement with Trial Court’s reasoning may suffice.

• High Court noted that the First Appellate Court framed a point for consideration and assigned reasons (Para 16).

• On second ground (jurisdiction), Court explained Rent Control ouster argument (Para 17).

• Court then applied Nafbes Ahmad v. Soinuddin (2025 SCC OnLine SC 826) and G. Amalorpavam v. R.C. Diocese of Madurai (2006) 3 SCC 224 (Paras 19–20) to hold:

  • Whether there is substantial compliance with O.41 R.31 is a case-specific question.

  • Non-compliance alone does not vitiate a judgment if substantial compliance and discernible reasoning exist.

  • Appellate court can decide appeal and simply hold that nothing shown to dislodge Trial Court’s decree (Thakur Sukhpal Singh, (1963) 2 SCR 733).

• Result: Ground based on O.41 R.31 rejected as without merit (Para 21).

F. Jurisdiction under A.P. Rent Control Act — Section 32(c) (Paras 17–19)

• Appellant invoked S.32(c), arguing civil court became coram non judice.

• Court noted amendment by A.P. Act of 2005 (Para 18):

  • Act inapplicable to premises with rent exceeding Rs.3,500/- (municipal) and Rs.2,000/- (other areas) w.e.f. 27-04-2005.

• Rent pleaded in plaint is Rs.1,100/- per month (Para 18).

• Court emphasized that jurisdiction is tested on plaint averments and, in any event, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction on these facts (Para 18–19).

• Second substantial issue answered against appellant and in favour of respondent.

G. Specific Performance — S.16(c) and Conduct (Paras 22–27)

• Court quoted S.16(c) of Specific Relief Act (Para 22).

• Cited Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani (1993) 1 SCC 519 (Para 23):

  • Mere assertion of readiness and willingness is insufficient; it must be supported by conduct.

• Cited Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy (1996) 5 SCC 589 (Para 24):

  • Specific performance being equitable, plaintiff must come with clean hands.

• Cited Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi (2000) 6 SCC 420 (Para 25):

  • Readiness and willingness not a strait-jacket formula; to be deduced from overall facts and conduct.

• Referred to Baddam Prathap Reddy v. Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy (2008 (5) ALD 200) and preceding SC case law (Para 26–27) to reiterate:

  • Absence of pre-suit notice demanding execution of sale deed weakens specific performance claim.

  • Mere pleaded readiness is not enough without corroborative conduct and steps such as formal communication.

• In this case (Para 27):

  • No pre-suit notice as per Forms 47 & 48 CPC and S.16(c).

  • Only reply notice to statutory eviction notice (Ex.A2 / Ex.A3); no independent demand for specific performance before suit.

  • Therefore, statutory and equitable thresholds not met.

H. Proof of Agreement and Allegation of Forgery (Paras 28–29)

• Court applied Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal (2008) 4 SCC 530 (Para 28):

  • Not sound to say that once defendant denies execution, burden shifts on defendant to prove forgery.

  • It is for the plaintiff to prove execution of the agreement.

• In present case (Para 29):

  • Defendant/Owner denied signature;

  • Plaintiff/Tenant did not discharge burden under Evidence Act;

  • Failed to prove execution of unregistered agreement and receipt of Rs.3,90,000/-.

  • Therefore, suit for specific performance not maintainable.

I. Equitable Relief and Clean Hands; No Interference under S.100 (Paras 30–32)

• Court reiterated need for justice-oriented approach (Para 30) relying on Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (2001) 4 SCC 262.

• Concluded (Para 31):

  • Plaintiff/Tenant approached court with unclean hands;

  • Not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance;

  • Tenant status admitted; no irregularity or illegality in eviction decree.

• Result (Para 32):

  • Substantial grounds stood answered;

  • Both Second Appeals dismissed.

J. Relief of Time to Vacate (Paras 33–35 and Decrees)

• Upon pronouncement, appellant’s counsel sought time to vacate shop (Para 33).

• Court found request genuine; directed appellant to vacate within six months (Para 34).

• Interlocutory applications closed (Para 35).

• Decrees in S.A. No. 563 and S.A. No. 575 reflect:

  • Appeals dismissed;

  • Six months’ time to vacate.