1
O.S. 1857/2009
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.
PRESENT: SMT. CH. NARMADA
I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
AT L.B. NAGAR.
WEDNESDAY, DATED ON THIS THE 20 th DAY OF AUGUST 2025
OS No. 1857 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. Potluri Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Late P.S.V. Prasad, aged about 41 years, occ: Housewife, R/o.9-2-105, Santhinagar, Badrachalam, Khammam District.
2. Adapa Sandhya, W/o. Venugopal, aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.9-1-187/2, Santhinagar, Badrachalam, Khammam District.
3. V. L. Anuradha, W/o. Vellanki Sudhakar Babu, aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Thotapalli, Badrachalam Mandal, Khammam District.
4. Abbineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Ramachandra Rao, aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.9-2-105, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.... Plaintifs
And
1. Smt. Sunkara Venkata Lakshmi Jayaprada, W/o. Sri Raja Gopala Rao, aged about 47 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 12-5-4/1B, Vijayapuri, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.
2. Y.B. K. Rao, S/o. Y. Venkaiah, aged about 68 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. Plot No. 57, 7th Cross Road, Thrimurthy Colony, Mahendra Hills, East Maredpally, Secunderabad-500026.
3. U. Sivarama Krishna Rao, S/o. U. Madhusudhan Rao, 2
O.S. 1857/2009
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. F. 67, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad.
4. B. Ranga Rao, S/o. B. Madhusudhan Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 60, Avanthinagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
5. N. Sloka, D/o. N. Sudhakar, aged about 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Plot No.1, B Type, Road No.1, Filim Nagar, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad… Defendants
This suit is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri. Vasi Reddy Prabhunath, Advocate for plaintifs and Sri. M. Raja Babu, Advocate for defendant No.2 and 5. Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 were set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is fled by the plaintifs seeking cancellation of Sale Deed bearing document No.8250 of 1989, dt: 17-07-1989, on the fle of Sub-
Registrar, Moosapet, R.R. Dist., executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant and for consequential relief of setting aside the subsequent agreement of sale cum GPA bearing No. 10029/2002, dated: 16-11-2002, Sale
Deed No.11428 of 1989, Dt: 25-09-1989, Sale Deed No.11546/2002, dated: 30- 12-2002 and Sale Deed No.9161/2007, dated:12-07-2007 on the fle of Sub
Registrar, Moosapet, R.R. District obtained by Defendant Nos.3 to 5, as null and void and award the costs.
The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:
2.Originally, the lands in Sy. Nos. 98 to 104/1, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 totally admeasuring Acs.271-31 Guntas were purchased by
Smt. K. Anjani Devi, Sri. M. Veera Raghavaiah, M.V. Seetharama Rao, Vege 3
O.S. 1857/2009
Sitharamaiah and Smt. Abbineni Anasuya in 1959 through registered sale deeds beating document numbers 748, 749 and 750/1959. These lands were subsequently partitioned among them as per the decree in O.S. No.62/1963 on the fle of the then Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad west in which Smt. Abbineni
Anasuya was allotted the lands to an extent of AC.20.13 Gts in Sy.Nos.98,
AC.20.13 gts in Sy.No.99, AC.16.13 gts in Sy.No.100, AC.16.27 Gts, in
Sy.No.101, AC.13.17 Gts in Sy.No.102, AC.15.29 Gts in Sy.No.103, AC.10.02 Gts in Sy.No.103, total admeasuring Ac.92-21 guntas situated at Kondapur Village,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District towards her share. After the death of their mother, the plaintifs became the joint owners of the said lands along with the plaint scheduled property to an extent of 300 Sq.yards which is part of Sy.No.101.
3.It is averred that the Competent Authority issued a draft statement
dated: 17-01-1983 under Section 8(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as ULC Act) declaring the mother of the plaintifs as the holder of excess land to an extent of Ac 105.07 gts., of which she acquired an extent of Ac.92.21 gts., equivalent to 374438.60 Sq.Mtrs in
Sy.Nos. 98 to 103 through partition in O.S.No.62 of 1963 and an extent of
Ac.12.26 gts. equivalent to 51396.37 Sq. Mtrs. inherited by her towards her 1/7th share from her father’s land in Sy.Nos.104/1, 104/2 and 105 to 108 totaling to 4,25,834.97 Sq. Mtrs. Out of the said land she was allowed to retain 1000 Sq. Mtrs. of land in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur Village under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and was declared as surplus land holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97
Sq.Mtrs. The fnal orders under Section 10(3) of the Act was published in
Gazette No.15, Dt: 07-05-1998. Aggrieved by the said orders, the mother of the 4
O.S. 1857/2009
plaintifs fled an appeal bearing No.62 of 1999, before Appellate Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, in which the authorities pleased to order status-quo as on 26-08-1989 till disposal of the appeal. During pendency of the said appeal, the mother of the plaintifs died on 29-12-2000 and the plaintifs herein were added as legal representatives of the Appellant namely Smt A. Anasuya and the said appeal is pending before the Chief
Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad.
4.On 06-06-2006, the plaintifs herein received a legal notice issued by
M/s. Shalivahana Constructions Limited, represented by its Director, Sri, M.
Komaraiah, alleging that their company entered into an Agreement of Sale, Dt:
02-07-1996 with addressees 1 to 3 in the legal notice agreeing to purchase an extent of Ac.35.00 gts. in Sy.Nos.100, 101 and 103 of Kondapur Village of
Serilingampally Mandal, in which Sri. Y.B.K. Rao (Defendant No.2) and P.V.S.R.
Das subscribed their signatures as attestors and the agreed amounts were paid on diferent dates to the said addressees 1 to 3 in the legal notice and obtained receipts. In the said legal notice, it was mentioned that in the year 1997, an amended agreement of sale was executed in which Defendant No.2 herein has joined as one of the parties to the agreement and it was agreed to pay the balance amount in pro-rata basis as and when original sale deeds/notarized deed/allotment letter are surrendered by addressees 1 to 3. After receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintifs made enquiries with regard to their lands situated in Kondapur Village of Serilingampally Mandal and obtained copies of sale deeds executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of third parties from Sub-
Registrar ofce, Serilingampally.
5
O.S. 1857/2009
5.It is further averred that the mother of the Plaintifs entered into an unregistered agreement of sale with Venkateshwara HAL Employees Co- operative Society (in short Society), to sell an extent of Ac.38.12 gts in
Sy.Nos.101-Part, 102-Part, 103-Part and 104/1 Part, situated at Kondapur
Village, subject to the clearance and permission granted by the competent authority under the Act, on 11-11-1981. As on the date of said agreement,
Defendant No.2 was the President of the said Society. The said agreement of sale is unenforceable as the subject land was declared as excess vacant land under the Act and the parties to the said agreement were not aware of the description and extent of the land to be sold, as 1/7th share of the land of the
Plaintif’s mother in her father’s property was not yet identifed. As such, the said agreement was not a concluded contract of sale. Further, as per Clause 4 of the said agreement dated: 11-11-1981, the Society shall obtain permissions from the Government under the provisions of ULC Act. It is further averred that the society has failed to obtain required permission from the Government for the purchase of land, as such, the Society backed out from its obligation of performance of said agreement of sale. Hence, the said agreement was not given efect to.
6.It is further averred, the said society, after the agreement dated: 11-11- 1981, applied for the approval of Layout in respect of the land to an extent of
Ac.38.12 gts in Sy.Nos.101-Part, 102-Part, 103-Part and 104/1 Part along with some other land belonging to K.V.G.L.V Prasad Rao and his brothers to
Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority (in short BUDA). The said BUDA sanctioned layout tentatively vide its letter dated 04-02-1982 subject to the following conditions: (i)The Roads shall be formed as per the 6
O.S. 1857/2009
specifcations (ii) no plot shall be utilized, sold, leased or otherwise disposed of for the residential purpose unless the layout is fnally approved by BUDA and
(iii) the amenities like water, drainage, electricity, etc., shall be made by its own. As the society failed to comply the conditions imposed by BUDA in its tentative layout order, there is no fnal approved layout.
7.It is further averred that taking advantage of the innocence, lack of knowledge or acquaintance with English language of mother of Plaintifs, and the trust reposed by her with Defendant No.2, he managed to obtain General
Power of Attorney in his favour from her. It is further averred as Defendant No.2 acted against the interest of their mother and further he failed to give an account as to the acts done by him in pursuance of said GPA, thereby the mother of the plaintifs cancelled/revoked the GPA on 16-11-1992, vide Regd.
Doc.No.1079 of 1992 and the same was informed to Defendant No.2 through
Registered Post. Having received the said intimation, Defendant No.2 did not respond.
8.It is further averred that the Defendant No.2, taking advantage of the
GPA, acted against the interest of his Principal that is the mother of the plaintifs and illegally executed several sale deeds in favour of third parties without knowledge and consent of the principal. As per the said GPA,
Defendant No.2 was not authorized to sign the sale deeds and register them in favour of the purchasers without notice and knowledge of the principal. It is further averred even after cancellation of GPA, Defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in collusion with the alleged purchasers. As several sales deed were executed, even after cancellation of GPA, they are invalid and no rights are accrued to the alleged purchasers. The said sale deeds are void for 7
O.S. 1857/2009
the reason no permission was obtained from the Government under ULC Act. It is further averred that in all the sale deeds, it was mentioned that the mother of the plaintifs was entitled to sell an extent of Ac.5.00 gts as per G.O.Ms
No.733, Dt: 31-10-1988, but the Defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds to an extent exceeding Ac.5.00 gts misleading the purchasers.
9.It is further averred that the Defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of third parties showing the mother of the plaintifs as Vendor No.4, and showing one K.V.G.L.V. Prasad Rao and his two brothers as Vendors 1 to 3.
Even though the said three persons have no right or interest over the property, they were made as parties to the sale deeds. Defendant No.2 played fraud upon mother of the plaintifs with a view to gain wrongfully and to cause wrongful and irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintifs. It is further averred that subsequent sale transactions by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant
No.3 and Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.4 are void and liable to be set aside. It is further averred that the sale deed executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 bearing Doc.No.8250 of 1989, Dt: 17-07-1989 is a void document and no rights or title passed to the purchaser under the said document, as such, the same is liable to be cancelled along with subsequent agreement of sale cum GPA bearing Doc.No.10029 of 2002, Dt: 16-11-2002 and
Sale Deed bearing No.11546 of 2002, Dt: 30-12-2002 obtained by Defendant
Nos.3 & 4 respectively.
10. Defendant Nos.2 and 5 contested the suit by fling written statements whereas Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 remained ex-parte.
8
O.S. 1857/2009
11. While denying all the allegations made in the plaint, it is contended that the suit as framed for mere cancellation of sale deed without seeking the consequential relief of possession is not maintainable in law or on facts, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the plaintifs have no right to fle present suit as their mother being landlady never questioned or challenged the subject sale deed during her life time. It is denied that after the death of their mother the plaintifs became the owners and possessors of the plaint schedule property to an extent of 300 Sq.yards which is part of Sy.No.101-Part, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal.
It is contended that this defendant being the President of the Society entered into an unregistered agreement of sale with the mother of the Plaintifs on 11- 11-1981 to purchase an extent of Ac.38.12 gts in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103
Part and 104/1 Part of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District and that he came to know about the death of the mother of the plaintifs in the year 2003 when a suit was fled by Sri Bhagawan Bala Sai Baba
Central Trust in O.S No.1014/2003 on the fle of Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Court, R.R.
Dist.
12.It is further contended that the alleged legal notice dated: 06-06-2006 got issued by M/s. Shalivahana Constructions Ltd. is no way concerned with the present suit. It is further contended that the plaintifs are aware of the agreement entered by their mother with the Society, as such, there was no need for them to make enquiries and the same was invented by them to cover up their illegal and untenable claim. It is denied that the agreement with
Society was entered subject to the clearance and permission by the
Government under the provisions of ULC. No such condition or stipulation was 9
O.S. 1857/2009
incorporated in the agreement. In fact the mother of the plaintifs declared that she is exclusive owner of the land in Sy.Nos. 101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and an extent of Ac.8.26 gts out of Ac.12.26 gts in Sy.No.104/1, 104/2 as she is entitled for 1/7th share in her father’s property and the same was reiterated in the corrected agreement dated: 17-08-1991 and in the fnal receipt dated: 11-11- 1991, as such, the agreement of sale dated: 11-11-1981 is a concluded contract of sale. After death of her father, in the oral arrangement among his children, the mother of the plaintifs got Ac.8.26 gts in Sy.No.104/1 towards her 1/7th share. It is denied that the society failed to obtain ULC permission, as such, it backed out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale
dt: 11-11-1981. It is contended the society never abandoned the agreement of
sale by its conduct and its acquiescence; and that the society paid the entire agreed sale consideration of Rs.3,83,000/- by way of bank draft to the mother of the plaintifs on 11-11-1991.
13.It is contended that the tentative layout approved by BUDA was never lapsed as alleged by plaintifs. In fact as per the layout, society levelled the land and divided into plots by laying roads, entered into agreements with its members and allotted plots to them.
14.It is contended that the society never backed out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale Dt:11-11-1981 and it was never a conditional precedent under the agreement to obtain permission from the
Government to sell the property; and that society never abandoned the said agreement by its conduct and its acquiescence. It is contended that the mother of the plaintifs, in the GPA dated: 21-01-1988 authorized Defendant No.2 to act on her behalf in all respects in respect of land in an extent of Ac.38.12 guntas 10
O.S. 1857/2009
in Sy. Nos.101 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur Village of
Serilingampally Mandal; and that the Defendant No.2 never acted against the interest of his Principal that is mother of the plaintifs nor he failed to submit detail account of his acts done in pursuance of GPA, as such, the mother of the plaintifs cannot cancel the GPA as the same is in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated: 11-11-1981. Thus, the cancellation of GPA has no sanctity in the eye of law. It is denied that the mother of the plaintifs did not authorize
Defendant No.2 to sign on sale deeds and register them in favour of the purchasers. It is contended that the mother of the plaintifs authorized
Defendant No.2 to act as per clauses 1 to 6 of the GPA. It is contended that the sale deed executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 as GPA holder of the mother of the plaintifs, for a valid consideration the same is very much legal and a valid document and Defendant No.1 had acquired title and ownership over the suit plot. It is denied that Defendant No.2 played fraud against plaintifs to gain wrongfully for himself and has no right to alienate the schedule property in favour of Defendant No.1. It is further denied that
Defendant No.2 in collusion with Defendant No.1 executed the sale deed bearing Doc.No.8248/1989, dt: 17-07-1989. It is contended that Defendant
No.2 being an authorized agent of the mother of the plaintifs executed sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1. The plaintifs cannot claim that the sale deed is contrary to the provisions of ULC Act.
15.It is further contended that there is no cause of action for the plaintifs to fle the present suit against the defendants that too when they are admitting the agreement of sale in favour of society and execution of GPA by their mother in favour of Defendant No.2. It is further contended that the suit fled by the 11
O.S. 1857/2009
plaintifs is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended the suit fled by the plaintifs seeking cancellation of sale deed without seeking the consequential relief of possession is not maintainable and prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
16.The defendant No.5 is added as a party in the suit as per the orders passed by this court in I.A. No. 516/2013 dated: 27-07-2013 and she fled her written statement.
The brief averments of written statement of Defendant No.5 are as
follows:
17. The contents of written statement fled by the Defendant No.5 are similar to that of the written statement fled by defendant No.2. While reiterating the contents of the written statement fled by Defendant No.2, she denied all the averments in the plaint and contended that the land lady executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to sell the land and to do acts and deeds on her behalf upon which defendant No.2 had sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration under Ex.A1. The defendant No.1 inturn sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 under registered agreement of sale cum General power of attorney for valuable sale consideration bearing Doc. No. 10029/2002,
dated: 16-11-2002 and inducted him into the possession of the same who
inturn sold the said plot to defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed document bearing No. 11546/2002, dated: 30-12-2002 for valuable sale consideration and the defendant No.4 through her registered AGPA holder sold the suit schedule property to her. Accordingly she became the bonafde purchaser of the suit scheduled plot from GPA holder of Defendant No.4 for valuable sale 12
O.S. 1857/2009
consideration under Regd. Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.9161/2007, Dt: 12-07- 2007, obtained possession of the same. As the principal has not challenged at any point of time the plaintifs cannot say that the sale of plots by defendant
No.2 are illegal and invalid in the eye of law. She further deposed that she applied for the regularization of the plot under LRS scheme issued by the
Government of A.P.
18.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 10-10-2010.
1. Whether the plaintifs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed document No. 8250/1989 as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintifs are entitled for consequential relief of
setting aside the subsequent sale deed document No.
10029/2002?
3. Whether the cancellation of GPA by the mother of the plaintif is illegal?
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Whether there is no cause of action to fle the suit?
6. Whether the suit is barred for limitation?
7. To what relief?
The following additional issues were settled on 22-01-2014.
(1) Whether the defendant No.3 to defendant No.5 are bonafde purchasers?
(2) Whether the agreement of sale cum GPA executed on 16-11-2002 is proper and valid?
19.Heard the arguments of both the learned counsels representing the parties.
13
O.S. 1857/2009
20.The learned counsel for plaintifs and defendants submitted their written arguments and relied upon few judgments and citations and the same would be discussed during the appreciation wherever required.
21.On behalf of the Plaintifs, the frst Plaintif got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A51.
22.On behalf of defendants, the second defendant Y.B.K. Rao got examined himself as DW1 and marked Exhibits B1 to B6.
23.It is an undisputed and admitted fact that the mother of plaintifs Smt.
Abhineni Anasuya was the owner of the agricultural land to an extent of
Acs.92.21 guntas in Sy.No. 98 to 103 situated at Kondapur village,
Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the mother of plaintifs executed unregistered agreement of sale, dated: 11-11-1981 in favour of
Venkateshwara HAL Employees Co-operative Housing Society limited to sell the land admeasuring Acs.38.12 guntas in Sy.Nos. 101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. The defendant No.2 executed registered sale deed in favour of vendee who is the other defendant herein. There is no fnal approved layout to the suit schedule property.
Issue No.1 & 2 :
Whether the plaintifs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed
document No. 8250/1989 as prayed for? And
Whether the plaintifs are entitled for consequential relief of
setting aside the subsequent sale deed document No.
10029/2002?
24.Since both these issues are interrelated, they are answered together inorder to avoid repetition of facts.
25.The Plaintifs have fled this suit seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing
Doc.No.8250 of 1989, Dt: 17-07-1989, executed by Defendant No.2 in favour 14
O.S. 1857/2009
of Defendant No.1, on the fle of Sub-Registrar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy Dist., alleging that the Defendant No.2 being the GPA holder of their late mother acted against her interest to gain wrongfully for himself and to cause irreparable loss to them.
26.The Plaintifs 1 to 3 are the daughters and Plaintif No.4 is the son of the original owner of the property namely Smt Abbineni Anasuya. There is no dispute that late A. Anasuya along with four others purchased land to an extent of Ac.271.31 gts in Survey Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal under various sale deeds. Further, there is no dispute that the mother of the plaintifs and other purchasers partitioned the above said Ac.271.31 gts of land by virtue of the partition decree made in O.S.62 of 1963, on the fle of Munsif Magistrate,
Hyderabad West. In the said partition, the mother of the plaintifs was allotted an extent of Ac.92.21 gts in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. Further there is no dispute that the mother of the plaintifs got an extent of Ac.12.26 gts towards her 1/7th share in the property of her late father Vege Sitharamaiah.
27.It appears that the mother of the plaintifs entered into an Agreement of
Sale with Venkateshwara HAL Employees Co.operative Society on 11-11-1981 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.38.12 gts under Ex.B1. There is no dispute that Defendant No.2 was the President of the said society as on the date of the unregistered Agreement of Sale/Ex.B1.
28.Further, there is no dispute that the Competent authority under Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 issued a draft statement on 17-01- 1983 under Ex.A6, declaring the mother of the plaintifs as the holder of the 15
O.S. 1857/2009
excess vacant land to an extent of Ac.105.07 gts. Further, as per the proceedings under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act published in the A.P. Gazette
dated: 07-05-1998 under Ex.A14, the lands mentioned therein were deemed to
have been vested with the government. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the government, the mother of the plaintifs have fled an appeal bearing No.62 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority under ULC Act and obtained the order of status-quo on 27-08-1999. As per G.O.Ms.No.733 of 1988 Revenue, dt: 31-10- 1988, the beneft of exemption given to the mother of the plaintif was to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother of the plaintifs died in the year 2000. Consequently, being the legal heirs, the plaintifs were added themselves as parties to the appeal. As the government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.978, Dt: 02-08-2008 declaring the land of the mother of the plaintifs as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.Mtrs. in
Sy.No.98 to 103, 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 108 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli
Mandal under Ex.A18.
29.Aggrieved by the said orders of the government under Ex.A18, the plaintifs have fled W.P.No.18342 of 2008 before the Hon’ble High Court and the same was allowed as evident from Ex.A19.
30.It appears that prior to the initiation of the proceedings under ULC Act, the mother of the plaintifs entered into an unregistered Agreement of Sale with Venkateshwara HAL Employees Co.operative Society on 11-11-1981.
Subsequent to the said proceedings under ULC Act, it appears that the mother of the plaintifs appointed Defendant No.2 as her GPA holder on 21-01-1988 to deal with the property to an extent of Ac.38.12 gts. In this regard, it is the claim 16
O.S. 1857/2009
of the plaintifs that taking advantage of lack of knowledge to mother of plaintifs more particularly in English language, the Defendant No.2 got executed GPA on 21-01-1988 and sold away the plots exceeding the exempted limit of Ac.5.00 gts to third parties without the knowledge and consent of their mother and caused wrongful loss to them. The schedule property in an extent of 300 Sq. yards is located in Sy.No.101-Part situated at Kondapur Village,
Serilingampally Mandal. Admittedly, Venkateshwara HAL Employees
Co.operative Society did not fle any suit against the mother of the plaintifs or the plaintifs seeking specifc performance of the unregistered agreement of sale dated : 11-11-1981.
31.The frst plaintif as PW1 fled her examination in chief reiterating the averments of the plaint. In her further examination, Exs.A1 to A51 were marked. Though, the evidence of PW1 was disputed during the cross examination, nothing important was elicited which would render her evidence unbelievable. Her evidence is in tune with their pleadings. In cross examination she admitted that after execution of Ex.B1, their mother and land owners in Sy.Nos.100/2 and 111 made an application before Bhagyanagar
Urban Development Authority seeking approval of the layout to an extent of
Ac.38.12 gts and Ac.19.08 gts and obtained sanction order tentatively. In this regard, it is the claim of the plaintifs that even without complying the conditions made in tentative layout and without getting fnal approved layout, the Defendant No.2 sold away several plots in collusion with the purchasers.
None of the purchasers of the plots from Defendant No.2 contested the suit nor gave evidence. Though, the Defendant No.5, who is one of the subsequent purchaser of the schedule property herein, chosen to fle written statement 17
O.S. 1857/2009
reiterating the contents of the written statement fled by Defendant No.2 in toto for the reasons best known to her she did not adduce any evidence in support of her pleadings. It is settled principle of law that pleadings are not evidence and that a party who wants to prove anything as made out in his/her pleadings has to give evidence to prove his/her assertion. Mere pleadings are not evidence.
32.Defendant No.2, who was examined as DW1, fled his examination in chief reiterating the averments of his written statement. During the cross examination, he made several admissions in which most of them would support the claim of the plaintifs. While claiming that the mother of the plaintifs had entered into an unregistered agreement with the Society, he being the
President of the Society obtained GPA from her to deal with the property covered under Ex.B1. In cross examination he admitted that the society is not a party to Ex.A1/Sale Deed in question. He further admitted that he did not execute Ex.A1 on behalf of Society, but executed the same as a GPA holder of the mother of plaintifs. Above all, he admitted that he is not authorized to show the vendors 1 to 3 in Ex.A1. This admission of DW1 would itself show that the persons unconnected to the schedule property were made as prime vendors in Ex.A1. He further admitted that the mother of the plaintifs did not execute any sale deed in favour of the society in tune with Ex.B1. He further admitted that the GPA executed by the mother of the plaintifs is in respect of agricultural land but not plots. Though he denied the suggestion that he misused the power given by his principal Smt. A. Anasuya, several admissions made by him would prove that he did not act as per the contents of the GPA.
Above all, inspite of having knowledge of the proceedings pending with ULC, 18
O.S. 1857/2009
the Defendant No.2/DW1 executed several sale deeds including Ex.A1, sale deed in question deviating from the condition No.11 of Ex.A14/GPA that is to obtain clearance from ULC prior to selling the property. He categorically admitted that the sale deeds were executed in favour of the purchasers without obtaining permission from the Special Ofcer and Competent Authority of
Urban Land Ceiling. He further admitted that he executed registered sale deeds even after the death of his principal namely A. Anasuya. In this regard, it is the claim of the plaintifs that their mother has cancelled the GPA in favour of the defendant No.2 under Ex.A21/Registered Cancellation Deed on 16-11-1992 and the same was informed to him (DW1) through Registered Post under Ex.A22 and the same was received and acknowledged by him as is evident from
Ex.A23. It is clear from the above, even after cancellation of GPA and the death of his principal, Defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in respect of the property owned by the mother of the plaintifs and the plaintifs.
33.He admitted that his principal had no right to alienate the land by the date of execution of GPA in his favour and as such he ought not to have executed Ex.A1 in the absence of G.O.Ms.No.733 (Revenue), Dt: 31-10-1988.
He further admitted that there is no reference in his GPA about the tentative layout dated: 04-02-1982 and that there was reference about land in his GPA but not plots, boundaries and survey numbers. Further, he admitted that there is no reference in GPA that it was executed in pursuance of Ex.B1 and that no interest was created in favour of the society under Ex-A20 GPA. Above all,
Defendant No.2 as DW1 made a crucial admission that there is no specifc clause in GPA authorizing him to execute sale deeds in favour of the society members. He further admitted that even after coming to know about the 19
O.S. 1857/2009
cancellation of GPA, dt: 21-01-1998, he did not fle any suit seeking declaration of the cancellation of GPA by his principal as illegal, invalid and void. As per the pleadings of the plaintifs the sale of plots made by defendant No.2 are illegal and invalid in law and that the said sale transaction made by the defendant
No.2 is void for another reason that the same were made without obtaining permission from the Government and is contrary to the provisions of ULC Act.
In all the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 it was mentioned that plaintifs mother is entitled to sell the land to an extent of Acs. 5.00 gts of land as per G.O.Ms. No. 733, dated: 31-10-1988. In this regard the defendant counsel relied upon a judgment reported in Indukuru Rama Chandra Reddy
Vs. Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao 2012 (4) ALT 569 Para 84 and argued that “void documents do not bind the state, authorities, third party but would bind a party who executed the same”. The said judgement is based on the principle that when a party itself is equally responsible for derives beneft out of such transaction, the same party cannot say that it is void. In the case on hand it is seen that plaintifs mother is not responsible for the sale of surplus land under Ex.A1 as the sale deed was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 without the consent and knowledge of the mother of plaintifs during the pendency of ULC proceedings and further she did not derive any beneft out of such transaction under Ex.A1 and the same is admitted by DW1 in his cross examination that he did not pay sale consideration to mother of plaintifs. As mother of plaintifs is neither responsible for the sale nor derived any beneft out of the sale transaction under Ex.A1 the decision mentioned supra is not applicable to the present case.
20
O.S. 1857/2009
34.The evidence in the case disclosed that defendant No.1 and 2 are responsible for bringing the sale deed under Ex.A1 into existence by claiming urban land ceiling exemption under G.O.Ms. No. 733. Furthermore defendant
No.2 as DW1 categorically admitted that he knew, his principal was eligible and entitled to sell away the land to an extent of only Ac.5.00 gts as per the exemption given under G.O.Ms.No.733, dt: 31-10-1988, but he sold away the land of his principal to an extent of Ac.38.12 gts in the shape of plots to various vendees in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part of Kondapur Village.
He further admitted that in all the sale deeds he referred the same exemption that is G.O.Ms.No.733, dt: 31-10-1988. It is clear from the above admission made by DW1 that knowingfully well that his principal was exempted to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts, he sold away Ac.38.12 gts of land. The learned counsel for DW1 relied upon the Judgments reported in 1993(3) ALT 262 and 1999(1) ALD 135 wherein it was held that purchase of land declared excess after publication of notifcation U/Sec.10(1) and before publication of declaration U/Sec.10(3), owner of land suppressing pendency under the Act and executed registered sale deed, land owner is liable to be deliver excess land out of land retained by him and not the land sold by him and bonafde purchaser was not liable to prosecution when he refused to surrender the land purchased. In this regard the evidence shows that defendant No.2 admitted that the suit land in question was declared as excess vacant land of the mother of the plaintifs under the provisions of ULC Act and he has knowledge about the same. This admission of DW1 would itself prove that the suit schedule property was declared as excess vacant land of mother of plaintifs under ULC
Act and no one including the mother of the plaintifs is entitled to alienate the 21
O.S. 1857/2009
same to third parties. Above all, as per his admission, he came to know about the exempted land and the pendency of proceedings before ULC Authority in respect of suit land in the year 1982 itself. The sale deed in question in the present suit under Ex.A1 was executed on 17-07-1989. The evidence of DW1 manifests that Ex.A1 in question was executed with full knowledge as to the pendency of ULC proceedings. Hence there is no question of suppression of fact by the landlady regarding the pendency of the proceedings before ULC and as such the citations relied by the defendants supra are not applicable to the present case. Now what more evidence one would require to hold that the very execution of Ex.A1 without obtaining permission from ULC is in violation of the provisions of ULC Act.
35.Admittedly 1st defendant did not pay sale consideration directly to the vendors as mentioned in the sale deed and the vendors did not ofer the sale of suit land to vendee (D1) as recited in suit sale deed (Ex.A1). Admittedly there is no approved layout in respect of the suit land and he did not give any statement to his principal as to the details of the execution of sale deeds, the number of plots sold, the amount received by him towards consideration, etc., and that he did not give such details to the plaintifs after the death of their mother.
36.On the other hand the learned counsel for plaintifs contended that taking advantage of power of attorney the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of his principal and executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons in excess of authority conferred upon him even without her consent and knowledge and the same was admitted by the DW1 in his cross examination.
22
O.S. 1857/2009
The counsel for plaintifs relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Rami Reddy AIR 1979 SC 553 (Para 11) wherein it was held that a power of attorney has to be strictly construed and what it authorizes depends on its terms and the purpose for which it is executed.
37.Furthermore, defendant No.2 and 5 pleaded in their written statement that during the lifetime of the mother of plaintifs, she sold the suit schedule land to defendant No.1 through his GPA as per the powers conferred upon GPA to receive sale consideration on behalf of the principal and issued receipts in her name and on her behalf for the amounts received from the purchasers. In the cross examination the defendant No.2 deposed that he received sale consideration from defendant No.1 on behalf of the society but not on behalf of the principal. As such the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of the
principal and executed Ex.A1 without receiving sale consideration on behalf the
mother of the plaintifs hence the same is not valid.
38.Furthermore the evidence of defendant No.2 is based on Ex.B2 to B4.
However, in his cross examination he stated that he is not a party to the Exs.
B2 to B4 and he does not know the contents of Ex.B2 to B4. It was further admitted that the land in Sy.No. 104/1 situated in Kondapur is not the subject matter in Ex.B2 and B3 and there is no reference about the land in Sy.No. 104/1 in Ex.B2 and B3. Further he relied upon the corrected agreement of sale that is
Ex.B5 and the receipt that is Ex. B6 whereas a perusal of Ex.B5 and B6 shows that they are the xerox copies and no permission was sought from the court by the defendants to lead secondary evidence. Admittedly DW1 is neither witness 23
O.S. 1857/2009
nor party to Ex.B6 and as per this admission Ex.B6 is not relevant to determine the issues involved in the present case. It was further admitted by DW1 that the scribe or the witnesses to Ex.B6, dated: 11-11-1991 were not examined. In this regard the plaintifs relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bandar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh (2003) 4 SCC 161 Para 7 wherein it was held that in the absence of a plea no amount of evidence was led in relation thereto can be looked into. In view of the settled position of law the documents relied by DW1 under Ex.B5 and B6 cannot be taken into consideration.
39.It is clear from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the admissions made by
Defendant No.2 as DW1 herein defendant No.2 executed Ex.A1 sale deed by deviating the conditions mentioned in GPA and by violating the provisions of
ULC Act. Further, the evidence on record would prove that the mother of the plaintifs was entitled to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts of land under ULC whereas
Defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds including Ex.A1 to an extent of
Ac.38.12 gts without any title to his principal at the time of sale. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion taking into consideration of evidence adduced by both the parties I am of the opinion that plaintifs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed bearing Doc. No. 8250/1989, dated: 17-07-1989. Further the subsequent sale deeds executed basing on Ex.A1 are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the plaintifs and against the defendants.
Issue No.3 :
Whether the cancellation of GPA by the mother of the plaintif is
illegal?
24
O.S. 1857/2009
40.It is the contention of Defendant No.2 that cancellation of GPA by the mother of the plaintifs executed in his favour is illegal. In this regard, it is the claim of the plaintifs that as Defendant No.2 acted against the interest of their mother and he did not account for the acts done by him, their mother has cancelled the GPA by executing Registered Cancellation Deed on 16-11-1992 vide Ex.A21. It is their further claim that even after acknowledging the receipt of notice under Ex.A23, Defendant No.2 did not respond.
41.In this regard, it is the contention of Defendant No.2 that Ex.A20/GPA was executed in pursuance of Ex.B1/agreement of sale which creates interest in the property in favour of society and further that GPA is an irrevocable one. The evidence on record does not show any averment in GPA which would prove that the mother of the plaintifs created any interest over the schedule property in favour of the society. There is no averment in Ex.A20/GPA which would prove that the mother of the plaintifs created any interest over the schedule property in favour of the society. The learned counsel for plaintifs relied upon a judgment in John Kotaiah Vs. A. Diwakar AIR 1985 AP 30 wherein it was stated that if on a construction of attorney and in the light of facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the document does not prima facie satisfy the requirements of the creation of a power coupled with interest, then merely because the document itself describes the agency to be an irrevocable one, it does not become irrevocable agency. Furthermore, the society did not fle any suit against the mother of the plaintifs or the plaintifs seeking specifc performance of Ex.B1. If really the rights of the society were efected by GPA, it is for the society to challenge GPA and its cancellation. Admittedly, the society did not challenge the cancellation of GPA in any court. As per the judgment 25
O.S. 1857/2009
supra relied on by the counsel for plaintif no interest was created in favour of society, and on consideration of the evidence I am of the opinion that the cancellation of GPA in favour of Defendant No.2 by the mother of the plaintifs is legal and valid and the same cannot be said to be illegal. Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintifs against the defendants.
Issue No.4 :
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
42.It is the claim of Defendant Nos.2 and 5 that Venkateshwara HAL
Employees Co.operative Society is necessary party to the suit but the plaintifs did not show the said society as party to the suit, as such, the suit fled by them is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
43.In this regard, it is the submission of the counsel for the plaintifs that as the society did not claim any rights under the unregistered agreement of sale,
dt: 11-11-1981 and Defendant No.2 allegedly executed the sale deed in
question as GPA holder of the mother of the plaintifs, the said society is not a necessary party to the suit. Admittedly, it is the contention of the Defendant
No.2 that he executed the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1 as a GPA holder of the mother of the plaintifs. Further, in his evidence as DW1,
Defendant No.2 categorically deposed that he executed several sale deeds including the sale deed on behalf of Defendant No.1 on behalf of mother of the plaintifs. The admissions made by defendant No.2 that society is not a party to any of the sale deeds executed by him and that no permission was obtained from ULC for execution of the Ex.A1/sale deed itself would be sufcient to prove that society is not a necessary party. Further, as observed earlier the society 26
O.S. 1857/2009
did not fle any suit in pursuance of Ex.B1. In view of the above discussion, the suit would not fail by not joining the society as a party. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintifs and against to the defendants.
Issue No.5 : Whether there is no cause of action to fle the suit?
44.It is the claim of the plaintifs that they got knowledge about the execution of Ex.A1/sale deed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 only after they made enquiries subsequent to the receipt of the legal notice got issued by M/s. Shalivahana Construction Limited under Ex.A24, dt: 06-06-2006.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the Defendant Nos.2 and 5 that there is no cause of action for the plaintifs to fle the present suit. In the plaint as well as in her evidence before the court the frst plaintif as PW1 deposed that
M/s. Shalivahana Constructions Limited issued legal notice dated: 06-06-2006 alleging that they obtained an agreement of sale for an extent of Ac.35.00 in
Sy.Nos.100, 101, 102 and 103 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal with addressee 1 to 3 in the said notice in which Defendant No.2 and another
P.V.S.R. Das acted as attestors and that they paid agreed amounts to the addressees 1 to 3 on diferent dates and demanding all the addressees including the plaintifs herein (addressees 4 to 7) to come forward to execute the sale deeds. It is the claim of the plaintifs that after the receipt of the said legal notice, they enquired about their lands, approached the Sub-Registrar of
Moosapet and came to know about the execution of several sale deeds executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of third parties including Defendant No.1 in this suit. Further, the Defendant No.2 except taking the plea that there was no cause of action for the plaintifs to fle the present suit, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings. As observed earlier, it is the claim of 27
O.S. 1857/2009
the plaintifs right from the beginning that they came to know about the execution of several sale deeds including Ex.A1 by Defendant No.2 in favour of
Defendant No.1 only after they made enquiries after receipt of legal notice got issued by M/s. Shalivahana Constructions Limited. Thus, the plaintifs have cause of action for fling the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 which is in clear violation of the terms of GPA executed by their mother. Furthermore Law is well settled that
Article 59 of the Limitation Act governs suits seeking cancellation of
an instrument and prescribes a period of limitation of three years
from the date when the plaintif frst had knowledge of the facts
entitling him to such relief. The emphasis under Article 59 is not on
the date of the transaction per se, but on the accrual of the cause of
action, which in cases involving allegation of fraud or unauthorised
execution of documents, hinges upon the date on which the plaintif
acquired knowledge of facts. In the case on hand, the evidence of PW1 would prove that they came to know about the execution of the original of
Ex.A1/sale deed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 when they received notice from M/s. Shalivahana constructions on 06-06-2006and it further appears that they made enquiries in the Sub-Registrar ofce immediately after receiving the notice and acquired knowledge about the execution of sale deed/Ex.A1. In this circumstances plaintifs have cause of action to fle the present suit seeking cancellation of the said sale deed.
Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintifs.
Issue No.6 : Whether the suit is barred for limitation?
28
O.S. 1857/2009
45.As per the discussion made in Issue No.5, the plaintifs came to know about the execution of Ex.A1/sale deed by Defendant No.2 in favour of
Defendant No.1 only after they made enquiries after receipt of legal notice under Ex.A24 from M/s. Shalivahana Constructions Limited, dt: 06-06-2006. It was argued by counsel for plaintifs that the suit was fled on 04-05-2007 after receiving the legal notice from M/s. Shalivahana constructions limited on 06-06- 2006 and made enquiries with regard to the land belonging to them situated at
Kondapur village, approached the Sub-Registrar ofce, obtained the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of third parties and subsequent sale deeds thereof in respect of the suit schedule property and they obtained encumbrance certifcate dated: 27-11-2006 and fled the present suit on 04-05- 2007. In this regard counsel for plaintifs relied on Judgment reported in
Gunabai Vs. Motilal and others AIR 1925 Nagpur 398 wherein it was held that “when a plaintif sues to cancel or set aside an instrument setting out the facts which entitle him to have that instrument canceled or set aside and alleging that those facts became known to him at a certain time, it is incumbent on the defendant who pleads that the suit is barred by time to allege and prove a knowledge prior to the period from which time beings to run”. As per the citation the burden is on the defendant to prove that plaintifs have knowledge at the time of the transactions that took place. However the defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that the plaintifs have prior knowledge. In the circumstances defendants failed to discharge their burden to prove the allegation. On the other hand the counsel for defendant No.2 and 5 argued that the legal notice and its reply are created for the purpose of suit to over come the limitation. Counsel for the defendant further argued that as per 29
O.S. 1857/2009
Sec.3 of Limitation Act irrespective of the fact as to whether any defence is set out is raised by the defendants or not, in the event a suit is found to be barred by limitation, appeal preferred and every application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed.
46.In this regard this court relied on a judgment in Daliben Valjibhai vs
Prajapathi Kodarbhai Karchabhai wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court while dealing with dismissal of a suit, seeking cancellation of a sale deed, on the ground of limitation, reiterated that the period of limitation in such cases begins from the date when knowledge of fraud (underlying the challenged sale deed) is acquired, and not the date of registration. This court further relied on judicial precedents including Chhottanben vs Kritibhai Jalkrushnabhai
Thakkar wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court held that Limitation in cancellation of sale deeds shall arise from date of knowledge.In the case on hand, plaintifs specifcally averred that as soon as they acquired knowledge regarding execution of sale deed, they enquired with sub registrar ofce and obtained certifed copy of sale deed and fled the present case. On perusal of evidence on record in the case on hand it manifests that plaintifs acquired knowledge upon receiving the legal notice issued by third parties on 27-11- 2006 and upon verifcation in the ofce of Sub-Registrar regarding their lands, they fled the present suit within one year from the date of knowledge which is within limitation. There is no evidence on record to show that plaintifs have knowledge of the sale deed executed under Ex.A1 during the lifetime of their mother. In the circumstances the suit of the plaintifs is well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintifs.
Additional Issue No.1 :
30
O.S. 1857/2009
Whether the defendant No.3 to defendant No.5 are bonafde
purchasers?
47.It is the contention of Defendant No.5, in her written statement that she is a bonafde purchaser of the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration from the GPA holder of Defendant No.4. Except taking the said plea in her written statement, the said Defendant No.5 did not adduce any evidence in support of her pleadings. It is settled law that any amount of pleadings without evidence is of no avail. Moreover, as discussed while dealing with Issue Nos.1 & 2, it is held that the very execution of Ex.A1/sale deed by
Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 is against the terms of the Ex.A20/
GPA and consequently the same is liable to be cancelled, the subsequent sale deeds executed basing on Ex.A1 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintifs.
Additional Issue No.2 :
Whether the agreement of sale cum GPA executed on 16-11-2002 is
proper and valid?
48.In her written statement, Defendant No.5 contended that Defendant No.1 sold the suit plot to Defendant No.3 under a registered Agreement of Sale cum
General Power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.10029 of 2002, dt: 16-11-2002 for valuable consideration under the original of Ex.A2 and Defendant No.3 in turn sold the same to Defendant No.4 under registered sale deed bearing
Doc.No.11546 of 2002, Dt: 30-12-2002 under the original of Ex.A3 for valuable consideration who in turn sold away the same to Defendant No.5. For that matter, Defendant No.5 did not even fle any document to show that she purchased the suit plot from Defendant No.4. Except taking the said plea in her written statement, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by her 31
O.S. 1857/2009
in support of her pleadings. Further, as discussed while dealing with Issue
Nos.1 & 2, it is held that the very execution of Ex.A1/sale deed by Defendant
No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 is against the terms of the Ex.A20/GPA and consequently the same is liable to be cancelled and the subsequent sale deeds executed basing on Ex.A1 are liable to be set aside. Thus, the agreement of sale cum GPA bearing Doc.No.10029 of 2002, dt: 16-11-2002 executed by
Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3 is invalid. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintifs and against to the defendants.
Issue No. 7 To what relief?
49.In view of the discussions made under issues 1 to 6 and additional issues 1 and 2, I am of the considerable opinion that the suit of the plaintifs is liable to be decreed as prayed.
50.In the result, the suit of the plaintifs is decreed with costs. The registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 8250/1989, dated: 17-07-1989 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is hereby cancelled and the subsequent agreement of sale cum GPA doc. No. 100029/2002, dated: 16-11- 2002, sale deeds Doc. No. 11546/2002, dated: 30-12-2002 and the sale deed
Doc. No. 9161/2007, dated:12-07-2007 are hereby set aside. The concerned
Sub-Registrar is hereby directed to cancel the registration of sale deed.
Note: Ofce is directed to address a letter to the concerned Sub-Registrar to cancel the registration sale deed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this day of 20th day of August, 2025.
I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT
32
O.S. 1857/2009
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1: Potluri VijayalakshmiD.W.1: Y.B.K. Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.A1 is the certifed copy of the sale deed document No.8250/1989, dt.17-07- 1989.
Ex.A2 is the certifed copy of the sale deed cum GPA document No.10029/02, dt.16-11-02.
Ex.A3 is the certifed copy of the sale deed document No.11546/02.dt 30 02.
Ex.A4 is the Encumbrance Certifcate,
Ex.A5 is the certifed copy of Form III Dt: 12-1-1983 issued by the Spl and Competent Authority, ULC, Hyd
Ex.A6 is the Certifed copy of Draft statement of. 17-1-1983 U/s.8(3) of Urban Land 'ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.
Ex.A7 is the certifed copy of Form III, Dt: 12-1-1983 issued by the Special ofcer and Competent Authority, ULC Dept., Hyd.
Ex.A8 is the certifed copy of fnal orders cit. 5-3-1983 passed by the authority U/s 8(4) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. 1976.
Ex.A9 is the certifed copy of letter,dl.5-5-1983 addressed by the Special ofcer and Competent authority, ULC, Hyderabad to the Director, printing press, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad with a request to cause publication in A. P. State Gazette.
Ex.A10 is the certifed copy of Notifcation, dt. 5-5-1983 U/s.10(1) Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act.1970.
Ex.A11 is the certifed copy of Notifcation,dt.17-5-1983 under section Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 published in Andhra Prades Gazette 205, Part II, Miscellaneous notifcation.
Ex.A12 is the certifed copy of the letter dt. 15-4-1988 addressed by the Ofcer and competent authority, ULC Dept., Hyderabad to the Director, printing Press, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad with a request to cause publication in A State Gazette, Extraordinary.
33
O.S. 1857/2009
Ex.A13 is the certifed copy of the Declaration dt.15-4-1988 issued by the Ofcer and competent authority, ULC Dept., Hyderabad U/s.10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 stating that the land mentioned in the schedule be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and vested absolutely in the State Government free from all Encumbrance w.e.f.15- 5-1988.orders dt. 17-7-2007 passed by Spl. Ofcer and Competent authority, urban land ceiling Hyderabad.
Ex.A14 is the certifed copy of notifcation under section 10(3) of Urban Lan (Ceiling & Regulation) Act.1976, published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No. Part II, Miscellaneous notifcation. dt. 7-5-1998.
Ex.A15 is the certifed copy of the Notice U/s/ 10(5) urban land (ceiling and regulation) Act. 1976 dt. 10-1-2007 passed by the Spl. Ofcer and compete authority, ULC Dept., Hyderabad, adetressed to the mother of the plaintifs.
Ex.A16 is the certifed copy of the. Proceedings U/s 10(6) of the Urban La Ceiling & Regulation) Act. 1976, dl. 3-2-2008 passed by the Spl Ofcer an competent authority, ULC Dept., Hyd
Ex.A17 is the certifed copy of the panchanama dt. 11-2-2008 conducted Deputy Tahsildar cum enquiry Ofcer, ULC Dept., Hyderabad.
Ex.A18 is the certifed copy of the G.O. Ms. No.978,dt. 2-8-2008 issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (ULC) Dept., in allotting the lar extent of 4,24,834.97 sq. meters in Survey Nos. 98 to 103,104/1,104/2,1 107 & 108 of Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District in f HUDA, Hyderabad.
Ex.A19 is the certifed copy of the order dt.2-3-2009 of the Hon'ble High W. P.No.18343/2008 in allowing the Writ Petition by holding that G.O. No.978,dt.2- 8-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and without any basis.
Ex.A20 is the certifed copy of the General Power of Attorney,dt.21-01-2001
Ex.A21 is the certifed copy of the Cancellation deed, dt. 16-11-1992 of Power of Attorney.
Ex.A22 is the certifed copy of the Intimation letter of cancellation dt.11 addressed by the mother of the plaintifs to the defendant No.1.
Ex.A23 is the certifed copy of the postal acknowledgment, dt. 27-11-1992 by the defendant for acknowledging the receipt of the letter of intimation of cancellation of General power of Attorney
ExA24 is the certifed copy of the legal notice.dt. 6-6-2006 issued by Ws Shalivahana constructions Ltd., to the plaintifs,
Ex.A25 is the certifed copy of the Reply Notice issued on behalf of the plaintifs to the Legal Notice dt. 26-6-2008 issued by M/s Shalivhana constructions Ltd.
34
O.S. 1857/2009
Ex.A26 is the certifed copy of information with regard to applications received under G.O. Ms. No.747 for regularization of the land through the Memo dt. 25- 08-2009 issued by the Spl. Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. Ex.A27 is the CC of pahani for the year 2003-04
Ex.A28 is the CC of pahani for the year 2004-05
Ex.A29 is the CC of pahani for the year 2005-06
Ex.A30: The agreement of sale dated 18.12.1997 containing 7 Signatures on each page.
Ex.A31: Receipt dated 22.12.1997 for Rs.5,00,000-00 received from J. Gopal Reddy.
Ex.A32: Receipt for Rs.1,75,000/- towards plot Nos.159, 160, 173 at Venkateshwara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society.
Ex.A33: Letter head of Venkateshwara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd written receipt dated 14.02.1998 for Rs.10,00,000/-.
Ex.A34: Receipt dated 20.03.1998 for Rs.4,50,000/- received towards part payment of sale consideration in respect of land in Sy.No.110/2 and 111 of Kondapur village by way of 8 drafts.
Ex.A35: Receipt dated 21.04.1998 for Rs.5,00,000/- received towards part payment for the purchase of plots in Sv. No.110/2 and 111 of Kondapur village.
Ex.A36: Receipt dated 01.09.1998 for Rs.1,00,000/- received from Lumbini Constructions against the part payment towards the sale of plots in Sy.No. 110/2 and 111 of Kondapur village.
Ex.A37: Receipt dated 15.09.1998 for Rs.2,00,000/- received from Lumbini Constructions against the part payment towards the sale of plots in Sy.No.110/2 and 111 of Kondapur village.
Ex.A38: Receipt dated 23.09.1998 for Rs.2.00,000/- received from Lumbini Constructions against the part payment towards the sale of plots in Sy.No.110/2 and 111 of Kondapur village.
Ex.A39: Receipt dated 05.10.1998 for Rs.2,50,000/- received towards part of payment of sale consideration of land in Sy.No.110/2 and 111 of Kondapur village.
Ex.A40: Receipt dated 07.07.1999 for Rs.1,00,000/- received from Lumbini Constructions towards part payment.
Ex.A41: Receipt dated 05.10.1998 for Rs.50,000/- received from Vinay Kumar towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
35
O.S. 1857/2009
Ex.A42: Receipt dated 05.10.1998 for Rs.90,000/ received from M.Pramodini towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A43: Receipt for Rs.50.000/ received from Chakravarthi towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Lt Kondapur.
Ex.A44: Receipt for Rs.40,000/- received from P.Vikram Reddy towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A45: Receipt for Rs.50,000/- received from P.Vikram Reddy towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A46: Receipt dated 07.10.1998 for Rs.60,000/- received from G.Rajeswhar towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A47: Receipt for Rs.90,000/- received from Anil towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A48: Receipt for Rs.60,000/- received from Mezher Ali Ahmed towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A49: Receipt for Rs. 50.000/- received from J.Jagan towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A50: Receipt dated 07.10.1998 for Rs.90.000/- received from Abhay towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd Kondapur.
Ex.A51: Receipt for Rs.90,000/- received from Ekbal towards plot at HAL Cooperative Society Ltd kondapur.
FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Agreement of sale deed.
Ex.B2: Certifed copy of plaint in O.S. 78/1999
Ex.B3 : CC of petition along with the afdavit in OP 141/1999
Ex.B4 : CC of Judgment and Decree passed in LGC No 13/2002
Ex.B5: CC of corrected agreement of sale dated: 17-08-1991
Ex.B6: C.C. of receipt, dated: 11-11-1991
I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
L.B. NAGAR, RR. DISTRICT