1 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B NAGAR
PRESENT: SMT. D. MADHAVI KRISHNA V Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist, at L.B.Nagar.
Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026
O.S.No.606 of 2014
Between:
Kamini Bharathi
...Plaintiff
And
K. Ramesh, S/o Poshalu
...Defendant
***
O.S.No.994 of 2014
Between:
1. K. Ramesh, S/o Poshalu,
2. Smt Paladi Santosha w/o Paladi Jagan Mohan
...Plaintiffs
And
1. Smt. Kamini Bharathi W/o K. Dilip Kumar
2. Smt. Kamini Jyothsna, W/o Abhinava Krishna
3. K. Dinesh Kumar, S./o. K. Dilip Kumar
4. K. Dheeraj Kumar, S/o K. Dilip Kumar
...Defendants
***
O.S.No.646 of 2023
(Old OS.No.2114/2014 on the file of III ASCJ, R.R.District)
Between:
1. K. Ramesh, S/o Poshalu
2. Smt Paladi Santosha w/o Paladi Jagan Mohan
...Plaintiffs
And
Smt. Kamini Bharathi W/o Dilip Kumar
...Defendant
2 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
***
PLAINTS FILED UNDER SECTION 26 r/w ORDER VII, RULE 1 OF CPC
These three suit have come before me on 27.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Venkata Reddy, counsel for Plaintiffs in OS.No.994/2014 and
OS.no.646/2023, counsel for defendant in O.S.No.606/2014 and Sri.A.Venkata
Ramana Reddy, counsel for Plaintiff in OS.NO.606/2014, counsel for defendant in
OS.NO.646/2023; Sri. B.Sridhar, Counsel for defendant.no.2 in OS.No.994/2014; upon
perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
1)O.S.No.606/2014is filed for cancellation of Registered
Agreement of sale cum GPA vide doc.no.298/2014 dated 06.01.2014 as null and void and also its subsequent transactions if any. ( This suit is transferred to this court from X Addl. District Court,
R.R.District at L.B.Nagar as per Order of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, R.R.District in Tr.O.P.No.343/2021 for joint/simultaneous trial
along with OS.No.994/2014.
2)OS.No.994/2014 is filed to declare the Award dated 7.2.2014 passed in OS.No.1135/2013 on the file of V ADJ, R.R District/Lok
Adalath i.e. the District Legal Service Authority as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for perpetual injunction against the def.no.1 to 4.
3 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
3)OS.No.646/2023 is filed for Eviction, Arrears of Rent and Mesne
Profits against the defendant. (This suit was originally filed before III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar vide
OS.No.2114/2014 and transferred to this Court as per Order of
Hon’ble Principal District Judge, R.R.District in Tr.O.P.No.343/2021
and renumbered as OS.no.646/2023 for joint/simultaneous trial along with OS.No.994/2014 and OS.No.606/2014).
Pleadings in O.S.No.606 of 2014
4) The averments of the plaint in OS.No.606/2014 , are as follows:
4.1) Plaintiff submits that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the residential house building with H.No. 10-1-70/1A on Plot No. 59 southern part in Sy.Nos. 29 & 72 admeasuring 355 sq. yards situated at Ward No. 10, Block No.1, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Lingojiguda Village,
Saoornagar, R.R.District, i.e., suit schedule property, she purchased the same from its original owner Smt Konduru Varalakshmi, W/o
Yadagiri vide a registered sale deed vide doc.no.300/1995 dated 31.05.1995 for valuable sale consideration and constructed the suit schedule house and enjoying the property as absolute owner and 4 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
possessor without any interference. The suit schedule property consists of three storied house/building and the plaintiff let-out six portions to various tenants and she has been living in the ground floor with her family.
4.2)It is further submitted that the plaintiff obtained loan of
Rs.53,50,000/- under mortgage vide mortgage account No.1107764 with City Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad in the year 2009 and used to pay monthly installments @ Rs.78,000/-. However, the daughter of the plaintiff claimed 50% share of the schedule house orally to which the plaintiff resisted. In view of financial necessities, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property with the defendant vide Agreement of Sale dt.13-06-2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/- and received Rs.22,11,000/- towards advance on the date of agreement and Rs.50,00,000/- on 14- 08-2013 towards further sale consideration. The defendant was obligated under the agreement of sale to get register the regular sale deed within 90 days from the date of the agreement.
4.3)It is further submitted that the defendant paid the above said sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards the mortgaged loan on the schedule 5 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
house. In view of the default committed by the defendant in paying the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period of 90 days, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.04.10.2013 by cancelling the agreement of sale. The defendant got issued a reply dt.12-10-2013 that he sent his offer within the stipulated period by way of speed post to the plaintiff and by way of SMS to the family members of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff neither received nor refused the alleged offer but the defendant filed a private complaint vide C.C.SR.No. 8440/2013 on 08.11.2013 before XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad against the plaintiff, her husband and her daughter Mrs. Kamini
Jyotsna under See.420 R/W Sec. 120-B IPC which was referred to the police, Saroornagar.
4.4)It is further submitted that the Defendant instead of exercising the option and remedy of seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.13-06-2013 filed a police complaint, plaintiff and her family members were illegally detained in the Saroornagar Police
Station on 05-01-2014 from 9.30a.m onwards. Under the threat, coercion, without showing the arrest, the defendant and the police created threat to the life and property of the plaintiff, her husband and 6 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
her elder son, as the daughter of the plaintiff was in abroad, in the event of the plaintiff not executing a memorandum of understanding and a registered agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was forced to execute the memorandum of understanding dt.6-01-2014 in favour of the defendant on the dictation of the terms and conditions at his choice in the police station of Saroornagar at about 11.30 a.m. Further, the plaintiff alone was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Sarrornagar, under the threat to the lives of her husband and elder son in the police station to execute the agreement of sale cum general power of attorney in favour of the defendant. Having no other option, the plaintiff signed the said alleged document before the Sub-Registrar even without aware of the contents of the said document. The plaintiff was again brought to the police station, Saroornagar after the said event and confined to the police station along with her husband and elder son. On 7-01-2014, again the plaintiff alone was taken to the
Lok Adalat, R.R.District, by detaining her husband and elder son in the police station. She was forced to appear before the Lok Adalat and forced to sign on compromise of Crime No. 784/2013.
7 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
4.5)It is further submitted that under above circumstances only, the defendant got executed the above stated memorandum of understanding, registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney. The defendant himself deposited Rs.50,00,000/- towards the mortgaged loan amount which loan stood on the name of the daughter of the plaintiff. Further, being well aware of the claim of the daughter of the plaintiff for 50% share over the suit schedule property entered into the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. Further the daughter of the plaintiff Smt. Kamini Jyotsna got issued a legal notice dt.28-08- 2013 to the plaintiff and the defendant claiming her share and denying the validity of any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and they got issued the reply individually. As such, the defendant is well aware of the claim of the daughter of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
4.6)It is further submitted that the daughter of the plaintiff filed
O.S.No.1135 of 2013 on the file of the V Additional District Judge
(FTC) R.R.District at L.B.Nagar for partition of the suit schedule property, claiming 50% share against the plaintiff and obtained ad- interim injunction by restraining the plaintiff from alienating the suit 8 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
schedule property in any manner to third parties and create third party interest. The said order has been in force till 9-01-2014 and thereafter since 2013.
4.7)It is further submitted that the contents of memorandum of understanding at para No.3 at page no.2 states that the daughter of the plaintiff filed the said suit for partition and further under condition No. 3 that the alleged memorandum of understanding was entered to the extent of 255 sq.yards constructed house and the remaining open place of 100 sq.yards will be settled after the adjudication of O.S.No.1135 of 2013. As such, the defendant was very well aware of the said suit proceedings and the injunction of alienation as on 06-01-2014, 07-01-2014 and thereafter and before.
Subsequently, the plaintiff, under the above stated circumstances, acceded to the compromise decree in O.S.No. 1135 of 2013. As such the entire transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant on 6-01- 2014, 7-01-2014 do not stand to legal scrutiny and the same is sham, null and void. Further in the original agreement of sale dt.13-06-2013, the sale consideration was Rs.1,15,11,000/-, this itself shows the bonafidies of the defendant and his intention to grab away the suit 9 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
schedule property in any manner, without exercising the legal remedy of seeking suit for specific performance.
4.8) The respondent/defendant has not paid any amounts after the issue of legal notice dt. 04-10-2013 of cancellation. But, the plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same till date.
The deliberate attempts of the defendant to grab away the suit schedule property, are illegal and against the provisions of the civil laws, including the Indian Contract Act, the Evidence Act and the
Specific Relief Act. Thus the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that the agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dt. 6-01-2014 and all other subsequent transactions based on that the defendant and the third parties are null and void. Further defendant is making arrangements to alienation of the property, in that case, plaintiff would suffers irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated in any manner. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Hence the suit.
10 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
5)Defendant filed W.S, following are its brief facts:
5.1)Defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint and submitted that the defendant is only the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing premises No.10-1-70/1A in Plot No.59 in Survey
No.29 and 72 admeasuring 355 Square yards situated at Bhagyanagar
Colony, Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District having constructed plinth area of 6000 square feet comprising of ground, first and second floors. That the defendant and the plaintiff entered into Agreement of sale dated 13-06-2013 inrespect of above property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/- in presence and consultation of the plaintiff husband and her two sons who are also the witnesses to the agreement apart from one
Mr.M.Rama Krishna Reddy. As on the date of agreement, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.22,11,000/- towards advance sale consideration and plaintiff issued a separate receipt. The balance of sale consideration is agreed to be payable at the execution and registration of the sale deed and the Plaintiff agreed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the defendant within a period of (3) months from date of execution of agreement, however time is not the 11 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
essence of the contract. This defendant always ready to perform his part of the contract including payment of the balance of sale consideration for obtaining the sale deed in his favour. But the Plaintiff is postponing the same. The defendant was surprised when the plaintiff informed that the property agreed to be sold is mortgaged with Citi Bank Begumpet, Hyderabad and demanded him to pay a further sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- to redeem the property.
On 14-08-2013, defendant brought the amount and the plaintiff in the presence of her family members and who in turn deposited the same in the account in the name of her daughter "Kamini Jyotsna" on 14.08.2013. Plaintiff herein has issued a receipt to that affect which is attested by her son Mr.K.Dinesh Kumar and one Mr.M.Rama Krishna
Reddy as witnesses. Altogether the defendant herein has paid an amount of Rs.77,61,000/-, after criminal proceedings executed a
Memorandum of Understanding on 06-01-2014 to register the property for an extent of 255 Sq. Yards out of the total extent of 355 sq yards., and also they have undertaken that their possession will be vacated on or before 01-04-2014 and accordingly, they have executed registered agreement of sale cum general power of attorney with possession vide Doc.No.298 of 2014 in respect of 255 Sq yards which 12 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
is part and parcel of H.No. 10-1-70/1/A in Plot No.59, in Sy.No. 29 and 72 admeasuring 355 Sq. Yards in Ward No. 10. Block No.1, situated at Bhagyanagar Colony, Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar
Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and on the same day, the portions of the tenants were delivered to the defendant and since then all the tenants are paying rents to this defendant only, and this defendant is in enjoyment of the same and as per the memorandum of understanding and registered AGPA Document the possession of the plaintiff in respect of her portion in ground floor stands illegal i.e. from 01-03-2014 and this defendant is taking separate legal steps regarding the same. In the above facts and circumstances, the defendant is constrained to compromise in Criminal Case before the Lok Adalat.
The said compromise is recorded in the presence of the Lok Adalat
Chairman and as well as other two members. But to avoid sale transaction and to cheat the defendant, the plaintiff herein set up a false claim through her daughter, which is not maintainable in the eye of law. That the plaintiff and her family members colluded each other got issued legal notice dt: 28-08-2013 i.e., after clearance of loan only supplied the agreement copy to her daughter to litigate the property.
Further as per the clauses of Memorandum of Understanding, 13 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
without supplying agreement copy how the plaintiff daughter knows the address of the defendant. The collusive compromise suit vide
O.S.No.1135/2013 filed by daughter of the plaintiff is not binding on
this defendant since there is no materials papers or facts to substantiate the said case as such, such type of litigations does not create any lispendency.
5.2)It is further submitted that after receiving summons from this
Hon'ble Court and enquired the matter and then only the defendant
came to know that to cheat the defendant, the Plaintiff and her family members have compromised with Smt. Jhansi in the above suit and filed Joint Memo before Lok Adalat by stating that the Plaintiff therein entitled to 50% share and the plaintiff herein is entitled to 50% share in respect of the residential house building bearing H.No.10-1-70/1/A in Plot No.59, in Sy No.29 and 72 admeasuring 355 Sq. Yards, Ward
No.10, Block No.1, situated at Bhagyanagar Colony, Lingojiguda Villag
Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and thereafter filed petition to pass final decree and also compromised before the Lok
Adalat and obtained Preliminary Decree, Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report by dividing shares but the plaintiff has 14 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
suppressed the said detailed facts before this Hon'ble Court and claiming she is the owner of 255 Sq.yards., which clearly shows that time to time and again and again she is changing her mind and creating serial of litigations and suppressing the material facts and not showing the correct accounts, which are received by her as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5.3)It is further submitted that the defendant purchased the property by paying huge amount but the plaintiff simply denying his purchase and approached with unclean hands before this Hon'ble
Court seeking relief of cancellation of AGPA document which cannot be entertained. Further the acts of the plaintiff and her family members is comes under fraud and cheating and criminal breach of contract as such this defendant has lodged complaint and the police has investigating the matter to take appropriate action. The AGPA document executed with free will and consent of the plaintiff herein only but to avoid delivery of possession her premises in ground floor, the present suit is filed. Further when she cheated the defendant and falsely instructed her counsel that, she received only Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.50,00,000/- and there is no reply on the notice of the 15 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
defendant, as such the defendant forced to file private complaint.
Further on her frequent request only the said criminal case was compromised by the defendant and there is no coercion against the plaintiff and her family members. The said criminal case was compromised on 07-01-2014 and till filing of the present suit, she has not filed any complaint before Lok-Adalat or police as well as any competent forum on the ground of forcible registration, which shows that only to create litigation and to save her possession to the extent of her premises in ground floor and blackmailing to extract further more amount from the defendant the present suit has been filed by the
Plaintiff. As such the relief prayed by the plaintiff in the present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5.4)It is further submitted that the defendant permitted the plaintiff in possession of her house and from 01-03-2014 she became illegal occupier as such this defendant is entitle for mesne profits for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the plaintiff herein for which he already got issued legal notice to evict the plaintiff her portion. Further by taking loans from third parties, the defendant has purchased the said house and to clear the loans to third parties, this defendant has sold the house 16 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
in favour of Smt. P. Santhosha after dismissal of the Injunction petitions and presently she is enjoying the same as absolute owner.
5.5)It is further submitted that this defendant filed impleading petition in compromise decree in O.S.No.1135/2013 on the file of V
Addl District Judge, R.R. District, the same is pending further to cancel said Award/decree, which is fraudulently obtained by plaintiff and her daughter by suppressing registered document, he has filed
Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2042 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court and the same was disposed of by observing that the plaintiff is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the competent court, hence this defendant also filed a separate suit to that regard. As on the date of construction of house her daughter age is only under 18 years, as such the alleged advancing amounting of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff herein is false. Further her daughter is only co-applicant of mortgage loan taken by the plaintiff herein at Citi Bank, Begumpet
Branch, Hyderabad and all together they have paid some installments and thereafter she defaulted and at last the Bank authorities have given Statutory Notice under Securitization Act and as on the date, the plaintiff herein has fallen due to a tune of Rs.49,52,000/-. And after 17 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
entering into agreement this defendant has paid the said sum to the authorities, as such daughter of the plaintiff not helped nor advanced any amount. In order to file the present false and fictitious suit, the plaintiff has created certain cock and bull stories, since the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law and cooked up the cause of action to file the present suit. The suit is under valued and the paid court fee is not proper. If the plaintiff is not entitled as alleged by her in the suit, since the purchase of the suit property, this defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, as such she loses the possession of the suit house, the plaintiff should pay appropriate court fee and stamp duty for recovery of possession also. But the plaintiff with a motive of evading the court fee simply filed the suit for cancellation of AGPA document, which is against the law of the land. As such, on this ground alone, this suit is liable to be rejected or otherwise dismissed with exemplary costs.
6)Basing on above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of cancellation of registered agreement of sale cum GPA vide doc.no.298/2014,
dated 06.01.2014 as null and void?
18 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
2) Consequently to declare the subsequent transaction if any, in pursuance of the registered agreement of sale cum GPA vide doc.no.298/2014 dated 06.01.2014 as null and void?
3) Whether the Court fee paid by the Plaintiff is incorrect?
4) To what relief?
7)During the course of trial, Plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got examined PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A11. On the other hand,
Defendant is examined as DW.1, and he got examined DW.2 and marked Ex.B1 to B10 documents.
Pleadings in OS. No.994/2014
8) The averments of the plaint in OS.No.994/2014 , are as follows:
8.1)That the Defendants No.1 was owner and possessor of the premises bearing No. 10-1-70/1/a, admeasuring 355 sq. yards on plot no.59 in Sy. No. 29 and 72 situated at Bhagya Nagar Colony,
Lingojiguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under GHMC within the limits of L.B. Nagar Circle together with the plinth area of 6,000 sq. ft., comprising of ground, 1 and 2nd floor, entered into an 19 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
Agreement of Sale, dated 13.06.2013 with the plaintiff no.1, agreeing to sell the above said property for a total sale consideration of
Rs.1,15,11,000/- and paid a sum or Rs. 22,11,000/- towards the
Advance sale consideration and obtained a separate receipt. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid on the execution of registration of the sale deed. The defendants No. 3 and 4 together with the husband of the Defendant No. 1 were present at the time of negotiations and as well as execution of the agreement of sale and signed as witnesses to that transaction apart from one Mr. M. Rama
Krishna Reddy, who is the mediator in the transaction. At the time of negotiation, it was assured that property is free from encumbrances and that no other person has any right, title, or interest over the same.
Defendant No.1 agreed to execute and register the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff no.1 within a period of three months from the date of the agreement. However, the time was not the essence of the contract.
8.2)It is further submitted that when the plaintiff no.1 is requesting the defendant No.1 to execute and register the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration but the defendant No.1 gained the time one pretext or the other. Further the defendant No.1 informed him 20 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
that the suit property is mortgaged with the Citi Bank Begumpet,
Hyderabad and requested him to pay a further amount of sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- to redeem the property, as such plaintiff.no.1 left with no option paid the said amount on 14.08.2013 at the Citi Bank premises and a separate receipt was issued to that affect. Thereafter, on demand from the Defendant No.1, plaintiff further paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 26.08.2013 under a Receipt.
Thus, in all, the plaintiffs paid a total sum of Rs. 75,11,000/- to the
Defendant No. 1.
8.3)It is further submitted that while making the payment on 26.08.2013, the plaintiff no.1 made it clear that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration. Since the defendant No.1 was postponing the registration, the plaintiff no.1 addressed a notice dated 06.09.2013 to defendant No.1 who refused to acknowledge the same. Thereafter, on 07.09.2013, the above notice was also sent to the Defendant No.3 at his e-Mail address, followed by an S.M.S to defendants No.3 and 4 and also to the husband of the Defendant No.1 and on the very same day, the mediator by namely Sri. M. Rama Krishna Reddy also sent the
S.M.S to the husband of the defendant No.1 and their two sons 21 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
(Defendants No.3 and 4). In Spite of the above, the defendant No.1 did not come forward to perform her part of contract.
8.4)It is further submitted that to the utter shock and surprise of the plaintiff no.1, the Defendant No.2, for the first time, made a false claim to an extent of 175 sq. yards over the suit property through legal notice, dated 28.8.2013, addressed to the plaintiff, for which the
Defendant No.1 got issued a reply, dated 11.09.2013, to the above legal notice, denying the claim made by the defendant No.2. Upon receiving the same, the plaintiff no.1 got issued suitable reply on 06.09.2013.
That the above claim is false and collusive one only to avoid the performance of the contract by the defendant No.1.
8.5)It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 having received substantial part of the sale consideration, is attempting to avoid execution of the sale deed by adopting dubious methods even the plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As such the plaintiff no.1 got issued legal notice dt:12-10- 2013 to the defendant no.1 and her counsel along with draft sale deed to register the house property, the same was received by her counsel but the defendant no. 1 herein refused to take said notice. Vexed with 22 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
the attitude of the Defendant No.1, the plaintiff no.1 has filed a private complaint against the defendants no.1 to 4 in November, 2013 before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Upon referring the matter to the Police for investigation, they have registered a case in Crime No.
784/2013 against the Defendants. While investigation was in progress, the defendants proposed settlement. After deliberations, an M.O.U was drawn on 06.01.2014, wherein, the defendant No.1 undertook to convey an extent of 255 sq. yards only out of the total extent of 355 sq.
yards, since the amounts received by her from the plaintiff would meet the requirement for conveying the above extent. On the very same day, the defendant No.1 also executed a registered Agreement of Sale cum
GPA with possession, vide document No. 298/2014 in respect of 255 sq. yards, which is part and parcel of the suit property, the symbolic possession was delivered in respect of the subject property. Since then, the tenants are paying rents to the plaintiff. By virtue of execution of the above document, a compromise was recorded before the Lok Adalat in the criminal case filed by the plaintiff no.1.
8.6)It is further submitted that due to personal requirements and to clear the debts, the plaintiff no.1 got executed sale deed in favour of 23 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
the plaintiff no.2 in respect of 255 sq. yards, which is part and parcel of the suit property under registered document no. 10622/2014 and the symbolic possession was delivered in respect of the said property and accordingly, the plaintiff no.2 is enjoying the said property.
Though the defendant no.2 had knowledge of the transaction and the various proceedings appears to have filed a suit, being O.S No 1135/2013 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District against the defendants No.1, 3 and 4. The plaintiff No.1 was deliberately not made as a party to the said suit and compromised
before the District Legal Services Authority and an Award was passed
on 7.2.2014. As per the terms of the compromise, the Defendant No.1 agreed to relinquish her share to an extent of 175 sq. yards out of 355 sq. yards in favour of the Defendants No.1, 3 and 4. The terms also reflect that an M.O.U is said to have been entered between the defendants No.1 to 4 on 29.04.2013.
8.7)It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are advised to state that, an Award passed by the District Legal Services Authority shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court u/s. 21(2) of the Legal Services
Authorities Act. The Award is obtained by misrepresentation and fraud 24 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
and thus, the same is vitiated on the ground of illegality and ill propriety. It is a collusive one. The Plaintiffs are meted with the injustice at the behest of the Defendants No.1 to 4 who are connived and colluded parties. Said Award is not binding on the plaintiffs.
8.8)It is further submitted that after said Award, defendants started openly proclaiming that the defendant No.2 is the owner to an extent of 175 sq. yards, and as such, the plaintiff's claim, and the documents in his favour have no legal sanctity. Having come to know about the
Award, the plaintiff no.1 impugned the same in W.P.No. 20420/2014
before the Hon'ble High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed off,
observing that the plaintiff no.1 is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the competent court. Hence, the present suit is filed.
8.9) It is further submitted that notwithstanding the above, the
Defendant No.1 filed a suit, being O.S. No. 606 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the plaintiff No.1 for cancellation of the Registered. AGP.A., dated 6.1.2014 executed by her in his favour. The assertions made by the Defendant
No.1 in the said suit are not only false, but far from truth. The plaintiff is suitably contesting the said proceedings. The applications for ad- 25 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
interim injunction filed by the defendant No.1 in the said suit vide IA
NO. 569/2014 and IA NO. 575/2014 were dismissed on contest on 15- 07-2014.
8.10) It is further submitted that due to fraud played by the defendant no.1 to 4 on the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 is forced to lodged compliant, and the police Saroornagar investigating the matter. The defendants hatched a compliant to dis-honour the registered A.G.P.A in favour of the Plaintiff. The defendants No.1 to 4 are subjecting the plaintiffs to severe hardship. The Lok Adalath Award was obtained to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs, further by taking and holding of said
Award the defendant No. 1, 3 and 4 and their associates trying to interfere into the schedule property recently on 07-09-2014 and 08- 09-2014 with a intention to grab the same even after dismissal of
Injunction petitions filed by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff no.1 herein in OS NO.606/2014, as such the Plaintiffs also approached before this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 4, their henchmen, agents, servants or any person or persons claiming through them from interfering plaintiffs suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are left with 26 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
no other remedy, except to institute the present suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare the Award passed by the District Legal
Services Authority,R.R.Dist as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs to their extant and also for perpetual injunction. Hence, the suit.
9)Defendant.no.2 filed Written Statement, following are its brief facts:
9.1) Defendant.no.2 denied the plaint averments and submitted that the Defendant no. 2's grandmother (i.e., mother of defendant no. 1)
Smt. Jangamma used to stay with defendant no.1 during her last days as she was the only daughter. The defendant no.1 is a housewife with no source of income. The mother of defendant No.1 Smt. Jangamma was blessed with four daughters and out of them defendant No. 1 is last one. In the year 1983 defendant no. 1 got married to Mr. Dilip
Kumar and on 10th October 1985 begotten a daughter i.e., defendant no. 2 and thereafter two sons by name Dinesh kumar and Dheeraj
Kumar born. The mother of defendant no.1 used to stay with defendant no.1 during her last days, out of love and affection towards defendant no.2 as she being her grand-daughter, the mother of 27 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
defendant no.1 gave her hard earned savings of Rs.1,50,000/- cash and 4 tulas of Gold (Gundloo Chain) in favour of defendant no. 2 handing over the same to defendant no. 1 in the presence of Dilip
Kumar, Uncle K. Raj Kumar, sisters of defendant no. 1 and other relatives. At that juncture the mother of defendant no.1 requested her to use said amount and gold for defendant no.2's bright future.
Unfortunately in the month of December 1985 the mother of defendant no.1 was expired. Subsequently in the year 1995, the defendant no.1 utilized said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- gifted by her late mother and purchased a Plot bearing No. 59 in Sy.No.29 and 72 admeasuring 355
Sq. Yards situated at Bhagyanagar colony, Lingojiguda Village,
Saroornagar, Hyderabad from Konduru Vara Lakshmi, W/o. K.
Yadagiri, through a Regd. Sale Deed dt: 31-05-1995 vide Doc. No.
300/1995/Bk of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East. After some time, father of defendant no.2 constructed house in said plot i.e.. House bearing No. 10-1-70/1A, Bhagyanagar colony, Lingojiguda (village),
Saroornagar, Hyderabad initially consisting of Ground floor and gradually building was raised to First and Second floor.
28 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
9.2)It is further submitted that since 2005 the 2nd defendant is working as software engineer and earning handsome income. In the year 2009 when the defendant no.1 was facing financial crisis, she requested defendant no. 2 to arrange some hand loan and also to co- operate in obtaining mortgage loan from bank over the suit schedule property. Considering the request and relationship of defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 accumulated all her savings and some funds from her friends arranged Rs.15,00,000/- to defendant no.1. At that juncture defendant no.1 also entered into an understanding relinquishing her right of share in the suit schedule property to an extent of 175 Sq. Yards and promised to transfer the same in favour of defendant no.2. As per the request and on the condition of having equal share in the said property, in the year 2009 defendant no. 2 stood as applicant for Mortgage Loan of Rs. 53,50,000/- in respect of said property vide Mortgage account No.1107764 with Citibank,
Begumpet, Hyderabad. Since then defendant no.2 has been regularly paying EMI's (i.e., Rs. 78,000/- per month) to said bank towards mortgage loan. The defendant no.2 had several times demanded defendant no.1 to execute partition deed in respect of her share of property, but defendant no.1 have intentionally dragged the matter on 29 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
one or other pretext without providing defendant no 2's share in the suit schedule property. As such the defendant no.2 filed partition suit vide O.S.No. 1135 of 2013 pending on the file of this Hon'ble court in which preliminary decree was granted and passing of final decree is pending. In the said suit also the plaintiff filed implead petition which was dismissed by the Hon'ble court. Plaintiff filed this fictitious plaint and suit with an ulterior motive suppressing the real facts. The plaintiff had come to this Hon'ble court with unclean hands, as such he is not entitled to any relief claimed by her in this plaint as well as the relief prayed in suit. Accordingly, Def.no.2 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
10)Defendant.no.1, 3 and 4 remained exparte.
11)Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:
1.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare award dated. 07.02.2014 passed in OS.No.1135/2013 by
Lokadalat as Null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
30 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
3. To what relief?
12)During the course of trial, Both the Plaintiffs filed their chief affidavits and examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1 to
21. Defendants did not choose to adduce their evidence. A memo was filed to adopt the Plaintiff’s evidence adduced in OS.No.606/2014 as defendant’s evidence in OS.No.994/2014.
Pleadings in OS.No.646/2023( old O.S.No.2114/2014)
13)The averments of the plaint in OS.No.646/2023 , are as follows:
13.1) Plaintiffs submit that the plaintiff no.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of house admeasuring 255 Sq. yards, which is part and parcel of H.No.10-1-70/1/A in Plot No.59, in Sy.No.29 and 72 admeasuring 355 Sq. Yards in Ward No.10, Block No.1, situated at
Bhagyanagar Colony, Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Revenue
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under GHMC of L.B.Nagar Circle vide registered sale deed document no.10622/2014 got executed by the plaintiff no.1 who in turn purchased the same under registered
Agreement of Sale with GPA and possession vide Doc.No,298 of 2014,
dt: 06-01-2014 from the defendant and her family members. Since
31 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
purchase of the said property the plaintiffs are enjoying by taking rents from the occupiers/tenants except the defendant herein, as defendant have undertook to vacate the premises i.e. (2) bed rooms, one Hall and kitchen on 01-03-2014, which is herein after referred as
Suit Schedule Property.
13.2)It is further submitted that initially the defendant being the owner and possessor of the property bearing premises No.10-1-70/1A in Plot No.59, in Survey No.29 and 72 situated at Bhagyanagar
Colony, Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District admeasuring 355 Square yards and having constructed plinth area of 6000 square feet comprising of ground, first and second floors, entered into Agreement of sale dated 13-06-2013 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the above property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/- and out of the said Agreement of sale, the defendant and her family members have received a sum of
Rs.77,74,000/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lakhs Seventy Four thousand only) on various dates towards advance sale consideration and the plaintiff ready to pay balance amount at the time of registration. That the defendant and her family members are postponing the registration from time to time and the defendant got issued false notice through 32 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
her daughter by claiming 50% share in the house property on 28-08- 2013, which is false and fabricated for which he got issued a reply to the said legal notice.
13.3)It is further submitted that plaintiff got issued notice on 6-09- 2013 by intimating his readiness to pay the balance amount and call upon to register the property but the defendant have "Refused" to receive the said notice, again the plaintiff no.1 issued legal notice dt:
12-10-2013 the same was received by the defendant counsel but the defendant have refused to take said notice, nor she come forward to register the property. As such petitioners filed a Private Complaint
before the XI M.M. Court, Cyberabad and the matter was referred to
the Police, Saroomagar who registered the case vide Crime
No.784/2013 for offences under sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C., against the defendant and her family members and Police investigated the case.
13.4)It is further submitted that while pendency of the criminal proceedings and investigation, the defendant and her family members have come forward for settlement with the plaintiff and requested him not to initiate further legal steps since, the defendant are ready to register the property to the extent of the amounts paid by the plaintiff 33 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
and they admitted the plaintiff amount of Rs.77,74,000/-, for which the defendant and her family members have acknowledged the receipt of the said amount and also executed a Memorandum of
Understanding on 06-01-2014 by undertaking that to the extent of his amount and were ready to register the property for an extent of 255
Sq. Yards out of the total extent of 355 sq. yards., and also the defendant and her family members have undertaken that the defendant's portion i.e., 2 bed rooms, one Hall and kitchen premises (Schedule property) will be vacated on or before 01-03-2014.
Accordingly, the defendant have executed registered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney with Possession vide Doc.No.298/2014 in respect of 255 Sq.yards and the physical possession of building is delivered. And since then all the tenants are paying rents, In the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff no.1 constrained to compromise in Criminal Case before the Lok Adalat.
13.5) It is further submitted that due to personal requirements and to clear the debts, the plaintiff no.1 got executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff no.2 in respect of 255 sq. yards, which is part and parcel of the suit property under registered document no.10622/2014 and the symbolic possession was delivered in respect of the said property 34 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
and accordingly, the plaintiff no.2 is enjoying the said property.
Though the daughter of defendant had knowledge of the transaction and the various proceedings appears to have filed a suit vide
OS.No.1135/2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District against the defendant herein and her family members.
The plaintiff No.1 was deliberately not made a party to the said suit.
The above suit was compromised before the Lokadalath and an Award was passed on 07.02.2014 and as per the terms of the compromise recorded therein, the Defendant agreed to relinquish her share to an extent of 175 sq. yards out of 355 sq. yards in favour of her children.
13.6)It is further submitted that the Award passed by the defendant No.5 shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court u/s.
21/(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The Award is obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and thus, the same is vitiated on the ground of illegality and ill propriety. It is a collusive one. The Plaintiffs are meted with the injustice at the behest of the Defendant and her family members who are connived and colluded parties, the Award passed by the Lokadalth is not binding on the plaintiffs, as such the plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration against the said Award vide OS
No. 944 of 2014 on the file of V Addl. Dist. Judge, R R Dist., and the 35 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
same is pending. Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant herein has filed a suit, being O.S. No. 606 of 2014 on the file of the IV
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the plaintiff
No.1 for cancellation of the Registered A.G.P.A., dated 06.01.2014 executed by her infavour of plaintiff.no.1.
13.7)It is further submitted that the applications for ad-interim injunction filed by the defendant in the said suit vide IA.No. 569/2014 and IA.No.575/2014 were dismissed on contest on 15-07-2014 against the said orders, she has not preferred any appeal, which also proves the possession of the plaintiffs. Thus the plaintiffs being the absolute owners are entitle to act as per their will and wish in legal manner and the defendant's possession to the extent of (2) bed rooms, one Hall and kitchen is only permissive, which is also completed from 01-03-2014 and her possession is comes under illegal occupation, as such the plaintiffs are entitle for mesne profits for an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month from 1-03-2014 till vacating the suit schedule premises.
13.8)It is further submitted that the plaintiff no.1 got issued legal notice to the defendant on 10-06-2014 by RPAD and call upon her to pay the arrears of mean profits @ Rs.20,000/- P M from 1-03-2014 till 36 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
that date and to vacate and handover the physical possession of suit schedule premises. But inspite of receipt of notice, defendant did not replied. Hence the suit.
14)Defendant filed written statement, following are brief facts:
14.1)That the defendant denied the plaint averments and submitted that plaintiffs got filed a false criminal case against the defendant herein under force and coercion by influencing the police took the signatures of the defendant in P.S and at 5:30 pm thereby took the defendant by giving life threat to Sub-Registrar Office and got registered the said document, which is null and void under the law as such this defendant filed a suit for cancellation of said document.
Infact the defendant never signed the said document with her free will and consent.
14.2)It is further submitted that the defendant is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of entire property admeasuring 355 sq.yards and she is receiving the rents from the tenants, as such question of illegal occupation of the defendant does not attract, that the defendant’s daughter is having right and share in that property.
There is no cause of action to file the present suit, plaintiffs 37 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
misconceived and misrepresented the facts hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
15) Basing on the above pleadings following issues are framed for trial:
1) Whether the defendant is liable to vacate the schedule property and hand over the possession of schedule property to the plaintiff?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of Rs.2,00,000/- from defendant?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.20,000/- per month towards mesne profits from the defendant?
4) To what relief ?
16)During the Course of Trial, Plaintiff.no.1 is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to 5 documents. Plaintiff.no.2 also examined as
P.W.2. On the other hand, Defendant counsel filed a memo representing that the plaintiff’s evidence adduced in OS.No.606/2014 can be treated as Defendant’s evidence in the present suit.
Issues.no.1 and 2 in OS.No.606/2014:
17)Plaintiff filed the suit seeking cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA vide document no.298/2014 dated 06.01.2014 (Ex.B1) registered at Sub-Registrar office, L.B Nagar R.R District and also 38 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
cancellation of subsequent transactions if any in pursuance of above said ASGPA as null and void.
18)During the course of trial, for plaintiff, Pw1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to 11 are marked. For defendant, Dw1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to 10 are marked. Elder son of plaintiff by name Dinesh
Kumar is examined as Pw2. The mediator for agreement transaction by name M.Rama Krishna Reddy is examined as Dw2.
19)Admittedly both plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013 i.e., Ex.B5 for selling suit schedule property total admeasuring 355 sq.yds and at that time the plaintiff herein represented herself as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and offered to sell the same to the defendant herein for total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/-, and on the date of agreement defendant paid advance consideration of Rs.22,11,000/- to the plaintiff and after receipt of the amount, plaintiff passed a receipt i.e., Ex.B6 acknowledging the advance amount. The Plaintiff has admitted execution of Agreement of sale and receipt on 13.06.2013 infavour of the defendant.
39 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
20)Later, according to the defendant, at the time of entering into agreement of sale, the plaintiff had not disclosed about taking loan amount from city bank, Begumpet branch, Hyderabad by mortgaging suit schedule property and for that loan her daughter by name
Jyotsna stood as co-obligant. Though the plaintiff denied the same on perusal of Ex.B5 it was not mentioned about the mortgage of schedule property in the said agreement. The plaintiff explained that she orally informed to the defendant about the mortgage loan. But it is not acceptable. Further in Ex.B5 at clause no.5 it was clearly mentioned as follows ‘the vendor assures the purchaser that there are no encumbrances, charges, mortgages or subsisting agreement of sale etc., in respect of said property in favor of any person.’ Thus the plaintiff made the defendant to believe that suit schedule property free from all encumbrances and thereby made him to enter into agreement with her. No doubt it amounts to suppression of fact. PW.2 also admitted said suppression of material facts in Ex.B5.
21)Admittedly for release of schedule property from mortgage the defendant paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff and inturn the plaintiff paid the same in the bank and also passed a 40 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
receipt I.e,. Ex.B7 dated 14.08.2013 to the defendant. But the plaintiff denied receipt of another Rs.3,00,000/- from the defendant on 26.08.2013 and passed a receipt to that affect i.e., Ex.B8. However husband of plaintiff by name K. Dileep Kumar and Dw2 are witnesses for Ex.B8. According to the plaintiff, she received Rs.50,000/- only on 14.08.2013. But Ex.B7 proves defendant’s case.
22)After receiving above said amounts from the defendant, the plaintiff seems to have got issued Ex.A1 legal notice dated 04.10.2013 canceling agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013. Though the defendant gave reply notice dated 12.10.2013 (Ex.A2) along with draft sale deed copy expressing his readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration amount and to get registered sale deed, the defendant denied receipt of that notice. But the counsel for plaintiff received the same. However Pw2 son of the plaintiff admitted about Defendant giving said notice. The defendant said to have got issued another notice dated 06.09.2013 to the plaintiff, but she refused. The defendant also got send that notice copy to her elder son through E-
Mail and Pw2 also admitted the same.
41 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
23)The main grounds basing upon which the plaintiff seeking cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA dated 06.01.2014 (Ex.B1) is: 1) that the defendant failed to pay balance consideration amount within stipulated period. Though in Ex.B5 time prescribed getting registration in (3) months. From the conduct of parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the time is not essence of contract. Further as per clause.no.2, the Agreement is subjected to the Title of the property being approved by the purchaser. Further the plaintiff received part payments from the defendant through Ex.B7 to 9 receipts. As such she cannot contend that the defendant is not ready to perform his part of contract.
24)Another ground basing upon which the plaintiff seeking cancellation of Ex.B1 is that her daughter by name Jyotsna has share in the schedule property. Admittedly in Ex.B5 no where it is mentioned that with the amount and gold given by mother of plaintiff to be used for the benefit of plaintiff’s daughter Jyotsna, the plaintiff had purchased suit schedule property in her name. The said fact is also not disclosed either in the Ex.A1 legal notice given to the defendant and in the plaint also. Similarly in Ex.B5 it is not disclosed 42 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
that the plaintiff’s daughter has got a share in the schedule property which the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant. Though the plaintiff said in her Cross-examination that she orally informed the said fact to the defendant it is not convincing.
25)Subsequently when the plaintiff did not turned up to register the property the defendant filed a private complaint before XI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad and got forwarded his complaint to Sarrornagar
Police Station who registered Crime No.784/2013 for offence
U/Sec.420 & 120(b) IPC, on that the plaintiff and her family members came forward for settlement and plaintiff agreed to register part of schedule property to adjust to the payment made by the defendant to her and accordingly executed memorandum of understanding on 06.01.2014 i.e., Ex.B4. The plaintiff also denied that fact and contending that by putting her family members under fear of implicating in false criminal cases and by pressure of police, the defendant got obtained Ex.B4 from her and in pursuance thereof the defendant took the plaintiff and her elder son to Sub Registrar office,
L.B.Nagar and made her to execute agreement of sale cum GPA dated 43 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
06.01.2014 i.e,. Ex.B1. Thereafter Crime.no.784/2013 was settled
before Lok Adalath and Award was passed i.e. Ex.B3.
26)The plaintiff further pleaded that on 05.01.2014 police
Sarrornagar apprehended her and her family members and detained them in Police Station from 09.30 Am onwards and putting them under threat, coercion without showing arrest and created life threat to her family members and the defendant herein with the help of police got executed Ex.B4 MOU at Police Station at 11.30 Am and later she was taken to Sub Registrar office, L.B Nagar and by putting her husband and elder son (PW.2) under threat got executed Ex.B1,
ASGPA. But PW.2 signed as one of identifying witness for Ex.B1. It seems that whatever the allegations made by the plaintiff against the defendant and police concerned are serious in nature. So it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish alleged circumstances prevailing at the time of executing Ex.B1 and B4, then only she can entitled for relief of cancellation of those documents. After execution of Ex.B1 on 06.01.2014 on the next day i.e., on 07.01.2014 Criminal case in Crime
NO.784/2013 was compounded before Lok Adalat and Ex.A3/B3 is the said award. But the plaintiff did not dispute Ex.A3/B3; as she 44 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
was acquitted in that criminal case. Said compromise was done only inview of execution of Ex.B1.
27)If really the plaintiff was forced to execute Ex.B1 and B4 in the above stated circumstances on 06.01.2014, when she was appeared
before Lok Adalat on 07.01.2014 nothing prevent her to complain
about the execution of Ex.B1 to the presiding officer and members of
Lok Adalat bench. But she did not do so. Unless, the plaintiff executed
Ex.B1, defendant will not accept to compound the criminal case, as such the plaintiff after compounding of criminal case, came up with this suit. Further more the elder son of plaintiff also signed as identifying witness for Ex.B1 document along with Dw2.
28)Coming to the evidence of Pw2 who is son of the plaintiff and one of identifying witness to Ex.B1. He categorically admits about his mother agreeing to sell suit schedule property to the defendant for total consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/- under Ex.B5. He further admitted that along with himself, his another brother and their father
Dileep Kumar were signatories to Ex.B5. He also admitted that his mother received Rs.22,11,000/- from the defendant under Ex.B6 receipt. By that time daughter of plaintiff namely Jyothsna resides at 45 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
Singapore. He also admits about plaintiff paying Rs.50,00,000/- at Citi bank towards loan obtained over suit schedule property and her mother issuing Ex.B7 receipt on 14.08.2013. At that time also, the plaintiff did not reveal about the claim of her daughter over suit schedule property.
29)However both plaintiff and her son denied receipt of
Rs.3,00,000/- from the defendant on 26.08.2013 and plaintiff passing receipt vide Ex.B8. The defendant also produced another receipt dated 06.01.2014 vide Ex.B9 which shows that by then the plaintiff received total consideration amount Rs.77,11,000/- out of 82,68,464/- from the defendant towards part payment of sale consideration amount and balance amount is Rs.5,57,464/- which is agreed to be paid after vacating the premises by 01.03.2014. it is pertinent to mention here that though under Ex.B1 the schedule property mentioned to be handed over to the defendant, they have entered into Ex.B4 MOU on the same day under which the plaintiff agreed to vacate the ground floor premises by 01.03.2014. This averment is substantiated by
Ex.B9 receipt. In continuation thereof on 09.01.2014 the plaintiff received Rs.57,464/- by way of cheque no.704010 and remaining 46 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
balance in cash and issued a Receipt i.e., Ex.B10. Pw2 is a witness for
Ex.B10. But the plaintiff and her son simply alleged that Ex.B7 to 10 documents are created documents. But they have not taken any steps to prove their contention. They did not take any steps to send those documents to the hand writing expert for comparison of their disputed signatures.
30)Thus the record shows that after receiving considerable amounts from the defendant, the plaintiff seems to have managed her daughter
Jyotsna and get issued legal notice dated 28.08.2013 i.e., Ex.A4 claiming her share to the extent of 175 Sq.yds over suit schedule property, as contended by the defendant which is unfair and unjust.
Even though, the plaintiff’s daughter without impleading this defendant filed a suit in O.S No.1135/2013 against her mother and brothers seeking partition of schedule property. The plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to say that having knowledge of her claim in suit schedule property, the defendant entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff that as per Ex.B5 total consideration of amount is Rs.1,15,11,000/- where as in Ex.B1 it 47 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
was only 51,00,000/- which is not sufficient to cancel the document as it is sham.
31)As per the documents produced before the court, as on 26.08.2013 the defendant paid and plaintiff received more than
Rs.75,00,000/- to purchase the schedule property. But on 28.08.2013 itself plaintiff’s daughter got issued Ex.A4 legal notice to both plaintiff and defendant. And there after, on 04.10.2013 only the plaintiff herein got issued Ex.A1 legal notice canceling agreement of sale which depicts the malafied intention of the plaintiff causing loss to the defendant.
32)During the course of defendant side evidence, defendant himself examined as Dw1 and got examined M. Rama Krishna Reddy as Dw2.
Though the counsel for plaintiff cross examined them at length, no material has been elicited in favor of the plaintiff. As there is no document available which shows the daughter of plaintiff as owner of suit schedule property, the defendant has no occasion to anticipate the right and claim of said Jyotsna in schedule property at the time of entering into Agreement of sale. Without his knowledge said Jyotsna filed partition suit vide O.S No.1135/2013 against her mother and brothers they both have compromised the suit and got forwarded the 48 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
suit to Lok Adalat and obtained compromise decree dated 07.02.2014 (this defendant already filed another suit in O.S No.994/2014 to declare said award as null and void and not binding on him). After knowing said fact this defendant filed I.A No.723/2014 in I.A
No.126/2014 filed for passing final decree but it was dismissed with observation that the agreement holder can agitate his rights in a separate suit. Dw1 admits that though he preferred appeal/revision against said dismissal order before Hon’ble High Court, it was also dismissed.
33)It is suggested to Dw1 that in view of pendency of partition suit, the suit schedule property cannot be transferred to the defendant which is not valid contention. The plaintiff already conveyed interest and possession to the defendant through Ex.B1. By virtue of the same the defendant became absolute owner and possessor of the property and the defendant also alienated the property to P. Santosha (Plaintiff
No.2 in O.S No.994/2014) through registered sale deed dated 16.07.2014. DW.1 denied existence of all alleged suspicious circumstances prevail at the time of execution of Ex.B1 as suggested to him. After dismissal of I.A.No.569/2014 and 575/2014 filed by the 49 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
plaintiff for temporary injunction, this defendant alienated suit schedule property.
34)Coming to the evidence of Dw2 who is doing real-estate business and his evidence shows that Pw2 himself came to his office with proposal to sell their house plot and before entering into agreement defendant and himself (DW.2) verified Xerox copies of sale deeds and bank statement but they have not obtained any legal opinion. This
Dw2 stood as identifying witness for Ex.B1 and witness for Ex.B5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 documents. So he has enough knowledge about entire transaction between the parties.
35)Plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant pressed into service several forged and fabricated documents. But she has not taken any steps to prove her plea of forgery. Mere allegation without proving is not acceptable. Another contention that Ex.B1 does not create any marketable title to the defendant in any manner. But under Ex.B1 the defendant was delivered physical possession of property along with interest and authorization to collect rents and also to enter into any transaction with third party as agent of the plaintiff.
50 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
36)As Plaintiff’s daughter/Jyotsna was working as software employee and since plaintiff is real owner, for prompt payments, she might have stood as co-obligant for mortgage loan over suit schedule property. On this ground, claim of plaintiff’s daughter for a share in the property is not acceptable.
37)On thorough analysis of oral and documentary evidence as seen so far, it can be concluded that in view of plaintiff executing Ex.B1 only, the defendant compromised the criminal case in crime no.784/2013 with the plaintiff before the Lok Adalat on 07.01.2014. If really the plaintiff was forced to execute Ex.B1 and B4 on 06.01.2014 in the circumstances she narrates in the Plaint, nothing prevent her either to complain to superior officers of police, Sarrornagar or concerned authorities and atleast she should have informed before
Lok Adalat bench on 07.01.2014. But she remain silent nearly for 4 months 15 days and as an after thought filed present suit on 22.05.2014. If the plaintiff being a woman hesitate to compliant to competent authorities against the defendant for forcible registration atleast her husband or her sons would have complained to concerned authorities alleging that the defendant with the help of police 51 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
Sarrornagar by putting plaintiff’s family members under fear and threat got executed Ex.B1 and B4 documents. But they did not do so.
It appears as contented by the defendant that after clearance of loan amount only, to avoid conveyance and to cause loss to the defendant, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A4 legal notice through her daughter
Jyotsna raising false claim over the property. Even after issuance of
Ex.A4 notice, Plaintiff received amounts towards part payment from the defendant. According to PW.2, his sister Jyotsna came to know defendant’s address through his mother only. The record shows that the defendant is a bonafide purchaser and the plaintiff voluntarily executed Ex.B1 and B4 documents. Further the plaintiff even did not complain to the Sub Registrar, L.B.Nagar that her family members were detained at Police station and she was forced to execute Ex.B1.
Thus, whatever the allegations made by the plaintiff are remain unproved. The contention of the plaintiff that she has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property till date of filing the suit is inconsistent with the documents. As the plaintiff was original owner of the property Ex.A5 to A9 documents shows that schedule property house stands in her name, But Ex.A10/3rd party (tenants) Affidavits are inadmissible in evidence.
52 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
38)When Ex.B1 and B4 executed on 06.01.2014 till filing this suit on 22.05.2014, the plaintiff and her family members keep quiet without raising any objection on execution of Ex.B1 and B4. The counsel for plaintiff also filed written arguments by extracting some admissions elicited from cross examination of Dw1. But those are not useful to the plaintiff to make her case reliable. Though it is admitted that on 05.01.2014 the plaintiff and her family members were apprehended by the police in a cheating case filed by the defendant, the defendant clearly explained that after release from the police station, the plaintiff executed the documents. Basing on the complaint filed by the defendant police might have called the plaintiff to the police station and police did not arrest them and there is no admissible evidence to show that as on the date of executing Ex.B1 and B4, plaintiff or her family members detained in the police station.
Though the defendant admitted that the plaintiff and her family members were detained in police station for one day only and it might be on 05.01.2014. And police might have send them away in view of plaintiff agreeing to convey the property to the defendant. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff is insufficient to held that Ex.B1 was not executed with free will and concent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed 53 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
to prove that the defendant entered into agreement of sale on 13.06.2013 having knowledge of Lok Adalat award dated 07.02.2013 passed in O.S No.1135/2013 in between the plaintiff and her daughter. The plaintiff also failed to prove that she has entered into
MOU dated 06.01.2014 (Ex.B4) under the influence of police. PW.2 said that his brother, father, plaintiff and he signed on MOU, but did not said that it was executed at police station under the pressure and threat from police. In view of Ex.B1 there is no necessity for the defendant to seek specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013. So the contention of the plaintiff that ‘instead of filing suit for specific performance, the defendant resorted to filing criminal cases and pressurize the plaintiff’ is not tenable. The aggrieved person can resort to either civil or criminal cases which is available under law for remedy. Nobody can compel that he should resort to go to civil court only. The defendant clearly said that for his necessities and to clear debts, he sold away suit schedule property on 16.07.2014 to the 2nd plaintiff in O.S No.994/2014 and from this alienation we need not attribute any malafied intention to him.
54 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
39)The another contention of plaintiff as to financial capacity of the defendant also not tenable. Plaintiff further alleged that on 04.10.2013, defendant threatened the plaintiff and her family and also beat PW.2, but no complaint was given to the police on that incident.
40) Thus the contents of written arguments are nothing but misconception of facts and having no merits, accordingly rejected. The grounds given by the plaintiff are insufficient to cancel Ex.B1.
41)So by considering the entire record this court held that the plaintiff failed to make out her case to get decree of her suit. Hence she is not entitled for decree of her suit. Accordingly issues 1 and 2 are answered.
Issue no.3 in OS.No.606/2014:
42)Plaintiff paid sufficient court fee and the court also accepted the same at the time of registering the suit. The objection of the defendant as to payment of court fee is not valid. Accordingly this issue is answered.
Issue.No.1 in OS.No.994/2014:
43)Plaintiffs filed this suit to declare the award dated 07.02.2014 passed by Lok adalath in OS.No.1135/2013, on the file of V Addl.
55 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
District Judge, L.B.Nagar at R.R.District (Ex.A9) as null and void and
not binding on them and for perpetual injunction.
44)Def.no.2 to 4 are children of Def.no.1. but only def.no.2 is contesting the suit proceedings.
45)During the course of trial, both plaintiffs examined as PW.1 and
Pw2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A21 documents.
46)The chief affidavit of PW.1 is similar to plaint averments.
Admittedly, defendant.no.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of house premises bg.no.10-1-70/1/A total admeasuring 355 sq.yards in plot.no.59 in sy.no.29 and 72, situated at Bhagyanagar colongy,
Lingojiguda, Saroornagar Mandal which is fully described in Plaint schedule.
47)Admittedly, 1st defendant entered into agreement of sale i.e.
Ex.A12 dated 13.06.2013 in respect of that property to sell to plaintiff.no.1 for total consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/-. On the date of agreement of sale plaintiff.no.1 paid advance consideration of
Rs.22,11,000/- and after receipt of the same def.no.1 passed a receipt separately which is enclosed to Ex.A12. The husband, both sons of 56 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
def.no.1 and one M.R.K.Reddy stood as witnesses to Ex.A12 transaction.
48)Later, according to the plaintiff.no.1 he was informed that suit schedule property was mortgaged to Citi Bank, Begumpet Hyderabad and def.no.1 demanded plaintiff.no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.50 lakhs to redeem the property. As he has no other option plaintiff.no.1 paid
Rs. 50 lakhs on 14.08.2013 at Citi Bank Premises and after receipt of the amount, def.no.1 also passed another receipt i.e., Ex.A13. Elder son of def.no.1 by name Dinesh Kumar who is def.no.3 herein and
MRK. Reddy signed as witnesses for Ex.A13. It is the contention of the plaintiff.no.1 that def.no.1 had suppressed fact of mortgaging the schedule property to Citi Bank at the time of entering into agreement of sale with him. This contention of plaintiff is substantiated by clause.no.5 of Ex.A12 that ‘the vendor who is def.no.1 herein assures the purchaser who is plaintiff.no.1 herein that there are encumbrances, charges, mortgages or subsisting agreement of sale, etc., inrespect of the said property in favour of any person’.
49) It is further case of the plaintiff, that subsequent to payment of Rs.50 lakhs, on demand by def.no.1 he paid another Rs.3 lakhs on 57 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
26.08.2013 towards part payment of sale consideration amount for which def.no.1 also passed a receipt i.e. Ex.A14 which was also attested by husband of def.no.1 herein and M.Rama Krishna Reddy.
Thereby plaintiff.no.1 paid total amount of Rs.75,11,000/- and is willing and ready to pay balance consideration amount, but def.no1 is avoiding to register the property on one or other pretext as such plaintiff.no.1 got issued legal notice dated 06.09.2013 to def.no.1 but she refused the same. On 07.09.2013 also above notice was sent to def.no.3 at his email address and followed by SMS to husband of def.no.1 and her two sons who are def.no.3 and 4.
50)While so, def.no.2 who is daughter of def.no.1 started making claim to an extent of 175 sq.yards of suit schedule property and she got issued legal notice dated 28.08.2013 to the plaintiff. For that def.no.1 got issued reply dated 11.09.2013. Plaintiff.no.1 also got issued suitable reply on 06.09.2013. The above said claim of def.no.2 is false and both def.no.1 and 2 colluded together to defeat the claim of plaintiff.no.1 and on that pretext def.no.1 postponing performance of contract. On 12.10.2013 Plaintiff.no.1 got issued legal notice I.e Ex.A4 to def.no.1 and her counsel enclosing with draft sale deed calling upon 58 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
her to come forward to register the property, but def.no.1 refused to take said notice, however her counsel received.
51)Vexed with the attitude of the def.no.1, plaintiff.no.1 filed a private complaint against def.no.1 to 4 before XI M.M, Hyderabad which was referred to Police Saroornagar who registered the case in crime.no.784/2013 for offence U/Sec.420 and 120(b) IPC. While the investigation under progress the defendants proposed for settlement and after deliberations an MOU was drawn on 06.01.2014 i.e., Ex.A11 wherein def.no.1 undertook to convey an extent of 255 sq.yards only out of 355 sq.yards property for the amount already received by her from plaintiff.no.1. Accordingly on the same day def.no.1 executed an registered agreement of sale cum GPA with possession vide doc.no.298/2014 i.e., Ex.A1 infavour of plaintiff.no.1. Symbolic possession was delivered and the tenants are paying rents to the plaintiffs. By virtue of execution of said deed compromise was recorded before Lok Adalath in crime.no.784/2013 and Ex.A6 is the award passed in crime.no.784/2013.
52)Later due to personal requirements and to clear the debts plaintiff.no.1 alienated said property infavour of plaintiff.no.2 through 59 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
Ex.A2 registered sale deed on 16.07.2014 and since then plaintiff.no.2 is enjoying the suit schedule property.
53)It is further pleaded that 2nd defendant had knowledge of the transaction and various proceedings filed a suit in OS.No.1135/2013 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, R.R.District against def.no.1, 3 and 4 seeking partition of house premises total extent of 355 sq.yards without impleading plaintiff.no.1 as a party to that suit. Said suit was compromised before Lok Adalth and an Award was passed on 07.02.2014 i.e., Ex.A9 under which def.no.1 agreed to relinquish her share to an extent of 175 sq.yards and the defendants have obtained said award by misrepresenting the facts and playing fraud and it is collusive. The plaintiff.no.1 appeared before Hon’ble High Court by filing WP.No.20420/2014 to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the
Award as unjust, contrary to law and unconstitutional. The Hon’ble
High Court disposed the same stating that as per Sec.21 of Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 award passed by Lok Adalath is final and plaintiff.no.1 herein is not party to the Award and so playing fraud and misrepresentation does not arise and the plaintiff.no.1 has remedies available under Law. Ex.A8 is the copy of said order. As such he filed 60 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
present suit. Def.no.1 also filed a suit in OS.no.606/2014 on the file of
IV Addl. District Judge, R.R.District for cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA dated 06.01.2014 ( which is transferred to this court to dispose along with the present suit).
54)Def.no.2 filed written statement denying plaint averments and also denied the allegation of plaintiffs as to obtaining Lok Adalath
Award in OS.No.1135/2013 collusively. Her contention is that during her childhood her grand mother (mother of def.no.1) by name
Jangamma out of love and affection gave cash Rs.1,50,000/- and 4 tulas gold to def.no.1 with an intention to utilize the same for welfare of def.no.2. Said Jangamma died in December 1985. Later, in the year 1995 def.no.1 purchased plot.no.59 with that cash and gold from
K.Varalakshmi through registered sale deed dated 31.05.1995 and
Plaintiff filed copy of said document i.e., Ex.A10. Thereafter Father of def.no.2 constructed a house consists of G + 2 floors in that plot.no.59. Since from 2005 onwards, def.no.2 working as software employee and earning. In the year 2009 when def.no.1 facing financial problems, def.no.2 gave Rs.15 lakhs amount to def.no.1 and at that time def.no.1 agreed to relinquish her share to an extent of 175 61 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
sq.yards in suit schedule property infavour of def.no.2. Def.no.2 also mortgaged the property and availed loan of Rs.53,50,000/- and she is paying EMI at Rs.78,000/-. When def.no.2 demanded def.no.1 to execute partition deed def.no.1 is dragging as such def.no.2 filed
OS.no.1135/2013 for partition and a preliminary decree was passed
and application for passing final decree is pending. Though the plaintiff.no.1 herein filed a petition to implead him in that I.A, it was dismissed (Ex.A18). Def.no.2 finally said that the present suit is filed by suppressing real facts hence it is liable to be dismissed.
55)During the course of defendant’s side evidence, a memo was filed to adopt the evidence adduced in OS.No.606/2014 as defendant’s evidence in the present suit. OS.no.606/2014 was filed by Kamini
Bharathi alone against plaintiff.no.1 herein. But said Bharathi remained exparte in the present suit. Though def.no.1 filed an
I.A.No.113/2025 at fag end stage to set aside exparte order passed against her in the present suit, it was dismissed on 28.03.2025.
Further 2nddefendant in present suit is not a party in
OS.No.606/2014. As such the plaintiff‘s (K.Bharathi) evidence
adduced in OS.no.606/2014 cannot be adopted in the present suit.
62 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
However, 2nd defendant who is contesting the suit cross examined PW1 and 2.
56)From cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited that PW.1 is doing construction business in the name of “Rams Infra Developers”. He denied the suggestion that he has no right to transfer the property infavor of plaintiff.no.2 through Ex.A2. By virtue of Ex.A1, as per clause.no.3 physical possession of schedule property was delivered to plaintiff.no.1 on 06.01.2014 itself. As per clause.no.11, plaintiff.no.1 is authorized to enter into agreement of sale with prospective third party purchasers and receive consideration amount. As per clause.no.12 plaintiff.no.1 was appointed as lawful agent of def.no.1.
As such, plaintiff.no.1 has absolute power with interest being lawful agent of def.no.1 to deal with the property. Therefore, this contention is accordingly answered.
57)2nd Plaintiff also examined as Pw.2 and her chief affidavit is similar to the plaint. Before purchasing schedule property from plaintiff.no.1 she did not entered into any agreement with
Plaintiff.no1. She has no knowledge about previous transactions inrespect of suit schedule property in between plaintiff.no.1 and 63 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
def.no.1. But she know the fact that out of 355 sq.yards owned by def.no.1 and plaintiff.no.1 purchased 255 sq.yards only through Ex.A1 and basing on the same, plaintiff.no.1 sold away said property to her.
She do not aware of other contentions of the defendant.no.2 that her grand mother gave some cash and gold to her mother/def.no.1 and with that cash and gold, def.no.1 purchased suit schedule property in the year 1995 and other financial transactions in between def.no1 and 2 and availing mortgage loan from the bank and filing
OS.no.1135/2013 against def.no.1 and entered into compromise etc.,
facts. She denied other suggestions. In re-examination she explained that two months after execution of Ex.A2 she came to know about alleged mortgage loan.
58)Another contention of def.no.2 is that by virtue of Ex.A2, plaintiff.no.1 seized to be owner of suit schedule property as such as on the date of filing suit he has no locus standi to file the suit. It is fact that on 16.07.2014, plaintiff.no.1 alienated suit schedule property infavor of plaintiff.no.2. The suit in OS.No.994/2014 was filed on 10.09.2014. But as per clause.no.6 of Ex.A2, the vendor i.e.
Plaintiff.no.1 agreed to co-operate with the purchaser who is 64 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
plaintiff.no.2 to get the title transferred and to do all such acts and deeds enabling the purchaser to enjoy the property peacefully.
Therefore there is no illegality in filing the suit by plaintiff.no.1 along with plaintiff.no.2.
59)Furthermore, on the date of executing Ex.A1 itself, def.no.1 and plaintiff.no.1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding i.e.,
Ex.A11. There is reference about execution of Agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013 executed in favour of plaintiff.no.1 for total consideration of Rs.1,15,11,000/-. It was also mentioned there that plaintiff.no.1 paid Rs.75,11,000/- to def.no.1 towards advance consideration amount. Further referred about filing OS.No.1135/2013 by def.no.2 against def.no.1, 3 and 4 inview of misunderstandings in their family.
As per clause.no.5 of MOU, def.no.1 herein agreed to vacate her portion by 01.03.2014. It appears that though def.no.1 executed
Ex.A1 on 06.01.2014 both parties agreed to vacate and handover the premises by 01.03.2014. Under clause.no.4 of MOU, plaintiff.no.1 herein was permitted to collect monthly rents from the tenants of suit premises from the date of registration of sale deed. As per clause.no.7, plaintiff.no.1 agreed to adjust any extent of land to def.no.2 herein if 65 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
the court decide her share more than 100 sq.yards out of his 255 sq.yards. As per clause.no.8, def.no.1 agreed to compensate plaintiff.no.1 to the extent of land given to def.no.2 herein, as per market value. As per clause.no.12, plaintiff.no.1 shall not deal with third parties in any manner over schedule property and in case they dealt with this MOU shall be binding on third party. As per clause.no.14 original documents of the property lies with Citi Bank,
Begumpet and after releasing the property def.no.2 agreed to hand over the documents to plaintiff.no.1. If said MOU was got executed at
Police Station, nothing prevent the def.no.1 or her family members to give complaint to superior officers or to Presiding Officer of Lok
Adalath, on next day at the time of settlement of criminal case.
60)Since def.no.1 remained exparte, def.no.2 is not proper and competent person to dispute the contents of Ex.A1, A11 and A12 documents for which def.no.2 is not a party. Further, in reply notice sent to def.no.2, def.no.1 admitted as to execution of agreement of sale
dated 13.06.2013 infavour of plaintiff.no.1 and denied the claim of
def.no.2 over suit schedule property. Further plaintiffs are not parties to suit in OS.No.1135/2013 and the Award passed by Lok-Adalath 66 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
therein. Therefore, it can be said that by suppressing the fact of execution of agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013, both def.no.1 and 2 have obtained Preliminary decree by way of Award before Lok Adalath.
61)On perusal of evidence of plaintiff adduced in OS.No.606/2014 who is def.no.1 herein categorically admitted about execution of agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013 and receipt of consideration amount from plaintiff.no.1. Def.no.1 herein who filed I.A.No. 575/2014 and 569/2014 in O.S.No.606/ 2014 for granting temporary injunction restraining plaintiff.no.1 herein from interfering into her possession and from alienating suit schedule property. But those two applications were dismissed vide orders dated 15.07.2014 i.e., Ex.A3 and A7 herein.
62)Ex.A5 is copy of Affidavit filed by a tenant by name V.Pranathi supporting def.no.1 herein in OS.no.606/2014. But said document is inadmissible in evidence as the plaintiffs have not chosen to examine said Pranathi before the Court.
63)Having admitted under MOU/Ex.A11 def.no.1 agreed to handover possession of 255 sq.yards along with house and shops exists therein to plaintiff.no.1. The husband and both sons of def.no.1 67 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
herein are signatories to said MOU. But now, def.no.1 herein disputing the genuineness of terms of MOU. After receiving
Rs,77,11,000/- from plaintiff.no.1 towards part payment of sale consideration amount def.no.1 passed a receipt dated 06.01.2014 vide
Ex.A15 on the same day of execution of Ex.A11 MOU.Under Ex.A16, def.no.1 received Rs.57, 464/- by way of cheque.no.704010 from plaintiff.no.1 towards part payment of receipt dated 06.01.2014 (Ex.A15) Def.no.3 herein is signatory to this receipt.
64)Further Ex.A17 and A20 shows that Police filed final result in crime.no.369/2014 of P.S.Saroornagar which was registered on the complaint of plaintiff.no.1 herein for offence U/sec. 420, 406, 464, 471 & 506, 120B IPC r/w 34 IPC against def.no.1, her husband and her children who are def.no.2 to def.no.4. It also shows that def.no.2 herein/K.Jyostna shown as A5 found absconding in the charge sheet filed before XI M.M Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. Ex.A18 is the copy of order passed in IA.No.723/2014 in I.A.No.126/2014 in O.S.No.1135/ 2013 which was filed by plaintiff.no.1 herein under Order I Rule 10 r/w Sec.151 CPC to implead him as R4 in final decree petition but it was dismissed with observation that the remedy left for the petitioner 68 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
is to file a separate suit. Ex.A19 is the copy of Affidavit of plaintiff.no.1 herein filed in above said I.A. Ex.A21 is copy of counter of def.no.2 herein filed in I.A.No.126/2014.
65)To sum up from above discussion it makes clear that by suppressing the fact of execution of agreement of sale infavour of plaintif.no.1, both def.no.1 and 2 have obtained Award/Preliminary decree dated 07.02.2014 in OS.No.1135/2013 from Lok Adalath.
Plaintiff.no.1 is not made as a party to that suit. Def.no.1 having knowledge of existence of agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013 obtained
Award by colluding with her daughter to defeat the right of the plaintiff.no.1. 2nd defendant also got issued legal notice dated 28.08.2013 to plaintiff.no.1 claiming share in suit schedule property, thereby she got knowledge about the agreement exists infavour of plaintiff.no.1. Even though without revealing the same, she got Award in partition suit by colluding with her mother/Def.no.1. Def.no.1 also executed registered agreement of GPA with possession dated 06.01.2014 i.e. Ex.A1 infavour of plaintiff.no.1 and in addition to that also executed MOU dated 06.01.2014 i.e., Ex.A11. Without disclosing execution of these two documents, def.no.1 and 2 have obtained Award 69 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
dated 07.02.2014 as such no doubt, said Award does not binds the
plaintiffs. Accordingly Issue.no.1 is answered.
Issue.No.2 in O.S.No.994/2014 :
66)As per Ex.A1, in particular clause.no.3 therein physical possession of property was delivered to plaintiff.no.1 on the date of execution of Ex.A1 itself. As per clause.no.11 thereof, plaintiff.no.1 is authorised to enter into agreement of sale with prospective third party purchasers and to receive consideration amount. As per clause.no.4 there are no legal impediments to sell the schedule property. Being agent of def.no.1 having delivered physical possession of property, plaintiff.no.1 alienated the suit schedule property infavour of plaintiff.no.2 through Ex.A2 on 16.07.2014. It is the obligation of plaintiff.no.1 to convey title as well as peaceful possession to the purchaser and to remove all obstacles which comes in the way.
According to plaintiffs, on 07.09.2014 and 08.09.2014, the defendants and their Associates causing interference to possession of plaintiffs.
Therefore, both plaintiffs praying for granting permanent injunction against all the defendants. Inview of observation in above issue, as it is proved that possession of property was delivered to the plaintiffs, 70 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
they are entitled for enjoyment of the property peacefully, so they are entitled for injunction. Accordingly issue.no.2 is answered.
Issue.no.3 in O.S.No.994/2014 :
67)In view of findings in above Issues, it is held that the plaintiffs made out their case and the suit of the plaintiffs can be decreed.
Accordingly this issue is answered.
Issue.No.1 in O.S.no.646/2023: ( Old OS.No.2114/2014) :
68)This suit is filed by same plaintiffs in OS.No.994/2014 against only defendant K.Bharathi for eviction and for arrears of rent and mesne profits.
69)During the course of trial, both plaintiffs themselves examined as
PW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. The defendant filed a memo to adopt her evidence adduced in OS.no.606/2014 as plaintiff therein as her evidence in the suit. In O.S.No.606/2014, the defendant herein and her son/Dinesh Kumar examined.
70)The pleadings of present suit are similar to the pleadings in
OS.no.606/2014 and 994/2014.
71 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
71)It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant initially entered into agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013 with plaintiff.no.1 herein agreed to sell house property total admeasuring 355 sq.yards.
But later the defendant executed Ex.A1/Agreement of sale cum GPA with possession dated 06.01.2014 to the extent of 255 sq.yards only in favour of the plaintiff.no.1. Though the defendant herein filed a suit in
OS.No.606/2014 for cancellation of above said Ex.A1 and its
subsequent transactions as null and void, in view of finding in issue.no.1 in OS.no.606/2014 the claim of the defendant herein is denied by this court. As such Ex.A1 is remain valid document and in force and is binding on the defendant. Though in Ex.A1 the possession of property was mentioned to be handed over to the plaintiff.no.1 on the date of execution of said document itself, on the same day by virtue of MOU dated 06.01.2014 which is marked as Ex.A11 in
OS.no.994/2014 the defendant agreed to vacate the ground floor
portion which is under occupation of the defendant and her family members which is shown as suit schedule property in the present suit, by 01.03.2014.
72 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
72)But the defendant failed to vacate the premises as agreed under
MOU by 01.03.2014. Instead she filed OS.no.606/2014 for cancellation of Ex.A1 document. In the said suit, the defendant herein also filed two applications vide IA.No.569/2014 and 575/2014 for granting temporary injunction in her favour against plaintiff.no.1 herein claiming possession over entire house property, but her two applications are dismissed and those order copies are marked as
Ex.A3 and A7 in OS.no.994/2014. Where it was observed that once the defendant herein appeared before Lok Adalath she might have inform to the Members of the Bench that ‘under coercion and threat she was forced to execute Ex.A1 document’ and ought to have explain the circumstances which forced her to accept compromise and to execute Ex.A1 and MOU. Until and unless those documents are cancelled legal right of plaintiff cannot be waived.
73)Hence the contentions of the defendant that she did not execute
Ex.A1 voluntarily and with free will and consent is not acceptable. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff filed a false case in crime.no.784/2013 i.e. Ex.A4. But she herself appeared before Lok
Adalath on 07.01.2014 for compromise of that crime. She did not 73 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
complain before Lok adalath that it was a false case. All the contentions which were taken in the written statement in this suit were answered and rejected by this court during appreciation of evidence in OS.No.606/2014. As per observation in Issue.no.1 in
OS.No.606/2014, this court denied to cancel Ex.A1 document and
disbelieved plaintiff’s examined in O.S.No.606/2014. As such once the defendant transferred house property which includes present suit schedule property to plaintiff.no.1, hence her claim that she is absolute owner and possessor of entire 355 sq.yards is not acceptable.
74)The plaintiff introduced a rental agreement dated 09.01.2014 (Ex.A5) executed in between K.Suresh and Plaintiff.no.1 herein which is in respect of one mulgi (shutter) two single bed room residential portion on monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- and the lease is for a period of 11 months. It shows that plaintiff,.no.1 is landlord of premises bg.H.no.10-1-70/1A admeasuring 255 sq.yards. Though the counsel for defendant cross examined Plaintiff.no.1/PW.1 no single suggestion put forth disputing Ex.A5 document. Therefore it can be held that by virtue of Ex.A1, plaintiff.no.1 became absolute owner of suit schedule property and collecting rents from the tenants.
74 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
75)2nd plaintiff also examined as PW.2 and her evidence is similar to the evidence adduced in OS.No.994/2014. By virtue of Ex.A2 registered sale deed she is claiming 255 sq.yards of house premises out of 355 sq.yards. She pleaded ignorance about filing partition suit by daughter of the defendant Jyotsna as on the date of execution of
Ex.A2. She also do not know about criminal case proceedings initiated in between plaintiff.no.1 and the defendant before XI M.M.Cyberabad.
As she is not a party to the suit in Os.no.606/2014 she is not aware of facts of the suit.
76)So, from the cross examination of PW.1 and 2 nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the case of the plaintiffs.
77) From the above discussion it can be held that the possession of the defendant over suit schedule property became illegal from 01.03.2014. As such Plaintiffs are entitled for decree of eviction.
Accordingly this issue is answered.
Issue.No.2 and 3 in O.S.no.646/2023 (old OS.No.2114/2014):
78)Plaintiffs are claiming arrears of rents at Rs.2 lakhs and mesne profits at Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing suit till the 75 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
defendant vacate and hand over the vacant premises to them. But on perusal of Ex.B1 and B4, no such term has been inserted fixing such monthly rent as pleaded. The plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence to fix monthly rent. Therefore for deciding mesne profits and arrears of rent separate enquiry need to be conducted as per order II
Rule 4(a) and Order XXII Rule 12(ba) CPC. Accordingly these issues are answered.
Issue.No.4 in OS.No.606/2014/Issue.No.3 in OS.No.994/2014
/Issue.No.4 in OS.No.646/2023 To what relief ?
79)In view of observations and finding in above issues, in all the suits, it is held that the suit in OS.No.606/2014 is liable to be dismissed without costs. The suit in OS.no.994/2014 is liable to be decreed with costs. The suit in OS.No.646/2023 is liable to decreed in part without costs. Accordingly these issues are answered.
80)In the result, suit in OS.No.606/2014 is dismissed without costs.
81) The suit in OS.no.994/2014 is decreed with costs by declaring the Award dated 07.02.2014 passed in OS.No.1135/2013 on the file of 76 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
V Addl. District Judge, L.B.Nagar at R.R.District passed by lok-Adalth as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
82)The plaintiffs are also entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants.
83)The suit in OS.No.646/2023 ( old OS.No.2114/2014 on the file of
III Addl Senior Civil Judge, LB.Nagar at R.R.District) is decreed in part without costs. That the defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over suit schedule premises within (2) months from the date of this judgment to the plaintiffs, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to take steps to evict the defendant from schedule premises as per law.
Dictated to stenographer grade III transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on 7th day of April, 2026.
V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
77 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
IN OS.No.606/2014
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Plaintiffs:For the Defendants:
P.W.1: K.Bharathi D.W.1: K.Ramesh P.W.2: K.Dinesh Kumar D.W.2: M.Rama Krishna Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1. Office copy of Legal Notice Dt.04-10-2013
Ex A2. Office copy of Reply Legal Notice Dt.12-10-2013 issued on behalf of the defendant to the plaintiff.
Ex.A3. CC of the compromise Award Dt.07-01-2014 in crime.no.784/2013.
Ex.A4. Office copy of the Legal Notice Dt.28-08-2013 issued by the daughter of the plaintiff to the Defendant.
Ex.A5. Original Electricity Bill for the month of April, 2014
Ex.A6. Original Cash receipt of electricity bills Dt.21-02-2014
Ex.A7. Original water bill receipt dt.25-02-2014
Ex.A8. Original receipt of electricity bills dt.22-04-2014
Ex.A9. Original valuation certificate dt. 25-01-2014 issued by the sub registrar office, Saroor Nagar, R.R.District.
Ex.A10. Original Third Party affidavits of the tenants.
Ex.A11. Original C.D.
For the Defendants:
Ex.B1: CC of A.S.G.P.A bearing document No.298/2014 dated 06.01.2014.
Ex.B2: CC of Legal Notice dated 12.10.2013
Ex.B3: CC of Lok Adalat award in crime no.784/2013.
78 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
Ex.B4: CC of MOU dated 06.01.2014.
Ex.B5: CC of Agreement of sale dated 13.06.2013.
Ex.B6: CC of Receipt dated 13.06.2013.
Ex.B7: CC of Receipt dated 14.08.2013.
Ex.B8: CC of Cash Receipt dated 26.08.2013.
Ex.B9: CC of Receipt dated 06.01.2014.
Ex.B10: CC of Receipt dated 09.01.2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
IN OS.No.994/2014
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Plaintiffs:For the Defendants:
P.W.1: K.Ramesh - None - P.W.2:P.Santhosha
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1:CC of Agreement of sale cum GPA with possession doc. no. 298/2014
dt. 06.01.2014
Ex.A2: CC of Sale deed doc. no.10622/2014 dt. 16.07.2014
Ex.A3 CC of Order and Decree in IA.No. 569/2014 in OS.No. 606/2014 dt.
15.07.2014
Ex.A4: CC of Legal Notice dt. 12.10.2013
Ex.A5: CC of the affidavit of V.Pranathi filed in IA. In OS. no. 606/2014 executed by tenants
Ex.A6:CC of Lok adalat award in crime no. 784/2013 in the court of XI MM
LB Nagar
Ex.A7: CC of Order in IA.No. 575/2014 in OS.No. 606/2014 dt. 15.07.2014 79 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
Ex.A8: Copy of Order in WP.No. 20420/2014
Ex.A9: CC of Award passed in OS.No. 1135/2013 before Lok Adalat along with compromise petition and terms of compromise.
Ex.A10: CC of Registered sale deed doc.no, 300/1995 dt. 31.05.1995.
Ex.A11: CC of MOU dt. 06.01.2014
Ex. A12: CC of Agreement of sale dt. 13.06.2013 and receipt.
Ex.A13: CC of receipt dt. 14.08.2013,
Ex. A14:CC of cash receipt dt. 26.08.2013.
Ex. A15:CC of receipt dt. 06.01.2014.
Ex.A16: CC of receipt dt. 09.01.2014.
Ex.A17: CC of Final Result in crime no. 369/2014, PS Saroornagar.
Ex. A18: CC of Order in IA.No. 723/2014 in IA.No. 126/2014 in OS.No.
1135/2013 dt. 01.06.2016.
Ex.A19: CC of petition and affidavit of Plaintiff.no.1 filed in IA.No.723/2014 in IA.No. 126/2014 in OS.No.1135/2013 dt. 01.06.2016
Ex.A20: CC of FIR in crime no. 369/2014, PS Saroornagar for offence u/sec.
406, 420, 464, 471, 506, 120 B IPC, Sec.156(3) CrPC along with complaint filed u/sec. 200 CRPC.
Ex.A21: CC of counter of R1/Petitioner/ Plaintiff filed in I.A.No.126/2014.
For the Defendants:
A memo was filed to adopt the Plaintiff’s evidence adduced in
OS.No.606/2014 as defendant’s evidence in OS.No.994/2014.
80 of 80 O.S.No.606 of 2014 &
O.S.No.994 of 2014 &
O.S.No.646 of 2023
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
IN OS.No.646/2023
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Plaintiffs:For the Defendants:
P.W.1: K.Ramesh - None - P.W.2:P.Santhosha
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1: C.C of A.S.G.P.A., with possession bearing Doc No.298/2014 dated 06.01.2014. Ex.A2: C.C of sale deed bearing Doc No.10622/2014 dated 16.07.2014. Ex.A3: C.C of Order and decree in I.A No.575/2014 in O.S No.606/2014
dated 15.07.2014.
Ex.A4: Attested copy of FIR No.784/2013 P.S Sarrornagar dated 18.11.2013 U/Sec 120 b, 420 IPC, 156(3) CRPC. Ex.A5: Rental agreement dated 09.01.2014.
For the Defendants:
A memo was filed to adopt the Plaintiff’s evidence adduced in
OS.No.606/2014 as defendant’s evidence in OS.No.646/2023.
V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.