1 O.S. 736 OF 2008
IN THE COURT OF THE IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SRI K. JANAKI RAMA RAO, B.A., LL.B., IV Senior Civil Judge
Dated this the 1 st day of May, 2015
O.S.No. 736 OF 2008
Between:
M/s. V.S.N. And Company, rep. By its Partner Mr. R. Sunder
..Plaintiff
And
1. Smt. Susheela N. Mallayya,
2. P. Jaya Bala Subrahmanyam
3. Anand Cine Service rep. By its Partner Mr P. Kiran
..Defendants
This suit coming on 13.04.15 for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M. Rama Swamy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri K.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for Defendant No. 1 and of Sri N. Chandra Rao, Advocate for Defendant No. 2 and Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff herein for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 24.5.1993, declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the house property bearing municipal No. 8-2-293/82/F/19-C admeasuring 450 sq.yds or 376 sq. meters consisting of ground and first floors constructed on type-C, plot No. 19, in site-I at Ward No. 8, Block No.1 in Survey No. 403 of Shaikpet village, situated at Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, (which shall be referred to hereafter as suit schedule property) in the interests of Justice.
2.The following are the brief plaint averments:
The plaintiff states that the father of defendant No.1 by name Purushothama Rao was allotted a plot of land admeasuring 450 sq.yds equivalent to 376 sq.meters bearing
No. 19 in type-C in site No.-1 of the layout of the Film Nagar Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., Hyderabad and the said plot was sold to late Purushothama Rao vide sale deed dated 31.3.1989 by the said Film Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Hyderabad vide document No. 2730/1989 and later on he was put in possession.
Thereafter, the demise of late Purushothama Rao, his only legal heir and daughter, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner and possessor of the said open plot of land.
The defendant No.1 exercised her right of ownership over the said plot of land. In the meanwhile the defendant No.3 approached her to lease out the said plot of land and
2 O.S. 736 OF 2008
agreed to construct the house property as per the requirement of the defendant No.1 and accordingly the building was constructed in two intervals i.e. ground floor in the first phase and after couple of years, first floor on the entire property situated on Plot No. 19 in site-1 of Type-C of Film Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad.
3.Thereafter the defendant No.1 offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/-, the plaintiff paid the entire consideration to the defendant and at the time of entering into the agreement of sale and receiving the entire sale consideration from the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 was not in good health and unable to move out of her bed, as such, the plaintiff agreed to take sale deed without registration and both agreed to register the sale deed after she recovers from her ill health. The defendant No.1 executed the sale deed and receipt after receiving the entire sale consideration and consequently the defendant No.1 handed over the original sale deed in favour of her father. Further the suit schedule property has been under the occupation of the tenant namely Anand Cine Services, the defendant No.3 at the time of purchase by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 delivered symbolic possession by addressing a letter to the defendant No.3 and the tenancy was attorned in favour of the plaintiff with oral instructions to the tenant, as such, the plaintiff was in constructive possession of the suit schedule property through his tenant defendant No.3.
4.Contending further the plaintiff has stated he is a business man with extensive travelling and unable to look after the day to day affairs of the suit schedule property i.e.
collection of rents and attending the repairs, has entrusted the said job to his friend Mr.
P. Swamy father of Defendant No.2 and the said Swamy used to collect the rents and used to pay to the plaintiff whenever he meets him and the said practice continued during his life time and after his death, his son Mr. P. Jaya Bala Subramanyam, the defendant No.2 taken the said task due to close friendship and same practice continued till the end of the year 2007.
5.While so, the plaintiff many times came over to Hyderabad and requested the defendant No.1 to execute the fresh sale deed and to register the suit schedule property but due to her ill health it was not possible and the plaintiff was always ready to perform his part of contract and ready with the stamp duty and a regular sale deed was not executed only because of the non performance of the contract by the defendant No.1 and on repeated requests of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 issued a letter dated 06.7.98 requesting time to execute and register the same, so also another letter dated 16.6.05 expressing her willingness to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
3 O.S. 736 OF 2008
as she was still suffering from illness and after some time the whereabouts of the defendant No.1 could not be traced as she shifted her residence and the plaintiff was unable to take the sale deed, then the plaintiff was advised as an alternative measure to get the unregistered sale deed regularised by paying the duty and penalty and accordingly he paid stamp duty and penalty.
6.It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 requested the plaintiff to hand over the original sale deed bearing document No. 2730/1989 in favour of late
Purushothama Rao, together with his death certificate and copy of sale deed in the name of the plaintiff and family members certificate to produce before the Film Nagar Co- operative Society to effect the change of membership and the plaintiff handed over the said documents to the defendant No.2.
7.The plaintiff further stated that when he came to Hyderabad in the first week of
February, 2005 and insisted defendant No.2 for payment of rents, then defendant No.2 expressed his personal difficulties stating that he utilised the said rents for personal needs and sought time for payment of rents and when plaintiff came to Hyderabad in
February last week and sought for payment of rents, then defendant No.2 refused to pay rents and declared himself as owner. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant No.2 appears to have fabricated the sale deeds bearing documents No. 242/1996 and 2251/1997 with an intention to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiff in collusion with the tenant defendant No.3 herein. The plaintiff further contended that the unregistered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is nothing but an agreement of sale and the plaintiff is entitled for execution and registration of sale deed and on 12.3.08 the plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 to execute the registered sale deed in view of receiving entire sale consideration but the defendant No.1 evading to execute the document in favour of the plaintiff.
8.Further the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant No.2 demanding him to return the original sale deed. The plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and pen ultimately stated that under the guise of absence of the plaintiff at
Hyderabad, the defendant No.2 hatched up a plan and transferred the suit schedule property in his favour by creating the fabricated documents and the said alleged alienation has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the last week of February, 2008.
As such, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
dated 24.5.93. Hence the suit.
4 O.S. 736 OF 2008
9.On service of summons the defendant No.1 has filed her written statement admitting the plaint averments Further the defendant No.1 stated that she entered into greement of sale with the plaintiff for the consideration mentioned in the plaint and was unable to register the sale deed even though it was executed due to her ill health and further she stated that she has received entire sale consideration and nothing is due from the plaintiff.
10.The defendant No.1 further sailing with plaintiff has stated that after executing the unregistered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, she has informed the tenant M/s. Anand
Cine Services i.e. defendant No.3 and attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff asking him to pay the rents to the plaintiff from the month of June, 1993 onwards and accordingly the plaintiff has been receiving the rents and she stopped receiving the rents in view of the transfer of ownership in favour of the plaintiff.
11.Contending further the defendant No.1 stated that she has never executed any document in favour of the defendant No.2 at any point of time and further denied that she evaded to execute fresh sale deed and register the same and reiterated that she wanted to execute a fresh sale deed and register the same and the same could not be possible because of her prolonged illness years together, as such, there is no default on her part and defendant No.1 finally stated that the plaintiff has approached the court hastily without any reason and dragged the defendant No.1 without any fault on her and prayed the court to dismiss the suit by awarding costs.
12.On the other hand the defendant No.2 in his written statement among other things has categorically stated that the present suit as laid is liable to be dismissed in limini and the alleged sale deed dated 24.5.93 is created only for the purposing of knocking down the suit schedule property pertaining and belonging to defendant No.2. Further the alleged sale deed dated 24.5.93 in favour of plaintiff is inadmissible document for want of stamp duty and penalty.
13.The defendant No.2 while admitting succession of defendant No.1 to the suit schedule property consequent upon death of her late father Purushothama Rao, however, denied that she has offered to sell the suit schedule property and further denied that the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the same for a total consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/- as alleged.
14.The defendant No.2 further stated that as far as the alleged transaction is
5 O.S. 736 OF 2008
concerned, it is nothing but created as if the plaintiff received amount only to over come the transaction with the defendant No.2 and his father and further denied that the defendant No.1 was not in good health and unable to move out of her bed, as such, the plaintiff agreed to take sale deed without registration and that plaintiff agreed to register the sale deed after she recovered from her ill health. Further defendant No.2 has categorically denied that the defendant No.1 has executed any such sale deed and receipt
dated 24.5.93 and that she has received the entire sale consideration and that the
defendant No.1 has handed over the sale deed executed by the Film Nagar society as alleged to the plaintiff and that later on defendant No.1 delivered symbolic possession by addressing a letter to defendant No.3 and that the tenancy was attorned in favour of the plaintiff.
15.The defendant No.2 while assailing and denying the plaint averments in paras 5 to 19 has however categorically admitted that originally late Purushothama Rao has purchased the open Plot No. 19 Type ‘C’ in Site – 1 situated at Film Nagar of Shaikpet village within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad of Ward 8 Block area 450 Sq. yds vide document No. 2730/89 from the Film Nagar Cooperative Housing
Society Limited, Hyderabad for a valuable sale consideration and as per the recitals, the society received the sale consideration and delivered possession. Further the said
Purushothamma Rao died on 20.6.1991. After death of late Purushothama Rao the defendant No.1 being his only legal heir, has executed registered Irrevocable power of attorney in favour of B. Manohar Singh, aged about 26 years, resident of Hyderabad on 28.9.94 vide document No. 2217/IV/94 dated 28.9.94 at the Sub Registrar office,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Subsequently on 9.2.95 the defendant No.1 represented by her
GPA holder P. Manohar Singh sold the property to the father of defendant No.2 herein i.e. late P. Swamy and the said P.Swamy purchased the property for a valid sale consideration and the vendor delivered vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule property mentioned there under i.e. all that the ground floor of the house constructed on
Type –C Plot No. 19 MCH number not assigned in Site-1 together with 1/2nd and undivided share in the land measuring 225 sq.yds out of 450 sq.yds situated at Film
Nagar, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad within the municipal limits.
16.It is further contended that subsequently the defendant No.2 purchased all that property unfinished first floor constructed upto roof and pillars on Type-C Plot No. 19,
MCH. Number not assigned admeasuring 1/2nd undivided share out of 450 sq.yds i.e. to an extent of 225 sq.yds situated at Film Nagar, Shaikpet village, Hyderabad within the
6 O.S. 736 OF 2008
municipal limits from the defendant No.1 represented by her GPA holder B. Manohar
Singh through a registered sale deed dated 10.2.95 vide document No. 2251/97 registered at the Sub Registrar office, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
17.Contending further the defendant No.2 has stated that after purchase, the names of
P. Swamy i.e. father of defendant No.2 and the name of the defendant No.2 are entered in the municipal records and now the defendant No.2 is paying the property tax and enjoying the premises along with his brother as absolute owners. Further as the father of defendant No.2 died, in the partition the defendant No.2 was alotted the ground floor portion as already he is the owner of first floor portion, thus the defendant No.2 has become owner of the entire property purchased by P. Swamy under the sale deed dated 9.2.95 registered vide document No. 242/96 and under document No. 2251/97.
18.It is further contended by the defendant No.2 that the premises is let out to the defendant No.3 as defendant No.2 has become owner of the entire property and collecting the rents and the plaintiff or the defendant No.1 is nothing to do with the property. It is also stated by defendant No.2 that the defendant No.1 gave complaint as if she has not executed power of attorney or not alienated the suit property and in crime
No. 323/98 the father of defendant No.2 was directed to produce originals and accordingly produced and same were sent for forensic and report revealed that the documents were executed properly.
19.It is further stated by the defendant No.2 that having executed the power of attorney and having received the consideration amount, the defendant No.1 delivered all the originals to the father of defendant No.2 and in turn as the defendant No.2 became absolute owner and also in possession of documents. Further, it is also specifically stated that the transaction of defendant No.2 and his father have been reflected in the encumbrance certificate and thus defendant No.2 established his right, title and possession and that he has leased out the premises validly and collecting the rents from
Defendant No.3 and his (Defendant No.2's) name is also entered not only in society records but also in municipal records. The defendant No.2 pen ultimately stated that he is enjoying the suit schedule property and finally stated that plaintiff has approached the court by suppressing the true facts and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
20.Subsequently the defendant No.2 has filed additional written statement stating that his father late P. Swamy after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation of
7 O.S. 736 OF 2008
Hyderabad, in the name of vendor Purushothama Rao, has constructed the house by obtaining a revised sanction plan from the office of the Commissioner, M.C.H. and the said plan was also signed by late Purushotama Rao. Further it is specific plea of defendant No.2 that earlier late Purushothama Rao executed agreement of sale dated 7.7.90 and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.
3,50,000/- and the father of the Defendant No.2 paid Rs. 2,50,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- in respect of suit site and passed a separate receipt for the amount received by him towards part of sale consideration on 7.7.90 for a sum of Rs.
2,50,000/- and father of defendant No.2 constructed the building with his own funds and revised sanctioned plan was also obtained by the father of defendant No.2 in the name of late Purshothama Rao. The defendant No.2 specifically assailing the allegation of the plaintiff and the first defendant that the house was constructed by late Purushothama
Rao has contended that his father waited till the expiry of the lock in period for registration of sale deed in view of the Byelaws of the Film Nagar Society and in the meanwhile Purushothama Rao died.
21.Further it is also the averment of the defendant No.2 that the document of the plaintiff is a collusive document brought into existence with cooperation and connivance of defendant No.1 to defeat the rights of defendant No.2. Further it is also stated by the defendant No.2 that consequent upon death of late P. Swamy, the plaintiff has not impleaded all the legal heirs of his father, as such, the suit is also liable to be dismissed on the said count also.
22.On the other hand the defendant No.3 who is the tenant has filed written statement stating that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant and defendant No.3 is paying monthly rent of Rs. 23,000/- and out of which an amount of
Rs. 11,500/- is being paid to the defendant No.2 and another amount of Rs. 11,500/- to
Smt. Parvathi related to Defendant No.2, by way of cheque and thereafter as per the order of this court in I.A. 432/08 he has been depositing the monthly rent of Rs. 33,500/- towards the credit of the suit. It is further stated by the defendant No.3 that many parties are coming to defendant No.3 at the suit schedule premises and claiming that they are real owners and others do not have title which has become a nuisance to the defendant
No.3 and finally stated that the defendant No.3 will abide by the verdict of this Court.
23.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract as pleaded
8 O.S. 736 OF 2008
in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare the sale deeds dated 9.2.95 and dated 10.2.95 as null and void?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed in the plaint?
4. Whether defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of Defendant No.2?
5. To what relief?
24.On 2.3.2010 the following additional issues have been framed:
Additional Issue No.1: Whether the second defendant’s father late P. Swamy had
constructed the house with his own funds?
Additional Issue No.2 Whether agreement of sale in favour of second defendant’s
father precedes the agreement of sale set up by the plaintiff?
25.During the course of trial, the plaintiff has examined one Mr. R. Sunder, partner of the plaintiff firm as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. On the other hand the defendant No.1 has been examined himself as DW1 and Defendant No.2 has been examined as DW2 and Ex.B1 to B42 got marked.
26. Heard either side.
27.I would like to take up Additional Issue No.2 initially for the sake of convenience.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 2:- In the instant case while PW1 is claiming right
title and interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.A9 un registered sale deed dated 24.5.93 and Ex.A10 receipt dated 24.5.93 both Ex.A9 and A10 were marked under the provisions of Section 49 of Registration Act and since Ex.A9 being an unregistered sale deed purported to have been executed by the defendant No.1 and on the other hand the defendant No.2 who has been examined as DW2 has taken a specific plea that Ex.B31 agreement of sale dated 7.7.1990 has been executed by late father of defendant No.1 in favour of father of defendant No.2/DW2 and Ex.B31 agreement of sale appears to be an anterior document which has been produced by DW2 during the course of his evidence.
28.On the other hand a perusal of Ex.A9 unregistered sale deed dated 24.5.93, it can be stated that Ex.A9 un registered sale deed purported to have been executed by
Defendant No.1 later point of time.
29.Now in respect of execution of Ex.B31, it is the evidence of DW2 that Ex.B31 was initially executed by late Purushothama Rao for a total consideration of Rs.
9 O.S. 736 OF 2008
3,50,000/- and his late father paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to Purushothama Rao on the date of agreement of sale dated 7.7.90 and that house was built by his father late P. Swamy by obtaining permission in the name of vendor Purushothama Rao. Further DW2 elucidated that in view of the lock in period for registration of the sale deed immediately the sale deed could not be executed and father of defendant No.1 expired on 22.6.91 and consequently the defendant No.1 herself has executed two sale deeds one in the name of his father on 9.2.95 and another in his favour on 10.2.95 by receiving further total sale consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- under Ex.B3 and B4. Both Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 had been executed by none other than the registered GPA of the defendant No.1 by name B.
Manohar Singh in whose favour registered power of attorney was given by the defendant No.1 and as on the date of execution of Ex.B3 and B4 the registered power of attorney given by defendant No.1 in favour of her GPA was very much subsisting. Thus, on the basis of Ex.B1 read with Ex.B31, it can safely be held that the agreement of sale (un registered sale deed) in favour of second defendant’s father precedes agreement of sale set up by the plaintiff under Ex.A9 for the single largest reason that the schedule of property covered under both Ex.B31 and Ex.A9 is one and the same. Accordingly, this
additional issue No.2 has been answered as indicated above.
30.ISSUE NO. 1: At the outset it has to be stated here that the plaintiff’s claim is based on an unregistered sale deed scribed on stamp paper worth Rs. 100/- dated 24.5.93 which is purported to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he has paid the money under the said sale deed to the defendant No.1 on the same day i.e. on 24.5.93 which is Ex.A9 un registered sale deed, so also a separate receipt also been obtained by the defendant No.1 in respect of the said sale consideration. Further it is also the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant
No.1 due to ill health could not register the sale deed as she was unable to move.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has been postponing the registration of sale deed and after some time whereabouts of the defendant No.1 were not known. It is also further plea of the plaintiff herein that the defendant No.1 has delivered symbolic possession and defendant No.3 has been residing as a tenant. Further the plea of the plaintiff being due to his business activities, he has entrusted the duty of collection of rents to the father of defendant No.2 as he could not concentrate on the affairs of the suit schedule property and lateron consequent upon the death of father of defendant No.2 the defendant No.2 proclaimed himself as owner and not handing over the rents of the suit schedule property and further since the defendant No.1 is also not intending to execute the register sale deed, as such, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific
10 O.S. 736 OF 2008
performance of contract, as mentioned supra while the defendant No.1 sailed with the plaintiff and defendant No.2 has put up the defence of independent right, title and interest over the suit schedule property.
31.Now considering the evidence of the plaintiff who has examined the partner of the plaintiff firm namely R. Sunder, he has reiterated the plaint averments in nutshell which are not being adverted to for avoiding repetition.
32.Now considering the cross examination of PW1 by the counsel for Defendant
No.1 it has been elicited that the sale consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff firm. Further PW1 has admitted that he has not filed Income tax returns of the plaintiff firm towards payment of sale consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/- pertaining to the relevant assessment year. Further PW1 has categorically stated that the defendant
No.1 has subscribed her signature on 24.5.93 itself on the date of execution of Ex.A9 and further Ex.A9 stamp paper wherein the recitals of Ex.A9 were got typed at City
Civil Court premises Secunderabad by his brother on 24.5.93. To a specific question
PW1 denied that defendant No.1 has not handed over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to him. Thus, the cross examination of the counsel for defendant
No.1 was sought to assail the execution of Ex.A9 an unregistered sale deed, however, it is imperative to say here that the defendant No.1 pleaded about execution of Ex.A9 un registered sale deed, has not chosen to amend the written statement in respect of assailing the execution of Ex.A9 an un registered sale deed although after filing the written statement the Defendant No.1 is not seeing eye to eye with plaintiff and
Defendant No.2.
33.Now considering the cross examination on behalf of defendant No.2’s counsel,
PW1 denied that Ex.A9 sale deed was fabricated on an old stamp paper on 24.5.93 and categorically stated that the plaintiff could not get the sale deed registered through defendant No.1 on her health grounds. To a specific question PW1 categorically stated that sale consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/- was paid at different dates and not in lumpsum and further admitted that as on the date of execution of Ex.A10 receipt revenue stamp was not affixed and further categorically stated that he contacted defendant No.1 in the year 2006 and asked her to execute registered sale deed but she told him to wait for some time. In respect of execution of Ex.A1 letter, PW1 stated that Ex.A1 was got typed through her son, Ex.A2 letter also addressed to PW1 by the first defendant which has been received by post. PW1 further stated that the defendant No.1 did not mention anything in respect of her health in Ex.A2 letter of request and stated that he constructed
11 O.S. 736 OF 2008
a house on the suit schedule property and further stated that he (PW1) has not filed
M.C.H. sanction plan of the suit schedule premises and further also stated that he has also not filed original sale deed in favour of late Purushothama Rao, executed by Film
Nagar Cooperative Society, Hyderabad, however, denied that late Purushothama Rao has executed agreement of sale on 7.7.90 in favour of late P. Swamy the father of defendant
No.2 by receiving Rs. 2,50,000/- and further denied that late P. Swamy constructed the house by obtaining municipal sanction from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in the name of Purushothama Rao. So also PW1 admitted that defendant No.1 has lodged a criminal complaint against one Manohar Singh her GPA holder, defendant No.2 and his father in the year 1995 which was registered as Crime No. 73/2006. Further PW1 also denied the suggestion that his statement about handing over sale deed in the name of
Purushothama Rao to P. Swamy is incorrect and PW1 however, not filed any document to substantiate his possession or the possession of defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property consequent upon execution of Ex.B31. Further, PW1 has filed Ex.A11 cancellation of GPA given to B. Manohar Singh by the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property.
34.In respect of Ex.A11 Certified Copy of cancellation deed of GPA by DW1 against her GPA holder Manohar Singh, defendant No.2 was permitted to cross examine PW1 and PW1 categorically stated that the original of Ex.A11 is in possession of defendant
No.1 and he has not got issued any notice to the defendant No.1 to produce the original of Ex.A11 document.
35.On the other hand as mentioned supra, the defendant No.1 has filed chief affidavit as long back as on 22.11.11 and for the reasons best known to her, she has not come over to the witness box for subjecting herself for cross examination till 22.5.2014. In this context, ironically DW1 in her chief affidavit stated that she never offered to sell the suit schedule property for total consideration of Rs. 6,30,000/- in favour of plaintiff and she has not executed any contract of sale agreement dated 24.5.93 and further stated that she never executed an un registered sale deed or agreed to register the same after she recovered from ill health. Further she also stated that she does not know the plaintiff or defendant No.2 and further asserted that she never sold the suit schedule property to anybody and further she has categorically denied that her GPA has executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 or his father in respect of the suit schedule property and thus defendant No.1 has completely deviated from the contents of the written statement in her chief affidavit which piece of evidence suffers from credibility crisis for
12 O.S. 736 OF 2008
the single largest reason that she has not sought for any amendment to the written statement filed by her. In her cross examination by the counsel for plaintiff, she has stated that her GPA holder obtained her signature forcibly on Ex.B3 GPA dated 28.9.1994 and she does not know as to whether the said GPA Manohar Singh has sold the suit schedule property to anybody. Further, DW1 has admitted that signature appearing on Ex.A9 sale deed belongs to her and also admitted that signature appearing on Ex.A10 receipt also belongs to her and so also signature appearing on Ex.A2 letter belongs to her, thus virtually D.W.1 admitted about execution of Ex.A9. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of defendant No.2, DW1 denied that her late father has executed any sale agreement in favour of P. Swamy, father of defendant No.2. Further,
DW1 stated that original sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in the name of her father was taken away by her GPA who was appointed by her to act as care taker.
Further, DW1 has admitted that under Ex.B3 registered irrevocable power of attorney her signature is present and as per Ex.B3 irrevocable power of attorney the said GPA
Manohar Singh was maintaining the suit schedule property and further stated that she does not know whether the said Manohar Singh has sold away the suit schedule property consisting of ground floor and first floor to P. Swamy father of defendant No.2 and also to the defendant No.2 under two separate sale deeds.
36.Thus, the sum and substance of evidence of DW1 appears to be wavering and she appears to have not given evidence in confident personified manner and considering her demeanor she was more worried about her security for bread and butter than the suit proceedings itself.
37.Now a perusal of the evidence of defendant No.2, it discloses that he has also reiterated the defence put up by him in his written statement which is not being adverted to for avoiding repetition.
38.In his cross examination it is elicited that he was not present when Ex.B31 agreement of sale was executed and signature of his father is not present on page of 1 and 2 of agreement of sale of Ex.B31 and as on the date of execution of Ex.B32 receipt he was not present. Further DW2 admitted that there is no recital either in Ex.B4 or B5 sale deeds in respect of execution of Ex.B31 agreement of sale. DW2 specifically stated that in view of Ex.B31 agreement of sale, his father has initiated the construction of the suit schedule property and further DW2 answered that under Ex.B31 agreement of sale, no authority was given to his father for commencing the construction of the suit schedule premises. Further, DW2 also admitted that as per recital of Ex.B31 there was
13 O.S. 736 OF 2008
no time limit for registration of the document and in respect of payment of sale consideration under Ex.B4, DW2 categorically stated that he has paid the sale consideration covered by Ex.B4 to the GPA holder B. Manohar Singh in the presence of defendant No.1 at the time of registration and also admitted that there is a recital in respect of payment of sale consideration to the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 and further stated that Ex.B3 irrevocable power of attorney dated 28.9.94 bears the signature of defendant No.1 and pen ultimately DW2 denied that defendant No.1 has sold the suit schedule property under Ex.B4 and B5 after cancellation of the GPA given by her in favour of B. Manohar Singh.
39.Now a perusal of evidence of DW2 categorically discloses that although Ex.B31 sale agreement precedes execution of Ex.A9 un registered sale deed, but still it has to be stated here that under Ex.B4 registered sale deed executed in favour of late P. Swamy and as well as under Ex.B5 registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2, there is no mention of execution of Ex.B31 agreement of sale purported to have been executed by late Purushothama Rao, which may not be of any consequence in view of vivid piece of account given by DW2 in respect of execution of Ex.B31 sale agreement by father of Defendant No.1 in favour of P. Swamy, father of Defendant No.2.
40. Now during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has categorically harped upon the point that in fact the Defendant No.1 has categorically admitted about execution of ExA9 unregistered sale deed in her written statement itself and as such no amount of evidence has to be looked into which is not pleaded and cited a decision reported in AIR 1930 P.C. 57(1) in the case of Siddik Mohamad Shah Vrs. Mt.
Saran and others and also cited another decision in the case of Rajgopal (died) by L.Rs.
Vrs. Kishan gopal reported in AIR 2003 S.C. 4319. I have perused the texts of both the decisions and ratio laid down therein is not disputed, however, the ratio laid down therein may not be applicable, in the instant case, in view of the specific defence of
Defendant No.2 being prior to execution of Ex.A9 unregistered sale deed, already defendant No.1's father executed Ex.B31 agreement of sale under Ex.B31 and delivered possession, as such, apart from the role of D1 and evidence of Defendant No.1 the evidence of defendant No.2 plays vital role in adjudicating the lis in proper perspective.
Thus, the sum and substance of the arguments placed before the Court by the Counsel for Plaintiff being since Defendant No.1 executed Ex.A9 and under Ex.A1 and A2 letters she expressed her inability to register sale deed, as such, it is a fit case for grant of
Specific Performance of Contract of sale.
14 O.S. 736 OF 2008
41.On the other hand Counsel for Defendant No.1 has contended that it was plaintiff who has played fraud upon Defendant No.1 and got executed Ex.A9 unregistered sale deed and Ex.A1 and A2 letters and further the written statement on behalf of Defendant
No.1 was also got prepared by plaintiff by engaging a Counsel of his choice, as such, the plaintiffs' case has to be dismissed. However, the said submissions though appear to be rhetoric but cannot be countenanced as the said submissions are unsubstantiated.
42.The Counsel for Defendant No.2 rather elaborately contended that the plaintiff came to the Court with unlcean hands and taking shelter under fabricated documents and as such, plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of Specific Performance and cited a
Judgment reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 2814 in the case of Lourdu Mari David Vs. Luis
Chinnaya Arogiaswamy, wherein the Hon'be Supreme Court of India has held that “ It is settled law that the party who seeks to avail of the equitable jurisdiction of a Court and
Specific Performance being equitable relief, must come to the Court with clean hands.
In other words, the party who makes false allegations does not come with clean hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief ”
43.Further Counsel for Defendant No.2 cited another decision reported in the case of
Nanjappan Vrs. Ramaswamy and others in AIR (SCW) 2015 page 1659, wherein the
Hon'be Supreme Court of India has held that;
“ First sale agreement was executed on 30.9.1987 about twenty seven years ago. The property is situated in Coimbatore City and over these years, value of property in Coimbatore City would have considerably increased. In Saradamani Kandaplan Vs. Rajalakshmi and others: (2011) 12 SCC 18, this Court has held that the value of the property escalate in the urban areas very fast and it would not be equitable to grant specific performance after a lapse of long period of time. In the instant case, first agreement was executed on 30.9.1987 i.e. twenty seven years ago. In view of passage of time and escalation of value of the property, grant of specific relief of performance would give an unfair advantage to the Respondents-Plaintiffs whereas the performance of the contract would involve great hardship to the Appellant – Defendant and his family members.
Considering the totality and the facts and circumstances, in our view, it is not appropriate to grant discretionary relief of specific performance to the Respondents- Plaintiffs for more than one reason. Admittedly, suit property is the only property of the Appellant – Defendant and the Appellant is said to have constructed a house and where he is currently residing with the family. As compared to Respondents, the Appellant will suffer significant hardship if a decree for specific performance is granted against the appellant. Considering the circumstances, such as the construction of the residential house over the suit property, sale consideration, passage of time and hardship caused to the Appellant, makes it inequitable to exercise the discretionary relief of specific
15 O.S. 736 OF 2008
performance and the concurrent finding of first appellant court and the High Court decreeing the suit for specific performance is to be set aside”
44.The Counsel for Defendant No.2 while citing a catena of decisions has also cited the latest Judgment of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ALD 2015(2) page 274, in the case of Kalvakolanu Tarakamma Vrs. Pulichintala Narsimha Reddy, the Hon'ble High
Court in view of the existence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement of sale, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance. In the said case, the stamp paper for the agreement was purchased on a different date and the name of the person in whose favour the stamp paper was purchased was also different and considering this aspect with other circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has reversed the Judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“As against the above material on record, the learned trial Court has clearly erred in holding that the admission of the defendant that the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to her goes long way and probablized the case of the plaintiff. As stated above, even if the defendant admits that Ex.A1 contains her signature, that do not, in any way, proves the case of the plaintiff or probablize his contentions as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case referred to above. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no satisfactory proof of execution of the contract of sale by the defendant and mere admission of the signature is no proof of the execution of the document or the contents of the document in a suit for specific performance. It is for the plaintiff to prove all the aspects and there is no satisfactory evidence about the execution of Ex.A1, payment of consideration, delivery of possession and the terms of the contract. On the other hand, there is strong suspicion about the stamp paper on which Ex.A1 was executed and the defendant in her written statement, filed within three months of the suit being filed, contended that some mystery clouds regarding the purchase of the stamp paper on which the agreement of sale was written and that the plaintiff had maliciously brought into existence the suit agreement with the help of his friends. The learned trial Court was therefore in error in decreeing the suit without properly appreciating the evidence on record and taking note of the suspicious circumstances and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. The point is accordingly answered.”
45.The Counsel for Defendant No.2 drawing analogy has furher contended that in view of the concatenation of the aforementioned decisions, there are also suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 receipt.
46.Now a perusal of Ex.A9 unregistered sale deed discloses that as per clause 5 defendant No.1 has handed over all the link documents, papers pertaining to schedule property, on the other hand it was defendant No.2/DW2 has filed all the link documents of the suit schedule property from his custody. The plaintiff having taken the plea that he has handed over the link documents to the father of defendant No.2 is concerned, no positive evidence placed before the Court, except the self serving testimony of PW1.
16 O.S. 736 OF 2008
47.In respect of the recital under clause 6 about delivery of possession of the suit schedule property on the date of execution of Ex.A9 is concerned, the said recital appears to be travesty of truth for the reason that under Ex.B31 dated 7.7.90 agreement of sale father of defendant No.1/DW1 has admitted that father of defendant No.2 has built 2 floors in the suit schedule property consequent upon delivery of possession under
Ex.B31. All these unexplained circumstances by the Plaintiff go to prove that there are suspicious circumstances shrouded in execution of Ex.A9 and Ex.A10. Further more,
DW1 being progeny of late Purushothama Rao must have knowledge of Ex.B31 and ought to have taken step for cancellation of Ex.B.31 before execution of Ex.A9.
48.Now it has to be seen here that in the light of Ex.B31 agreement of sale executed by her late father in favour of father of defendant No.1 in respect of the entire suit schedule property, whether the defendant No.1 inherits any such absolute rights for sale of the suit schedule property under Ex.A9. Now considering this aspect not only substantially but in full measure, it has to be stated here that under Ex.B31 the father of defendant No.2 is only an agreement holder and no right, title and interest will pass to the father of defendant No.2 namely P. Swamy, as such and more over, under Ex.B4 and
B5 the GPA of Defendant No.1 has executed two sale eeds in favour of late P. Swamy and defendant No.2 and put a logical end to Ex.B31. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to state here that late Purushothama Rao has received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from P.
Swamy under Ex.B32 stamped receipt and Ex.B38 is municipal permit given in the name of Purshothama Rao produced from the custody of defendant No.2 under Ex.B8.
49.Further more, Ex.B33 is revised plan showing the proposed construction discloses that the municipal authorities have given revised sanctioned plan in the name of father of defendant No.1 for construction of ground floor, first floor and second floor, which has also been produced from the custody of defendant No.2. Further more, defendant No.2 besides filing death certificate of late Purushothama Rao, has also filed the sale deed executed by A.P. Film Nagar Society in favour of late Purushothama Rao under Ex.B1 and further by irrevocable power of attorney under Ex.B3 is also filed by defendant No.2 besides Ex.B4 and B5 sale deeds. In this context, in respect of payment of rents in respect of suit schedule property, Ex.B24 and B25 TDS certificates go to show that while rents were being paid to the defendant No.2, TDS was being deducted through service tax and in respect of encumbrance Ex.B26 speaks that initially the claimant was father of defendant No.1, later on under Ex.B27 late P. Swamy was the claimant under
Ex.B28 and defendant no.2 name is figured as claimant by way of encumbrance.
17 O.S. 736 OF 2008
50.At this juncture it is not out of place to mention here as rightly contended by the counsel for defendant No.2 that it is settled legal proposition that principle of natural
Justice requires that if the rights are created in favour of two persons at a different times, the one which has advantage in time should also have advantage in law. This rule however, applies only to cases where conflicting equities are created as per the law laiddown in the case of S. Arunachalam Vrs. Sivan Perumal reported in AIR 1970 page 226-230.
51.In this context, it is also not out of place to mention here that under Ex.B31 there is a specific covenant of handing over of possession of suit schedule property and further the handing over of the possession has been specifically recited in clause No. 14, so also further crucial aspect under clause No.14 being purchaser namely father of defendant
No.2 has already built a house (two floors) with his own funds in the said area, of course under the name and permission issued by the municipal authorities in favour of vendor.
In the instant case under discussion, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has not placed before the Court any acceptable piece of material to prove execution of Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 by explaining the suspicious circumstances, as such, the provision Under
Section 48 of Transfer of Property Act may not be made applicable in its favour in the instant case.
52.On the other hand defendant No.2’s evidence appears to be inconformity with the defence taken by him in his written statement and virtually in accordance with the specific plea also taken by him that in view of lock in period that has been fixed by the predecessor in title of the suit schedule property i.e. A.P. Film Nagar Society that no land can be sold to third party with in the lock in period, as such, the municipal sanction was taken in the name of late Purushothama Rao appears to be convincing and the said fact is reflected in clause 14 of Ex.B31 sale agreement.
53.Another crucial aspect which goes in favour of defendant No.2 being there is a express covenant or recital as the case may be that time was not the essence of the contract, consequently late Purshotama Rao died and later on during his life time the father of defendant No.1 got executed Ex.B4 sale deed from none other than the registered power of attorney holder by name B. Manohar Singh, thereafter defendant
No.2 purchased the first floor from the defendant No.1 represented by special power of attorney in both the sale deeds executed by late P. Swamy as well as defendant No.2 who has been categorically and clearly stated that both the sale deeds were executed by
18 O.S. 736 OF 2008
special power of attorney in his capacity as special power of attorney holder of defendant No.1.
54Further more, it is also to be stated here that the jurisdiction of decree of specific relief is discretionary and court can consider various circumstances to decide whether such a relief to be granted, merely it is lawful to grant, the court need not grant an order for specific relief, but this discretion shall not be exercised in an arbitrarily manner.
Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act speaks about as to what circumstances if under the protection of contract the plaintiff gets unfair over the defendant, the court may not exercise its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, so also the specific relief may not be granted if the defendants would be put to undue hardship which he did not foresee at the time of agreement, if it is unreliable to grant relief, then also the court would decide from granting decree to the plaintiff as per the ratio laid down in the case of N.
Shakuntala Laxmi and others Vrs. T. Vijaya reported in 2005(4) ALD 130
55.Now considering the said legal proposition in respect of the present circumstances of the case and also considering the conduct of the plaintiff that he has handed over the original documents of title of late Puroshothama Rao and also asked late P. Swamy to collect rents on his behalf in his absence and that there after late P. Swamy proclaimed as owner of the suit schedule property is concerned, the said pleading in the plaint are not substantiated by any piece of material. On the other hand the defendant No.2 has placed before the court consistent acceptable and trust worthy material in the form of
Ex.B31 as well as Ex.B1 title deed which flows from the custody of defendant No.2 and also recital under Ex.B31 that it was the father of defendant constructed both the floors.
Thus, all the factors cumulatively put together, the father of defendant No.1 consequent upon execution of Ex.B31 has been put in possession and even the written statement of defendant No.3 discloses that he has been paying rents and also Ex.B24, B25 goes to show that it was defendant No.2 who has been receiving the rents and not the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
56.During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 has cited a decision reported in the case of Kalvakolanu Tarakamma Vs
Pulichintala Narsimha Reddy, reported in ALD 2015 (2) Page 274 wherein our
Hon’ble High Court held that where suspicious circumstances are existing in
execution of agreement of sale and in case the stamp for the agreement on a different date and the name of the person in whose favour the stamp paper was
19 O.S. 736 OF 2008
purchased was also different and considering the said aspects the Hon’ble High
Court held that relief for specific performance contract of sale may not be granted. Now considering the said ratio in respect of the obtainable circumstances of the case the stamp paper in the instant case has been sold to one Mr. Govardhan for the use of M/s.V.S.N. Company in this context the specific contention raised by the counsel for defendant No.2 that the stamp for the preparation of Ex.A9 was purchased from the stamp vendor at City Civil Court,
Secunderabad. The person in whose name it was purchased is one B.
Govardhan. The name of the plaintiff is VSN & Company, represented by R.
Sunder. Even though the stamps does contain the name of VSN & Company,
Hyderabad but it is not in the name of partner Sri.R. Sunder. The address of the vendor in Ex.A9 is mentioned Allwyn Colony, Hyderabad, and the purchaser address is mentioned as Shobana Colony, Balanagar. But the stamp paper used is purchased from the Stamp Vendor, at City Civil Court, Secunderabad. This fact itself certainly creates some element doubt of about the execution of the said sale deed on the date it contained. Further, as per the terms of the deed, the entire consideration was paid to the vendor on the same date and the receipt
Ex.A10 also states so and un answered question is if the document was executed at the place where it was purchased i.e. at City Civil Court, Secunderabad, then what prevented the plaintiff to get the document registered at the office of the concerned SubRegistrar and nothing prevented plaintiff to get registration of
Ex.A9 at the residence of Defendant No.1 on the health grounds.
57.Thus, in view of the above discussion and conclusion arrived at by me, I hold that the plaintiff has not made out a valid case for grant of specific performance of contract as pleaded in the plaint averments. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of Defendant
No.2 and against the plaintiff and defendant No.1.
Issue No.2
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare sale deeds date.921995 and 102 1995 as null and void.
58.Although it is specific prayer of plaintiff that Ex.B4 and B5 sale deeds executed in favour of P. Swamy and in favour of defendant No.2 by the registered
GPA holder of the defendant No.1 during the course of arguments it is
20 O.S. 736 OF 2008
specifically contended by the counsel for plaintiff that both exhibits Ex.B4 and B5 sale deeds were executed after cancellation of the GPA given to Manohar Singh and that Ex.B4 and B5 have no value in the eyes of law. However, the fact being
Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 were executed by registered GPA of Defendant No.1 prior to cancellation of Ex.B3 registered GPA, which is manifest on the face of the documents.
59.In this context it has to be stated here that although Ex.B4 and B5 were executed after the execution of Ex.A9 unregistered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in this context it has to be stated here that the factum of late P.
Swamy father of the defendant No.1 obtaining agreement of sale under Ex.B31 appears an established fact.
60.Further as mentioned supra the link document of Late Purshotham Rao in respect of the suit property is possession of the defendant No.2 categorically proves that Late Purshotham Rao executed agreement of sale with an intention to convey sale deed in respect of the suit property.
61.Viewing from another angle apart from Ex.B31 agreement of sale executed
Late Purshotham Rao the custody of Ex.B1 link document as well as original sanction plan by the MCH, Hyderabad will go to prove that consequent upon the death of Late P. Swamy the title of defendant No.2 stands established as owner of the suit schedule property and also for the reason that the defendant No.1 herself has admitted that it was father of defendant No.2 by name P. Swamy has inducted defendant No.3 into possession of the suit schedule property. Added to this even 3rd defendant categorically stated in unequivocal terms that he has been in possession of suit schedule property and has been paying the monthly rents to the defendant No.2 and his wife Smt. Parvathi.
62.Thus in the light of Ex.B31 agreement of sale and the registered sale deeds
Ex.B4 and B5 and the consequential tax receipts under Ex.B6 to B39 goes to support the case of defendant No.2 that he has been in possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owner of course with the other progeny of Late P.
Swamy in respect of the ground floor of suit schedule property.
21 O.S. 736 OF 2008
63.On the other hand considering the evidence of PW1 he has in unmistakable terms has categorically stated that he has not filed any lease deed, rent receipt or any other document to show that the 3rd defendant is his tenant and further PW1 categorically stated he does not know whether the name of Late P. Swamy mutated in the place of Late. Purshotham Rao in the Film Nagar Cooperative
Society. PW1 categorically stated that he has not filed any document to substantiate his possession or possession of the 1st defendant over the suit schedule property, thus the sum and substance of the above factual events disclose that initially under Ex.B31 late Purshotham executed agreement of sale dt.771990 wherein there is specific recital of Late Purshotham Rao having already delivered possession and other clause i.e. clause No.14 clinches the issue wherein there is another specific recital to the effect that it was P. Swamy who has already built two floors in the suit property of course under the name and permission issued by the MCH in favour of the vendor Late Purshotham Rao.
64.Thus all the factors put together when defendant No.2 has proved his absolute title in respect of the first floor and also in respect of ground floor along with progeny of Late P. Swamy and on the other hand the plaintiff has not placed
before any acceptable piece of material for declaring sale deeds under Ex.B4 and
B5 as null and void. Accordingly this Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the defendant No.2 and against the plaintiff.
Additional Issue No.1
Whether 2nd defendant’s father Late P. Swamy has constructed house with his own funds.
65.In respect of the subject matter of the this issue there has been a categorical recital under clause 14 of Ex.B31 agreement of sale which goes to show that Late Purshotham Rao himself admitted about construction of the house by Late P. Swamy and in the light of the said recital the purchase of construction material under Ex.B34 to B36 have relevance to show that it was
P.Swamy who has constructed the house in the suit schedule property.
66.Thus Additional Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the defendant No.2
22 O.S. 736 OF 2008
and against plaintiff.
Issue No.3
67.In view of discussion and findings given under issue Nos.1 and 2 the plaintiff has not made out any valid case of possession and title over the suit schedule property as such the plaintiff is not entitle for injunctive relief.
Accordingly the issue No.3 is answered in favour of the defendant No.2 and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.4.
Whether D1 is executed sale deed in favour of the D2.
68.The subject matter of this issue has to be considered in the light of Ex.B31 agreement of sale and consequently under Ex.B3 registered irrevocable power of attorney D1 herself gave authority to her GPA holder B. Manohar Singh to deal with the suit schedule property including execution of sale deeds and consequently under Ex.B4 registered sale deed executed by GPA in favour of Late
P. Swamy and consequently execution of sale deed in favour defendant No.2 under Ex.B5 sale deed and further Ex.B26 goes show that sale has been effected over the suit schedule property from Filmnagar Cooperative Society to Late
Purshotham Rao father of D1 and thereafter Ex.B28 discloses there is an entry of sale from D1 in favour D2 and Ex.B29 discloses that sale transaction between D1 and father of D2 reflecting Ex.B4 and B5 sale deeds so also Ex.B30 is also to the same effect. All these factors put to together it can safely be inferred that the sale deeds in favour of Late P. Swamy and defendant No.2 were executed by the
GPA with conscious knowledge of defendant No.1 and it can be conclusively held that D1 executed Ex.B4 and B5 sale deeds in favour of Late P. Swamy and defendant No.1 through her registered GPA holder prior to cancellation of GPA under Ex.A11.
69.Thus Issue No.4 is answered as indicated above.
Issue No.5
70.In the result in view of discussion and findings arrived in the aforementioned issues the plaintiff has not made out any valid case for grant of relief sought for.
23 O.S. 736 OF 2008
71.Accordingly the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs are awarded.
Dictated to the Superintendent partly transcribed by him corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of May, 2015.
IV Senior Civil Judge
City Civil Court: Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDCENCE
FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTSs. PW1 : R.Sunder 1. DW1 : Smt. Susheela N Mallaya.
2. DW2 : P.Jaya Balasubramanyam
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF'S
Ex.A1 is Letter executed by D1 dt.6.7.1998 Ex.A2 is Letter executed by D1 dt.10.6.2005 Ex.A3 is CC of sale deed No. 242/1996, dt.9.2.1995 Ex.A4 is CC of sale deed No. 2251/1997, dt.9.2.1995 Ex.A5 is O/c of Legal notice dt.28.3.2008 Ex.A6 is Returned unserved cover dt.3.4.2008. Ex.A7 is Firm registration certificate Ex.A8 is Market value certificate Ex.A9 is Registered sale deed dt.24.5.1993
Ex.A10 is Receipt dt.24.5.1993. (EX.A9 & A10 are marked under provision of
Sec 49 of 1908 ACT) Ex.A11 is CC of cancellation of GPA bearing No.516/1995 dt.7.8.1995
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
Ex.B1 is original sale deed No. 2730/1989, dt 31.03.1989 Ex.B2 is death certificate dt 20.06.1991
Ex.B3 is original registered power of attorney Doc. No. 2217/IV/94, dt
28.09.1994
Ex.B4 is original registered sale deed Doc. No. 242/1996, dt 09.02.1995
Ex.B5 is original registered sale deed Doc. No. 2251/1997, dt 10.02.1995
Ex.B6 is original provisional receipt bearing No. 159, dt 24.10.1997 Ex.B7 is original tax receipt No.36, dt 07.02.1996 Ex.B8 is original tax receipt No.37, dt 07.02.1996
24 O.S. 736 OF 2008
Ex.B9 is original tax receipt No.9, dt 24.08.1997 Ex.B10 is original tax receipt No.8, dt 24.08.1997 Ex.B11 is original tax receipt No.7, dt 24.08.1997 Ex.B12 is original Eseva receipt dt 13.08.2006 Ex.B13 is original Eseva receipt dt 13.08.2006 Ex.B14 is original property tax receipt dt 17.06.2006 Ex.B15 is original property tax receipt dt 17.06.2006 Ex.B16 is original maintenance charges receipt Ex.B17 is original receipt dt 07.04.1998 Ex.B18 is original receipt dt 7796, dt 31.03.1998 Ex.B19 is original receipt dt 7797, dt 31.03.1998
Ex.B20 is original mutation order vide ROC. No. 3959A/T6/TC5/97, dt
31.10.1997 Ex.B21 is original mutation order vide ROC. No.3959/T6/TC5/97, dt 31.10.1997 Ex.B22 is office copy of letter dt 12.03.1999 Ex.B23 is letter vide RS.No.222/1998/GMII, dt 17.09.1998 Ex.B24 is certificate of deduction of tax dt 01.04.2006 Ex.B25 is certificate of deduction of tax dt 01.04.2006 Ex.B26 is encumbrance certificate dt 18.10.2005 Ex.B27 is encumbrance certificate dt 18.10.2005 Ex.B28 is encumbrance certificate dt 18.10.2005 Ex.B29 is encumbrance certificate dt 25.07.2008 Ex.B30 is encumbrance certificate dt 25.07.2008
Ex.B31 is agreement of sale executed by Purshotam Rao father of defendant
No.1 in favour of father of defendant No.2
Ex.B32 is original receipt dt 07.07.1990 Ex.B33 is revised sanction plan of the suit schedule premises Ex.B34 is original bill on purchase of steel dt 29.08.1989
Ex.B35 is original cash bill No. 4147 on purchase of steel dt 18.11.1989
Ex.B36 is original cash bill No 4005 on purchase of steel dt 09.08.1989
Ex.B37 is original cash bill No 234 on purchase of PAC jet pumps dt 29.07.1989 Ex.B38 is original permit receipt No 100 of revised plan dt 20.03.1990 Ex.B39 is original permit receipt No 34 of ground floor dt 20.02.1988
Ex.B40 is CC of document No.516/1995 i.e., cancellation of GPA dt.7.8.1995
Ex.B41 is CC of FIR in crime No 73/2006 of PS Jubilee Hills
Ex.B42 is CC of compliant filed U/s 200 CRP by DW1 against one B.Manhor
Sing, P.Swamy and P.Balasubraminayam.
IV Senior Civil Judge
City Civil Court: Hyderabad