O.S.No.100 OF 2010 1 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
PRESENT: Sri E.Rajendra Babu,
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
Friday, the Twelfth [12th] day of October, 2018.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.100 OF 2010
Between :
1. Dulla Revanna (Since died by LRs Plaintiffs 2 to 4)
2. D.Sumitramma
3. K.Sitaram
4. D.Venkata Ramana
5. D.Padmapriya (Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are added as LRs of the deceased 1st plaintiff as per the orders in I.A.No.217/2014 dt.20.06.2014).… PLAINTIFFS.
And
1. K.Alluri Reddy
2. S.Bala Nagaiah
3. M.Lakshmanna
4. The District Govt Class-IV Employees Co-operative House Building
Society Limited, rep.by its President G.Narayana.
5. G.Bala Narasimhulu
6. B.Rajeswari
7. P.Sudhamani… DEFENDANTS
*****
This Suit, coming on 19.09.2018, for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri D.Yella Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, and of Sri B.Murali Manohar, Advocate for Defendants No.1 & 3; Sri K.Kapileswaraiah, Advocate for the Defendant No.5 and Sri E.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the Defendants No.6&7; and upon hearing the arguments; and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.Plaintiffs filed the Suit against the Defendants, for declaration of the sale deeds bearing Nos.16260/2006 dt.30.11.2006 & 16239/2006 dt.30.11.2006 executed by 4th defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and 3rddefendant respectively, sale deed bearing
No.16270/2006 dt.30.11.2006 executed by the 2nd & 3rd defendants in
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 2 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
favour of 1st defendant, sale deed bearing No.8025/2007 dt.21.5.2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of deceased 1st plaintiff and also directing the Defendants to pay Rs.32,465/- for registration charges and
Rs.25,000/- being the costs of deceased 1st plaintiff for claiming the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and also Rs.75,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the 1st plaintiff and also Costs of the Suit.
2.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:
The Plaintiff submitted that the deceased first plaintiff is the owner of Sy.No.458/A and 458/B situated in Sy.No.702/1, 703/1 led in
L.B.No.116/89 which is plaint 'A' schedule property. The plot Nos.458/A, 458/B are situated side by side, hence for the two plots common boundaries are shown in the schedule property from the first defendant under Registered Sale Deed dt.21.05.2007 for consideration of
Rs.3,47,000/-. The first defendant also delivered the possession of plaint 'A' schedule property to the deceased first plaintiff. Since then the deceased first plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property. The plaint 'A' schedule property is situated in Sy.No.702/1 and 703/1 and led in L.P.No.116/89. Since then the first deceased plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died on 13.12.2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 as legal heirs. After the death of first plaintiff, the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 succeeded the estate of the deceased first plaintiff and is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
The 4th defendant is the registered society under A.P.Co-operative
Societies Act. The 4th defendant society acquired the land measuring total extent of Ac.80.21 cents under Land Acquisition Act in Award
No.1/1984. The 4th defendant society acquired the land for providing the house sites to Kurnool District Government Class-IV Employees Co-
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 3 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
operarive House Building Society Limited, Kurnool. The President of 4th
Defendant Society have been registered the house site plots to different members who paid the necessary cost of the plot. The second and third defendants are the members of 4th defendant society. The second and third defendants have also paid necessary costs of the plots to the 4th defendant society. On 30.11.2006, the President of 4th Defendant society
G.Narayana executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of second defendant in respect of Plot No.458A which is shown in the 'B' schedule property and delivered the possession to the second defendant.
Similarly, on the same day the said President of 4th defendant society executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of plot No.458B which is shown in the 'C' schedule property of the suit and delivered the possession to the third defendant. Both plots are situated side by side. On 30.11.2006 the second and third defendants have sold their respective plot No.458A, 458B which are shown in the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule to the first defendant. As such the first defendant purchased plot Nos.458A and 458B shown in plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties from Defendants No.2 & 3 under single Registered Sale Deed dt.30.11.2006 for valuable consideration of Rs.1,02,000/- and delivered the possession to the first defendant. Since then the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. The plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties with common boundaries as a single plot is nothing but the plaint 'A' schedule property. So that the plaint 'A' schedule property is consisting of both plots in the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. Subsequently, on 21.5.2007, the first defendant sold the schedule properties of 'B' and 'C' schedule as a single plot for valuable consideration of Rs.3,47,000/- under a Registered Sale
Deed dt.21.5.2007 to the deceased first plaintiff and delivered possession of the same. Hence, the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 4 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
the plaint 'A' of schedule property. While so, in the first week of
November, 2008 when the deceased first plaintiff not in the town for about 10 days, the 6th defendant started construction of the building in plot No.458A (B-schedule property) which is part of 'A' schedule property. After returning the deceased first plaintiff came to know about the same and on 20.11.2008 questioned the 6th defendant, she informed that she has purchased Plot No.458A under Registered Sale deed dt.17.5.2004 executed by the 6th defendant who is the then President of 4th defendant society. Further, on enquiry the 6th defendant has also informed that plot No.458B was purchased by 7th defendant under registered sale deed dt.17.5.2004 executed by the 5th defendant. So that the schedule properties of 6th and 7th defendant shown as 'D' and 'E' plaint schedule properties. On verification of sale deeds of 6th and 7th defendants the schedule properties of 'D' and 'E' situated in Sy.No.703/4 in L.P.No.116/89. But on enquiry the 4th defendant society not acquired any land in Sy.No.703/4. But the boundaries shown in plaint B and C schedule as per the sale deeds of Defendants No.2 & 3 are the same to the boundaries shown in the plaint D and E of plaint schedule properties of 6th and 7th defendants. So, if the survey number mentioned in the sale deeds of Defendants No.2 & 3 are taken into consideration, the 6th and 7th defendants have no right or title over the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties as situated in different survey number. So that 6th and 7th defendants have no rights to make any construction in the plaint 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. As 4th defendant society not acquired the land in
Sy.No.703/4 in L.P.No.116/89, confirmed that the Sy.No.703/B is wrongly mentioned in the sale deeds of Defendants No.6 & 7 by the 5th defendant. The 4th and 5th defendants are the persons who have executed double sale deeds in respect of plot No.458A and 458B in favour of 6th defendant and third defendant and also in favour of second and third
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 5 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
defendants. Hence, the 4th and 5th defendants are playing fraud with their members and executing the double sale deeds in respect of same plots. As on the date of execution of sale deeds dt.30.11.2006 by the fourth defendant in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3, the 4th defendant society has no right, title or possession on the schedule B and C properties. Hence, those sale deeds which are in favour of Defendants
No.2 & 3 are illegal and void and they did not get any right and title. As the said doubt registrations, the Defendants No.2 & 3 have to face lot of trouble and suffer a lot of mental agony the deceased first plaintiff also spent huge amount of Rs.25,000/- to clear the jungle and to remove the trees in the month of January, 2007. So, even if the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds are taken into consideration by ignoring the survey numbers mentioned in the sale deeds of 6th and 7th defendants and second and third defendants will not get any right or title in respect of plot Nos.458A and 458B. Hence, the consequently the first defendant who has purchased the plots from Defendants No.2 & 3 under
Registered Sale Deed dt.30.11.2006 will not get any right and title over the 'A' schedule property. So also the deceased first plaintiff who has purchased the plaint 'A' schedule property under Registered Sale Deed dt.21.5.2007 from the first defendant will not get any right title over the plaint 'A' schedule property. Hence, the deceased first plaintiff approached the Defendants No.2 & 3 and also first defendant to clarify who are the owners and to settled the dispute. But they expressed their inability. Hence, in the month of February 2009 the deceased first plaintiff approached 4th and 5th defendants and questioned about the executing sale deeds in fravour of Defendants No.6 & 7 by Defendant
No.5 and the Defendant No.4 executing the sale deeds in favour of
Defendants No.2 & 3, but the Defendants No.4 & 5 did not heed the deceased first plaintiff. Hence, the deceased first plaintiff filed the
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 6 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
present suit.
3. Written Statement filed by the first defendant and submitted that it is true this defendant purchased the plaint 'A' schedule property from Defendants No.2 & 3 under Registered Sale Deeds dt.30.11.2006 originally the owner of 'A' schedule property is 4th defendant. The
President of the Society G.Narayana is a representative on behalf of the society and as per his advice the first defendant purchased the 'A' schedule property from Defendants No.2 & 3. On the same day, prior to
Defendant No.1 registration, the 4th defendant sold the 'A' schedule property to Defendants No.2 & 3. Both the transactions were made at the advice of 4th defendant. Prior to sale transaction this defendant enquired and verified in the Registrar office that the plaint 'A' schedule property has no encumbrance and it is clear title. This defendant not aware about the transaction between 5th defendant and 6, 7th defendants.
The 5th defendant who is the Ex-President of the society with malafide intention in order to cheat 6th and 7th defendants executed Registered
Sale Deeds in their favour by mentioning the survey No.703/4 which are not belongs to the society property. The Award No.1/1984 also not speak about the survey No.703/4. Hence, the 5th defendant cheated Defendants
No.6 & 7. The 4th defendant being the President of the Society without taking any precautions or verifying the earlier transactions executed registered sale deeds in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3 and in turn
Defendants No.2 & 3 executed registered sale deeds in favour of
Defendant No.1 and delivered possession. Thereafter this defendant sold the said schedule property to first plaintiff under registered sale deed dt.21.5.2007 and also delivered the possession and since then the deceased first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. As the plaintiff was found the fraud played by the 5th defendant he filed the suit for declaration of registered sale deed as null and void and directing
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 7 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
the Defendants No.4 & 5 to allot the another plot situated near the plot or alternatively directing all the defendants to pay amount under different sale deeds is not tenable under law. Since the 5th defendant is sole responsible for fraud, he is alone responsible for causing damage to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Defendants No.2 & 4 remained set exparte.
5. Written Statement filed by the Defendant No.3 and submitted that this defendant is one of the members of 4th defendant society and purchased a plot bearing No.500A under document dt.21.6.2011 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Surprisingly, this defendant received summons and appeared before this court and found that summons were served on wrong person. Originally, the said
Lakshmamma of Alur village is no more. Now and there is no such person. After serving the summons to this third defendant, the Hon'ble
Court received returned summons as Defendant No3. Died. But again, the plaintiff paid batta to the address of this defendant. This defendant is no way concerned to the plot No.458B. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Written Statement filed by the Defendant No.5 and submitted that the President of 4th defendant society who have been registered the house site plots led in L.P.No.116/1989 to its members who have paid the necessary costs of the plot is not true. This defendant is not having knowledge that the second and third defendants are the members of society and also paid necessary costs of the plot to defendant No.4. On 30.11.2006 the 4th defendant President executed in favour of Defendant
No.2 in respect of Plot No.458A which is shown as 'B' schedule property and 'C' schedule property and delivered possession is not true and created with the collusion of 4th defendant. This defendant has not
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 8 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
having knowledge that on the same day Defendants No.2 & 3 sold the 'B' and 'C' schedule plots to 1st defendant. The Defendant No.4 not having any right to sold plot No.458A and 458B because those plots are already allotted and registered to 6th and 7th defendants on 17.4.2004 by the then
President who is 5th defendant and also delivered possession. So, the transactions made by 4th defendant is illegal and also void transactions.
This defendant also not having knowledge about the transaction of first deceased plaintiff with defendant No.1 dt.21.5.2007. As the plot numbers 458A and 458B already sold to 6th and 7th defendant, the transactions under Registered Sale Deed dt.21.5.2007 not valid and both documents are created with the collusion of second and third, 4th and 1st defendant and the defendants No.6 & 7 are not binding upon the said documents. This defendant submitted that the 4th defendant G.Narayana doing the double registration and number of persons filed criminal cases against the 4th defendant under section 420 of I.P.C. On verification of the sale deed dt.25.7.2004 6th defendant in respect of plot No.458A plaint 'B' schedule property and plot No.458B plaint 'E' schedule property are situated in Sy.No.703/4 in L.P.No.116/89, but by mistake and oversight the survey number in the Registered document was mentioned wrongly. It is clerical mistake and the documents dt.30.11.2006 of Defendants No.1 to 3 clearly shows that with malafide intention executed and which are not valid and the same are void documents. This defendant not having any intention to play fraud to anybody. The 4th defendant have taken the advantage of Survey number typed wrongly and again registered to second and third defendants who are colluded with the 4th defendant. This defendant not having any knowledge about the amounts spent by the deceased first plaintiff in the month of January 2007. The suit is barred by limitation, because the
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 9 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
plots 458A and 458B registered in the year 2004 in favour of defendants
No.6 & 7 and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Written statement filed by the 6th defendant and submitted that this defendant purchased Plot No.458A from Defendant No.5 on 17.5.2004 and the 7th defendant purchased plot No.458B on the same day from Defendant No.5 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. This defendant does not know about the sale of
Defendants No.2 & 3 to Defendant No.1. This defendant and the 7th defendant are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and are in possession. This defendant constructed the building after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. This defendant and 7th defendant have right and title in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties i.e., 'E' and 'F' of plaint schedule property. This defendant and 7th defendant not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed. This defendant further submitted that G.No.of
G.Balanagaiah 2nd defendant is 322-A in Sl.No.595 in the list, the details of his address and plot number are left blank. Likewise third defendant
G.No.is 760-A and Sl.No.999 in the list, but plot No.492B is allotted to him. This defendant submitted that V.Sambasiva Rao G.No.1090-A sold the plot to this defendant and plot number allotted to him in Sy.No.458A.
Y.Sambasiva Rao executed agreement of sale dt.6.5.2004 and also notarized affidavit, hence the 5th defendant executed sale deed in favour of this defendant. This defendant spent huge amount for leveling the plot after obtaining permission from the municipal corporation on 29.3.2008 and also constructed building and also paying municipal taxe and also electricity bills. This defendant availed personal and GPF loan to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in additional to the loans from the relatives. Thus, this defendant invested more than 15 lakhs for construction of building in addition to the said cost. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 10 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
8. Written Statement filed by the 7th defendant and submitted that this defendant not aware of the sale of Defendants No.2 & 3 to
Defendant No.1. This Defendant purchased plot No.458B from
Defendant No.5 on 17.5.2004 and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. After verification of the boundaries this defendant constructed building, this defendant and 6th defendant are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and this defendant not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. This defendant submit that G.No. of G.Bala
Nagaiah is 322-A. One Nemalaiah is the member of society in G.No.107A in Plot No.458B and after his death Trilochana Rao succeeded it and executed an agreement of sale dt.6.5.2004 and also notarized affidavit dt.30.4.2004. Hence, the 5th defendant executed sale deed in favour of 6th defendant on 17.5.2004. The said Trilochana Rao, son of original allottee G.Nemilaiah, this defendant purchased the said plot on 17.5.2004 and filed O.S.No.112/2014 on the file of II-Additional Junior
Civil Judge's Court, Kurnool and decreed on 20.08.2014 granting
permanent injunction, then this defendant raised hut in the said site and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.
1) Whether D4 and D5 played fraud as alleged?
2) Whether sale deeds executed by D-4 in favour of D2,
D3 and D2, D3 in favour of D1 and D1 in favour of
Plaintiff are null and void?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration that
their sale deeds are illegal, null and void?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for directing D4 and D5 to allot plot the description of which is mentioned in relief No.4 or alternative relief of directing the defendants to pay Rs.3,47,000/- with interest as
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 11 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
prayed for?
5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for directing the defendants to pay Rs.32,465/- towards stamp duty, registration fee transfer fee etc., and Rs.25,000/- towards costs for claiming ‘A’ schedule property?
6) Whether plaintiff is entitled for directing the defendants to pay Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony?
7) To what relief?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE DT.9.3.2016:
1) Whether the Defendant No.7 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of her purchase on 6.5.2004, as pleaded by her?
10. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and marked
Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the defendants, the Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, Defendant No.5 was examined as DW.2, Defendant
No.6 was examined as DW.3, Defendant No.7 was examined as DW.4 and also marked Exs.B1 to B23.
11.Heard both sides.
12. ISSUE No.1 :
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the
Defendant No.4 society is registered under the Societies Act and acquired land measuring an extent of Ac.80.21 cents under Land
Acquisition Act through the Land Acquisition Act, Kurnool in Award
No.1/1984 which is Ex.A3 and later providing the house sites to the
Kurnool District Government Class-IV Employees Co-operative House
Building Society Limited, Kurnool. After acquisition necessary land the 4th defendant society got approved the layout plan for house sites in
L.P.No.116/1989. But the 4th defendant society got approved the layout plan for house sites in L.P.No.116/89. But the 4th defendant having the
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 12 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
President G.Narayana executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of 2nd defendant under Ex.A5 and another sale deed executed in favour of
Defendant No.3 under Ex.A6 in respect of 'B' and 'C' schedule property.
Later on the same day Defendants No.2 & 3 sold the schedule property to Defendant No.1 on the same day under Ex.A7. Thereafter as per
Ex.A1 the deceased first plaintiff purchased the schedule property described as 'A' schedule of the plaint from D1 and on the same day delivered possession of the deceased plaintiff. But in the first week of
November, 2008 when the deceased first plaintiff is not in town the 6th defendant started construction, on knowing the same the deceased first plaintiff went to the schedule property on 20.09.2008 and questioned the 6th defendant she stated that herself and the 7th defendant purchased the said property from Defendant No.5 under Registered Sale deed dt.17.5.2004. As well as the 7th defendant in respect of Plot No.458-A and 458B since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. On that the deceased first plaintiff made an enquiry and found the survey numbers mentioned in the documents of
Defendants No.6 & 7 and different with the survey number of plaint schedule property. Because, the schedule property of Defendants No.6 & 7 situated in Sy.No.703/4 and it is not included in layout plan
No.116/1989. So, the Defendant No.5 played fraud towards Defendants
No.6 & 7 and executed Registered Sale Deeds in their favour on 17.5.2004. Later, the Defendant No.4 the then President without verifying the transactions of Defendants No.6 & 7 sold the said plots mentioning different survey number to Defendant No.2 and Defendant
No.3 and on the same day Defendants No.2 & 3 sold the same to
Defendant No.1. Later, the deceased first plaintiff purchased the said property from Defendant No.1. It shows the Defendants No.4 & 5 in the representative capacity of society played fraud and made double
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 13 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
registrations and caused the mental agony to the plaintiff. So that they are liable to face consequences in future.
13.As earlier stated Defendant No.4 set exparte. The learned counsel for the Defendant No.5 argued that the Defendant No.5 not played any fraud towards the defendants or plaintiffs. But due to oversight and mistake mentioned survey number wrongly in the sale deeds registered in favour of Defendant No.6 and Defendant No.7 under
Ex.B3 and Ex.B12 and it is pure clerical mistake and the said survey number included that land approved plan No.116/89. It is the responsibility of the Defendant No.4 to check the previous transactions of the plot numbers prior to execute sale deeds in respect of the same property in favour of the other persons like Defendants No.2 & 3. But the Defendant No.4 who remained exparte in thesuit not taken proper steps to verify the previous transactions and registered the same properties in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3, so the Defendant No.4 is alone responsible person to play fraud towards Defendants No.2 & 3 and thereafter Defendant No.1 and to the plaintiffs.
14. The learned counsel for the Defendants No.1, 6 & 7 argued that they are the bonafide purchasers and in good-faith they purchased the properties and they are not played fraud towards any of the parties to the suit.
15. Here, in the present case as per the Exs.B3 and B12 the
Defendant No.5 the then President of Society executed registered sale deeds in favour of Defendants No.6 & 7 by mentioning the plot numbers
No.458A and 458B respectively in Sy.No.703/4. Here, the learned counsel for the Defendant No.5 admitted in the written statement as by mistakenly mentioned the survey number as 703/4, though the said survey number includes in Award No.1/1984 which was marked as
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 14 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
Ex.A3. On perusing the award No.1/84 the land in Sy.No.703/4 not included. The evidence of Defendant No.5 is silent about when they found as Defendant No.5 mentioned the survey number in Ex.B3 and
Ex.B12 wrongly. Moreover, after filing the suit also either Defendants
No.6 & 7 or Defendant No.5 not take any steps to rectifying the wrong survey number of Ex.B3 and B12. As the Ex.A3 Award No.1/1984 not included the land in Sy.No.703/4 it shows that the Defendant No.5 played fraud towards the Defendant No.6 and Defendant No.7 and executed Exs.B3 and B12 in their favour respectively for the Plot
No.458/A&B.
16. As well as the Defendant No.4 who was the then President of the Society executed the sale deeds in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3 under Ex.A5 and A6 shows that the plot No.458-A situated in Sy.No.702 and 703. Here the admitted fact is Defendants No.2 & 3 are the members of Government IV-Class Employees Association and they are the members by paying the necessary membership, if so that the transaction of Defendant No.4 with Defendants No.2 & 3 is valid. But as per dip register Ex.B22 the said plots allotted to one Namalaiah and
Sambasiva Rao and without any cancellation of the said allottment, the
D4 allotted the said plots to D2 and 3. so that the Defendant No.4 without following procedure allotted the said plots to the D2 and 3. So that this Court opined the Defendant No.4 played fraud towards D2 to 3 and Defendants No.6 &7. Further, this court observed that the learned counsel for the Defendant No.5 alleged that the Defendant No.4 without verifying the previous transactions of the plot Nos.458A&B executed
Ex.A5 & Ex.A6, so that he played fraud. Bur as the Defendant No.5 himself admitted that the survey numbers of plot No.458A, 458B mentioned wrongly in the Registered Sale Deeds executed by Defendant
No.5 in favour of Defendants No.6 & 7 as 703/4, the Defendant No.4 has
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 15 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
no chance to find about the previous registration of documents in respect of 458A and 458B situated in Sy.No.702 and 703. As such, this
Court came to a conclusion that Defendant No.5 played fraud and registered the land in Sy.No.703/4 in favour of Defendants No.6 & 7 which the land not included in Award No.1/1984.
17. ISSUES No.2 & 3 :
The specific contention of the plaintiff is that as the Defendant
No.4 made double registration for the land in plot No.458A, 458B to
Defendants No.2 & 3 and in turn the Defendants No.2 & 3 sold the same on the same day to Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.1 sold the said property to deceased first plaintiff declared to be null and void and illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Defendants No.1 & 3 contended that they are the bonafide purchasers who purchased the property from Defendant No.4 and the plaintiff not entitled the declaration as sought for. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Defendant No.5 and Defendants No.6 & 7 respectively argued that the transactions made by the Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3 not having any title and right by the time of transaction and the illegal property purchased by Defendant No.1 and in turn the first deceased plaintiff, to be declared as null and void and illegal. This Court observed that the admitted fact is G.Narayana elected as President for some time for the Kurnool District Government Class-IV Employees Co- operative House Building Society Limited. In that capacity he executed sale deeds in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3 under Exs.A5&A6.
Admittedly, Defendants No.2 & 3 are the members of the society.
Admittedly, the said society registered under A.P.Societies Act. As per the bye laws of the society, the elected body having authority to
President as per the procedure mentioned in the byelaws. Admittedly, no
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 16 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
bye-laws of the employees association filed before this Court by either of the parties. As per the procedure of the society, the president or authorized person shall allot the plots to the members of the society only. If any plot allotted to other than the member of the society there shall be a resolution passed among the elected body of the society. In the present case, no such resolution passed and no document filed by either of the parties that such resolution passed by the society to register the plots to other than the members of the society by receiving notarized affidavits of the concerned members of the society. Here, in the present case as per the dip register which was marked as Ex.B22 shows that the plot No.458A allotted to one Y.Sambasiva Rao, G.No.1090A S/o
Yedukondalu who worked as Executive Engineer, Mechanical workshop,
Srisailam in Sl.No.1373. The plot No.458B allotted to one G.Nemalaiah
S/o Kasaiah, Executive Engineer, Dam Division, Srisailam, G.No.1071A in
Sl.No.1354. But some how reason the Defendant No.4 without canceling the allotment to Nemilaiah and Y.Sambasiva Rao registered the said property in favour of Defendants No.2 & 3 who are the members of the society. Since Defendants No.2 & 3 are the members of the society the registration of sale deeds under Ex.A5 & A6 are true, valid and legal. But admittedly, Defendant No.1 and the deceased first plaintiff are the not members of the society. As no resolution placed before this Court as the society permitted to purchase the said plot by Defendant No.1 and in turn the first deceased plaintiff the transactions between Defendants
No.2 & 3 to Defendant No.1 under Ex.A7 and the transaction between
Defendant No.1 to first deceased plaintiff under Ex.A1 is illegal and null and void. So that the plaintiff entitles for the declaration as sought for only in respect of the sale deed executed by Defendants No.2 & 3 in favour of Defendant No.1 under Ex.A7 and the sale deed executed by
Defendant No.1 in favour of deceased first plaintiff under Ex.A1 is
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 17 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
illegal, null and void. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
18. ISSUES No.4 to 6 :
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as the Defendants
No.4 & 5 played fraud and made double registrations in favour of
Defendants No.6 & 7 and Defendants No.2 & 3 directing the Defendants
No.4 & 5 to allot another plot with the measurements of 65 x 40 feet equivalent to 288.88 sq.yards nearer to the plot Nos.458A and 458B in approved L.P.No.116/89 alternatively directing all the defendants to pay
Rs.3,47,000/- towards sale consideration of Ex.A1 with interest till 7.2.2010 and also directing all the defendants to pay the other expenditure and the damages towards mental agony caused to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Defendants No.1 & 3 and Defendants No.5 to 7 respectively argued that the plaintiff not entitled any sale consideration and other fees and damages from the defendants and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
19. On perusing the evidences of PW.1 and Dws.1 to 4, this Court found that the first plaintiff and the first defendant are not the members of the society. So that they are not entitled to purchase the plots of the society either by directly from the society or from the allottees of the respective plots. In the present case PW.1 admitted in the cross- examination that her deceased husband made enquiries prior to purchase of the 'A' schedule property from Defendant No.1 and executed
Ex.A1 in his favour. So that this Court opined that the first deceased plaintiff might have knowledge that the property belongs to the society and as there is bar in the Society Act that other than the members not get the plots from the society or from the members of the society, but the deceased 1st plaintiff purchased the schedule A property from the D1 and the plaintiff failed to prove that the D1 and other defendants induced the
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 18 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
deceased 1st plaintiff to purchase the property, the plaintiff not entitled another plot which is near to the schedule propertyn with above measurements and also not entitle the stamp duty amount, registration fees, transfer fees from all the defendants and also not entitled
Rs.25,000/- towards costs as the defendants claimed 'A' schedule property. Because being bonafide purchasers of the schedule property the Defendants No.6 & 7 claimed their property as possession delivered to them in respect of the lands situated in Sy.No.703/4. As the plaintiff failed to prove that they suffered with mental agony by the hands of the defendants not entitled the costs of Rs.75,000/-.
20. Additional Issue No.1 :
The learned counsel for the Defendant No.7 argued that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property under Ex.B12 that this Court opined as per the Ex.B12 the plots No.458B situated in Sy.No.703/4. As per the plaint 'A', 'B', 'C' schedule property in Sy.Nos.702 & 703. So that this Court opined that the Defendant No.7 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'E' schedule property and not in possession and enjoyment of ABC plaint schedule properties.
21. ISSUE No.7 : As per the findings given in above issues,this
Court opined this Suit decreed partly.
In the result, the Suit is partly decreed and partly dismissed with declaration that the Registered Sale Deed, dt.30.11.2006 executed by
Defendants No.2 & 3 in favour Defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and liable to be canceled and also declaring that the Registered Sale
Deed dt.21.05.2007 executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of deceased first plaintiff dt.21.05.2007 is illegal, null and void and liable to be canceled and the other reliefs are dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 19 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 12 th day of September,
2018.
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
P.W.1 : D.Sumithramma
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: Original Registered Sale Deed dt.21.5.2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Ex.A2: Original endorsement payments dt.21.5.2007 for stamp duty registration expenses and transfer fee etc., of Rs.32,465/- on the back side of the 1st page of the sale deed dt.21.5.2007. Ex.A3: Award copy of land acquisition award dt.2.3.1984 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool in Award No.1/1984. Ex.A4: Copy of approved Layout plan. Ex.A5: Original Registered Sale Deed executed by the 4th defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of Plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Ex.A6: Original Registered Sale Deed dt.30.11.2006 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of 3rd defendant in respect of Plaint ‘C’ schedule property. Ex.A7: Original Registered Sale Deed dt.30.11.2006 executed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in favour of 1st defendant in respect of Plaint ‘B & C’ schedule properties (A schedule property). Ex.A8: Certified copy of sale deed dt.17.5.2004 executed by the 5th defendant in favour of 6th defendant in respect of plaint D schedule property. Ex.A9: Certified copy of sale deed dt.17.5.2004 executed by the 5th defendant in favour of 7th defendant in respect of plaint E schedule property. Ex.A10:Original encumbrance certificate pertaining to plot No.458-A and 458-B for the period from 1.1.1983 to 30.9.2007 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kurnool. Ex.A11:Original encumbrance certificate dt.17.10.2008 pertaining to plot No.458-A & 458-B for the period from 1.1.2007 to 16.10.2008 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kurnool.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
DW.1 : K.Alluri Reddy
DW.2: G.Bala Narasimhulu
DW.3: B.Rajeswari
DW.4: P.Sudhamani
O.S.No.100 OF 2010 20 A.S.C.J. Court, Kurnool.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1 : Attested copy of list containing the plot allotted in G.B.No. dt.21.1.1993 evidencing the details of plots registered from 319A to 330B. Ex.B2 : Attested copy of list containing the plot allotted in G.B.No.21-11- 1993 evidencing the details of plots registered from 450A to 460A. Ex.B3 : Registration copy of Sale Deed, dt.17.5.2014 executed by G.Bala Narasimhulu (D5) in favour of B.Rajeswari bearing D.No.5076/2004. Ex.B4 : Original proceedings of the Commissioner (FAC) Kurnool, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, dt.27.3.2008. Ex.B5 : Original Blue Print Plan for plot No.458A dt.29.3.2008. Ex.B6 : Water Tap sanction order issued by Municipal Corporation Kurnool dt.25.5.2009. Ex.B7 : Original Property Tax Receipt. Ex.B8 : Demand Notice dt.3.1.2012 issued by Municipal Corporation to S.Rajeswari. Ex.B9 : Original electricity Bill dt.11.2.2010. Ex.B10: Original of Receipt for Rs.30,000/- dt.19.12.2014 issued to G.Narayana (D4) in favour of B.Rajeswari. Ex.B11: Attested copy of letter of B.Subbalaxmi, Asst. Register/ Public Information Officer, to D.B.Satyanandam for furnishing the details of plot Nos.458-A to 458B. Ex.B12: Original sale deed, dt.17.5.2004 executed by G.Bala Narasimhulu (D5) in favour of P.Sudhamani. Ex.B13: Attested copy of list containing the plot allotted in G.B.No.21.11.1993 evidencing the details of plots registered from 450A to 460A. Ex.B14: Attested copy of list containing the plot allotted in G.B.No. dt.21.11.1993 evidencing the details of plots registered from 711B to 719B. Ex.B15: Original property tax receipt issued by Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, H.No.87/1106-A-1, in favour of Sudhamani, dt.21.5.2018. Ex.B16: Original water tax receipt issued by Municipal corporation, Kurnool H.No.87/1106-A-1 dt.21.5.2018. Ex.B17: Original electricity bill, dt.9.1.2017. Ex.B18: Pamphlet notice issued by G.Narayana for deposit amount as per Supreme Court Judgment. Ex.B19: Original of Adj.Receipts for Rs.30,000/- dt.19.12.2014 to G.Narayana (D4) in favour of P.Sudhamani. Ex.B20: Certified Copy of Judgment in O.S.No.112/2014 of II-Addl. Junior
Civil Judge, Kurnool between P.Sudhamani and G.Trilochand
Rao. Ex.B21: Served copy signed by the Arbitrator Award of the Sub- Divisional Cooperation Officer, Nandikotkur in AP.4/2016-2017 dt.17.3.2017. Ex.B22: Book containing the details of members along with allotment of plots at pages 38, 57, 17, 58. Ex.B23: Certified copy of E.C.No.285061 (4051/2014) for plot No.458/B issued by SRO, Kurnool.
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.