Telangana High Court
M.Venkateswarulu vs Bareddy Krishna Reddy on 25 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.304 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed by the learned XII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District
(for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in O.S.No.29 of 2014, dated
31.12.2019.
2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff
in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.
3.1 The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of
Rs.10,08,912/- from the defendant together with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum and costs.
3.2 Plaintiff and defendant are known to each other for the last
several years and they were in the business. The defendant
during the course of business transaction has purchased food
grains, pulses from the plaintiff, to that effect the defendant fell
due an amount of Rs.10,08,912/- as per the accounts settled on
06.08.2011. Plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount
on the date of settlement of the account but the defendant has
requested for time thereby Memorandum of Understanding
2/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
(MOU) was executed on 19.08.2011. As per MOU dated
19.08.2011 defendant shall start making payments from
Deepavali (November, 2011) onwards and clear the same by May
2012. In spite of the demands made by the plaintiff, defendant
did not pay the amount. Plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on
10.03.2014 to defendant calling him to make the payments
within fifteen days on receipt of the notice failing which he will
take recourse under law. Defendant has received the notice on
12.03.2014 and he got issued a legal notice on 13.03.2014
claiming damages of Rs.38,61,600/- on various counts, prayed
to decree the suit.
4. Defendant filed his written statement, denied the
allegations levelled by the plaintiff in the plaint and further
contented that false cases are registered against him and his
family members under SC and ST (POA) Act, due to which they
were forced to stay away from their house, taking advantage of
the same the henchmen of the plaintiff committed theft in his
house, stolen 42 thulas of gold ornaments. Thereby his wife has
lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and his son and police
have registered a case in Crime No.421 of 2013, which is under
investigation. Defendant and his son were compelled to approach
this Court and filed Crl.P.No.15604 of 2013, obtained stay on the
false complaint lodged against them. Defendant and his family
3/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
members will put to harassment and he suffered loss in the
business, hardship, mental agony and his reputation was spoiled
in the society. The business of the defendant was running well
and was earning a minimum profit of Rs.6 to 7 Lakhs per
annum. Due to the illegal acts of the plaintiff he suffered a loss
of Rs.6,00,000/- per annum and his customers are due to pay
lakhs of rupees to him but they defaulted in paying the same. As
per clause-3 of the MOU dated 19.08.2011 entered between the
parties the plaintiff specifically agreed to pay the damages to the
defendant in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions.
The plaintiff with a malicious intention violated the terms and
conditions of the said MOU dated 19.08.2011 and committed
breach of contract. The claim of the plaintiff is hopelessly time
barred and there is no legally enforceable debt against the
defendant, prayed to dismiss the same.
5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the
amount of Rs.10,08,912-00 from the defendant
along with interest from the date of filing of the suit
till the date of realization?
2) To what relief?
6. Plaintiff was examined as PW1, got marked Exs.A1 to A13.
Defendant was examined as DW1, also examined DW2
4/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
(H.Sathyanarayana) and DW3 (R.Ramulu), no documents were
marked on his side.
7. The trial Court after going through the evidence of the
parties and the documents thereon has decreed the suit
(O.S.No.29 of 2014) on 31.12.2019 with cost against the
defendant for Rs.10,08,912/- with subsequent and future
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said amount
from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization and the
rest of the claim of the plaintiff was dismissed.
8.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent/plaintiff
failed to establish that an amount of Rs.10,08,912/- is due from
the appellant/defendant by cogent and independence evidence.
Ex.A1/MOU, dated 19.08.2011 is vague and does not refer to the
period from which the amounts are settled due and payable by
the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff, the said
document is not signed by any attesting witness. The
respondent/plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and no
independent witnesses are examined to establish the suit claim.
8.2 The learned Judge ought to have seen that PW1 has
admitted in his evidence that transaction between the parties
were going on since 25 to 30 years and debt is prior to 2011 and
5/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
that the details are recorded in the account book, but curiously
account books relating to the transactions period are not filed by
the respondent/plaintiff relating to the said claim.
Respondent/plaintiff failed to prove that the consideration was
passed on to the appellant/defendant to claim the debt amount
and that he is not entitled for interest much less 6% on the suit
claim.
8.3 Learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that the suit
filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation and liable
to be dismissed as the claim relates to period prior to the year
2011. Prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that
the appellant/defendant has admitted Ex.A1/MOU, dated
19.08.2011 in his cross examination and the claim is within
limitation, the appellant has not made out any case to set aside
the judgment passed by the Trial Court.
10. Heard learned counsel. Perused the record.
11. Now the points for consideration are:
(i) whether the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by
limitation?
(ii) whether the judgment passed by the learned XII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District
in O.S.No.29 of 2014, dated 31.12.2019. suffers from any
6/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020perversity or illegality, if so requires interference of this Court
or not?
POINT NOs.1 and 2:
12. Though the appellant/defendant has taken a defence in
the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation, the Trial Court has not framed any issue with regard
to that. It is appropriate to consider the said point in this appeal.
13. Section 3 of Limitation Act reads as under:
“3. Bar of limitation:- (1) Subject to the provisions contained
in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal
preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall
be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a
defence.”
14.1 Ex.A1 is the MOU dated 19.08.2011 executed between the
appellant/defendant and the respondent/ plaintiff. It is stated in
Ex.A1 that the second party (appellant herein) has purchased
food grains from the first party (respondent herein/plaintiff) and
to that effect he fell due a sum of Rs.10,32,015/- as on
06.08.2011 and that the first party (respondent herein/plaintiff)
is payable an amount of Rs.23,103/-, the same is deducted from
the above said amount and the amount due is Rs.10,08,912/-. It
is further stated in Ex.A1 that second party (appellant herein)
requested the first party (respondent herein/plaintiff) to wait till
Deepavali and from then onwards he will start to make the
7/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
payment. As per Ex.A1 accounts were settled between the parties
as on 06.08.2011 and memorandum of understanding came to
be executed on 19.08.2011.
14.2. The transactions between the parties is a running account.
Suit came to be filed on 16.04.2014 and it is numbered on the
same day. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit within
three years on Ex.A1 as the account between the parties were
settled on 06.08.2011. Hence, the contention of the appellant’s
counsel that the suit is barred by limitation is negatived.
15.1 Ex.A1/MOU dated 19.08.2011 is the main document to
decide the lis. Condition Nos.2 and 3 reads as under:
2. The First Party hereby declares and covenants with the second
party that hereafter he will not misbehave or pick up quarrels with
the second party and both the parties have agreed to maintain co-
ordinal relationship as they were having earlier. Both the parties
are willing to continue their business dealings with each other as
made earlier since the time of their respective late fathers.
3.The First party hereby undertakes that hereafter he will not
damage or spoil the business and the reputation of the second
party in any manner whatsoever in the market, in the friends
circle and the society. Failing to do so, the First Party is liable to
pay damages towards loss of business, reputation and good will of
the second party.
15.2 Ex.A2 is the legal notice got issued by the
appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff on 12.12.2012
wherein, he stated at paragraph No.1 that “as my client is due
8/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
and payable some amount to you in respect of business
transactions with you and to that effect you and my client have
entered into MOU on 19.08.2011″. Ex.A2 further states that
respondent/plaintiff has violated the clause 3 and 4 of Ex.A1
and that he has damaged his reputation, good will and thus
appellant/defendant has initiated criminal proceedings against
him.
15.3 Ex.A3 is the reply notice dated 09.01.2013 got issued by
respondent/plaintiff to Ex.A2/legal notice denying the contents
of the same. Ex.A5 is the copy of private complaint in
C.C.No.197 of 2013 filed by the appellant/defendant against the
respondent/plaintiff and his son for the offence under Sections
120(B), 352 and 355 of IPC. The date and time of offence is on
08.12.2012 at 01.00 p.m. Ex.A6 is the complaint filed under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C by the respondent/plaintiff against the
appellant/defendant vide C.C.No.39 of 2013 for the offence
under Sections 409, 420 and 506 of IPC. The date and time of
offence is on 02.01.2013 at 11.00 hours and on 04.01.2013 at
10.00 hours. Ex.A7 is the legal notice got issued by the
respondent/plaintiff dated 10.03.2014 calling the appellant/
defendant to pay Rs.10,08,912/- as per MOU dated 19.08.2011
within 15 days from receipt of the notice.
9/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
15.4 Appellant/defendant has got issued legal notice on
13.03.2014 to the respondent/plaintiff and his son under Ex.A9
contending that the parties were doing grain business at New
Gandhi Gunj, Vikarabad since decades, in the course of said
business he has to pay Rs.10,08,912/- to respondent/plaintiff
and they entered into a MOU on 19.08.2011 at Vikarabad. Notice
further goes on to show that the appellant/defendant has
claimed a sum of Rs.38,61,600/- from the respondent/plaintiff
towards damages. Ex.A10 is the reply notice got issued by the
appellant/defendant to Ex.A7 contending that respondent/
plaintiff has violated clause Nos.2 and 3 of the MOU dated
19.08.2011 and the appellant/defendant is not liable to pay the
alleged due amount mentioned in the notice under reply.
15.5 Respondent/plaintiff has got issued reply to Ex.A9 notice
dated 13.03.2014 through his counsel on 28.03.2014 vide
Ex.A11 stating the fact that the appellant/defendant has to pay
Rs.10,08,912/- and denied the rest of the allegations. Ex.A12 is
the deposition of the appellant/defendant as PW2 in C.C.NO.540
of 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at
Vikarabad. In the cross examination he admitted that ” it is true
that I have to pay an amount of Rs.10,08,912/- to Krishna
Reddy [respondent herein/plaintiff]”. Ex.A13 is the petition given
10/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
by the appellant/defendant to Merchant Grains and Pulses
Association on 16.12.2013.
16. The evidence of the respondent/plaintiff is the replica of
his plaint averments, in his cross-examination he stated that the
defendant (appellant herein) fell due an amount of
Rs.10,08,912/- towards purchasing food grains and pulses from
commission agency and due amount is for the last three to four
months in the year 2011 before executing Ex.A1.
Respondent/plaintiff stated that details of credit transactions are
not mentioned in Ex.A1 but the total consideration is mentioned
therein and that he has not filed account books, it is not possible
for him to produce the same in the Court since 6 to 7 years are
lapsed. The account books are not needed since the defendant
(appellant herein) has agreed that he is due the said amount.
Respondent/plaintiff further stated in his cross examination that
the appellant/defendant has got issued a legal notice claiming
the damages of Rs.38,61,600/- for damaging his reputation,
prestige in the society and causing loss in his business and he
has given a suitable reply.
17. Appellant/defendant during his cross-examination stated
that he has received goods from the plaintiff [respondent herein]
and as per the settlement arrived he is indebted Rs.10,08,912/-
11/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
to the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1. He further stated that till the
end of 2013 he did not make any payment to the plaintiff
(respondent herein) under Ex.A1 and also failed to make
payment as agreed in Ex.A1 by Deepavali, 2011 and that he has
not asked for any extension.
18. DW2 is a third party, he deposed about the execution of
Ex.A1 between the parties about eight years back and that the
plaintiff/respondent herein caused damages to the
appellant/defendant. In his cross-examination he stated that
Merchant Association elders concluded that the defendant
(appellant herein) has to repay the amount under MOU on
instalments. Evidence of DW3 is in the lines of DW2, in his
cross-examination he stated that he has no personal knowledge
about the credit and dues payable by the defendant.
19. Appellant/defendant has admitted that he has to pay the
amount to the respondent/plaintiff under MOU dated
19.08.2011 (Ex.A1) so also an admission is made in Ex.A5 in
paragraph No.1 that the complainant (appellant/defendant) has
to pay an amount of Rs.10,08,912/- to the accused No.1 therein
(respondent herein/plaintiff), so also an admission is made by
the appellant/defendant in Ex.A9 that he has to pay an amount
of Rs.10,08,912/- to the respondent/plaintiff, similar admissions
12/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
is made by the appellant/defendant in Ex.A12 that he is liable to
pay the said amount to the respondent/plaintiff.
20. It is the contentions of the appellant’s counsel that the
respondent/plaintiff has violated clause 2 and 3 of Ex.A1 and
claimed damages from the respondent/plaintiff for violating the
same. Appellant/defendant admitted in his cross-examination
that he has not filed any suit for damages against the
respondent/plaintiff by the date of his cross-examination. The
admissions made by the appellant/defendant stated supra are
sufficient to come to a conclusion that he has executed Ex.A1
voluntarily and he is liable to pay the amount covered therein.
21. Appellant has not made out any case to set aside the
impugned order. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the
facts of the case and rightly decreed the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff in part for Rs.10,08,912/- with future
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing the
suit till the date of realization on the above said amount.
22. There are no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed
by the Trial Court in view of the fact that the
appellant/defendant admitted the liability under Ex.A1 and I
find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence
points are answered accordingly.
13/13
BRMR, J
AS.No.304 of 2020
23. Accordingly A.S.No.304 of 2020 is dismissed.
Interim orders if any stands vacated and miscellaneous
application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
25.07.2025
Dua