Silence After Legal Notice Fatal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance Despite Allegation of Loan Transaction

"Defendant's Long Silence After Legal Notice Weighs Heavily Against Him—Failure to Allege Fabrication at Right Time Proved Costly", High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed reaffirming a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 13.08.2004. Justice Harinath N, exercising powers under Section 100 CPC and Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were grounded in sound legal reasoning and did not warrant any interference.

At the heart of the dispute was the defendant’s claim that the suit agreement was not a genuine sale transaction but a document executed only as security for a loan. However, the Court found that the defendant’s prolonged silence, particularly his failure to contest the agreement immediately after receiving a legal notice, significantly weakened his case. As a result, the decree of specific performance passed in O.S. No. 83 of 2008 and confirmed in A.S. No. 16 of 2011 stood upheld, rendering the subsequent civil revision petitions against the execution proceedings infructuous.

"Defendant Received Legal Notice in 2004, Responded Only in 2008: Conduct Draws Adverse Inference"

Specific Performance Suit Stemmed from 2004 Agreement of Sale; Court Finds No Perversity in Lower Courts’ Findings

The litigation originated in a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S. No. 83 of 2008, seeking enforcement of an agreement of sale for agricultural land measuring Ac.1.17½ cents. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 17.06.2009, directing the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration and execute a registered sale deed. The plaintiff complied with the condition to deposit the remaining sale consideration within two weeks of the decree. The judgment was later affirmed by the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 16 of 2011.

The Second Appeal (S.A. No. 624 of 2014) was filed by the defendant challenging these concurrent findings. His primary contention was that the agreement of sale was fabricated and that it was, in fact, executed as security for a loan. He further argued that the land in question was family property and that his sister also had a share, which made the agreement of sale unenforceable.

However, the High Court categorically rejected these arguments, noting that there was “no contemporaneous complaint or any reply to the legal notice disputing execution of the agreement.” The defendant had received the plaintiff’s legal notice (Ex.A2) on 07.09.2004 but failed to respond until he filed his written statement nearly four years later on 02.02.2008. This delay, the Court held, “speaks volumes of the conduct of the defendant.”

No Substantial Question of Law Raised – Findings Are Based on Proper Appreciation of Evidence

The Court clarified that under Section 100 CPC, interference in second appeal is warranted only if a substantial question of law arises. In this case, the findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court—specifically regarding the genuineness of the agreement and the defendant’s intent—were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

As noted in the judgment:

“The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have passed a well considered and sound reasoning judgment.”

The Court further observed that:

“Apart from the defendant, there was no other witness examined for corroborating his stand.”

The High Court rejected the argument that the suit was filed hastily within nine days of the legal notice, holding that the defendant’s own inaction was of greater concern. There was no criminal complaint, nor was there any prompt denial of execution, either orally or in writing.

Even the allegation that the agreement was executed on blank stamp papers and later fabricated failed to find support in evidence. The Court highlighted that:

“As seen from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, there is no suggestion from the defendant during the cross examination that Ex.A1 was executed as a blank document.”

Challenge to Execution Proceedings Under Article 227 Also Fails – Civil Revisions Dismissed as Infructuous

As the Second Appeal stood dismissed, the Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 3916 and 3464 of 2014), which challenged the execution of the decree and the issuance of a delivery warrant, were held to be infructuous.

The Court noted that the sale deed had already been executed in the plaintiff’s favour pursuant to orders passed in E.P. No. 1 of 2014 on 30.09.2014, and possession had been delivered through a delivery warrant on 06.11.2014. Hence, the revisions were devoid of merit.

Quoting the Court’s conclusion:

“Executing court acted in accordance with decree – No jurisdictional error or material irregularity shown – Revisions dismissed.”

The High Court thus reiterated the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction, stating that the executing court had merely carried out the lawful directions of the decree and no material irregularity or jurisdictional error had been demonstrated.

Defendant’s Case Collapses on Grounds of Inaction, Unsubstantiated Allegations

In summary, the Andhra Pradesh High Court found no legal infirmity in the concurrent judgments of the lower courts granting specific performance. The Court emphasized the legal significance of a party’s conduct, particularly the defendant’s silence after receiving legal notice, failure to file a criminal complaint, and lack of corroborative evidence. With the dismissal of the Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petitions, the decree for specific performance stood conclusively upheld.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026