sri.K.Lakshman

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NASGAR

Present : Sri K. Lakshman I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B.Nagar

Tuesday this the 29th day of March 2016

O.S. NO. 49/2008

Between :

1. Rajamma. B, W/o Gangaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Household,

2. Swamy.B, S/o Gangaiah, Aged abut 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Chandrasekhar.B, S/o Swamy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Agriculture All are r/o 1-10, Boduppal village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .. Plaintiffs

AND 1.Sri B. Ramesh, S/o Pochaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, r/o Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2. Sri Danavathi Hari, S/o Sri D. Chandya, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o 8-43/8/A/G, Balaji Hills, Boduppal Village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. .. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s B.Vijaysen Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffs and M/s J.V.R.Murthy, Advocates for the Defendants and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.

12414/2004 undated 18.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

2. The averments of the plaint are in brief that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac 3-36 ½ gts in Sy. No. 206, 207, 208, 210 and 212 situated at Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 by name Sri Gangaiah and his father Late Balaiah was the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1. The father of defendant No.1 namely Sri Pochaiah is the younger is the younger brother of late Gangaiah and that there was a family partition effected about more than 30 years ago, in which Ac 53-00 gts of land in Sy. No. 62, 133, 140, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 240, 241 was allotted to the branch of Gangaiah, after his death in the year 1995, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and one Rajashekar were issued pattadar pass book and title deeds.

3. It is further avered in the plaint that the plaintiffs converted the said lant inot house plots likewise the family members of defendant No.1 and others have also sold their respective lands as house plots under lay out which were allotted to an extent of 53 acres towards their share in the family partition. That the plaintiffs had obtained layout to an extent of Ac 17-30 gts covered by four layouts dated 18.07.1982 and sold some of the plots. The plaintiffs were allotted land in Sy. No.

206 towards their share but it was included in the layout of the plaintiffs because the entire lands was not allotted by means and bounds. Therefore, in order to enable the respective parties to sell the part of land executed GPA and therefore, defendant No.1 was given registered GPA document bearing No. 3/94 dated 05.05.1994 and plaintiff was given registered GPA document bearing No. 463/1998

dt 01.12.1998 by the family members. Subsequently, due to some disputes arose

between family members, the plaintiffs have cancelled the GPA executed in favour of GPA by cancellation of deed bearing document No. 11/01 dated 03.02.2001. But the defendant No.1 illegally sold several plots and one such plot bearing No.13 which is subject matter of the suit sold to defendant No.2 illegally under registered sale deed bearing document No. 12414/2004 dated 18.12.2004 and therefore, the said document is illegal. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement disputing the plaint averments.

5. The averments of the written statements filed by the defendants are that the plaintiffs knowingly have given wrong information in order to grab the registered plots and trying to dispose the same. That the family members have settled the matter and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of sale deeds.

That the plaintiffs admitted that they sold the plots to various people as per the lay out dated 18.07.1982, but they have not supplied how many plots are sold in that layout and how much extent of land left over as vacant plots. That the respective family members thus disposed off individual plots to various people as per their will and wish and due to hike of the price of the land, the plaintiffs unable to succeed in

OS No. 815/2005 filed this false case. The plaintiffs admitted that they sold an

extent of 1597 sq. yds through registered GPA dt 05.05.1994 and after lapse of two years the plaintiffs recovered 800 sq. yds., from defendant No.1 and even after that the suit is filed to grab the plots of the individuals and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following Issues are framed for trial

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.12.2004 bearing document no. 12414/2004 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and Exs A8 to

A8 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant no.1 is examined and

Exs B1 & B2 were got marked.

8. Heard both sides and perused the records.

9. Issue No.1 : The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that DW1 himself admitted during the cross-examination that he executed the sale deed Ex A8 and

B1 rectification deed after death of one of the principals and therefore, the said Ex

A8 and B1 has become invalid and DW1 also admitted that he was not authorized to sell the suit schedule plot no. 13 under two GPAs and therefore, he is not authorized to execute Ex A8 in favour of defendant no.2 and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of Ex A8 sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.2.

10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have not specifically denied the plea of the plaintiffs taken in the plaint that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 after cancellation of his earlier GPA and therefore, it amounts to admission of the plaint pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree.

11. On careful perusal of the plaint it is categorically mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint that defendant no.1 illegally sold the plots belonging to the plaintiffs and the same was came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs in the month of December 2006 and he lodged a complaint. It is further mentioned in the plaint that defendant no.1 in the capacity of GPA holder executed the sale deed after his GPA was cancelled by the plaintiffs by a registered document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and the defendant no.2 purchased the suit plot no. 13 under registered sale deed dt 18.12.2004 from defendant no.1 it is illegal and defendant no. 2 will not get any title and interest under the said document. On perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants, admittedly the defendants nor specifically denied the said averments of the plaintiffs taken in para no. 4 of the pleadings and that the defendants have also not stated in their pleadings that they are not admitted entire pleadings about the sais plea of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there is no denial as per Order 8 Rule 3 CPC and also a specific denial under Rule 5

Order 8 CPC.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalal & Sons and another V. Sita Bai (died) per LRs 2001 (2) ALD 547 held that order 8 of CPC deals with the principles to be followed by the defendant while filing written statement and as per Rule 5 every allegation of the fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by answer implication or stated to be not admitted it the pleadings of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability, provided that the

Court may in its discussion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise by such admission. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Duvvada Nandesham Choudhary v. State of A.P. 1964(2) page 95 held that while dealing with Rule 35 (5) of Order 8 CPC of Rule 3 and 5 Order 8 CPC has to be read together and that plea that the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the plaint except such as he has expressly admitted and that he puts the plaintiff to the proof of the allegations so denial must be deemed to be admitted.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohiya Tinukkia Properties Pvt

Ltd., Dibrugarh v. Atmaram Kumar explained the fact of Rule 5, Order 8 of CPC that

Rule 5 provides further allegation of the fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. Order 6 says is, that any allegation of fact imported either to be denied specifically or by a answer implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, even the allegation shall be taken to be admitted.

14. In view of the above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the defendants herein have to specifically denied the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 through GPA after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and due to which the defendant no.2 do not acquire any right and title and the said document is illegal. The defendants also not taken specific plea that the said allegation is not admitted in their written statement. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 as GPA holder of the plaintiffs only after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 has become an admitted fact in the absence of any specific denial as required under Rule 3 and 4 of Order 8 of CPC. As per Sec. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant also admitted in the evidence that he has executed Ex A8 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 and also Ex B1 rectification deed as GPA after death of principals. The said admission goes to show that the said two documents executed by defendant no.1 only after the death of one of the

principals and therefore, the said GPA basing on which the defendant no.1

executed Ex A8 has become invalid on the death of one of the principals. DW1 also admitted that he obtained two GPAs from the plaintiffs and the said two GPAs are not authorized him to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties and he was not authorized to sell the said plot. The said admissions of

DW1 establishes that the defendant no.1 without having any authority under the said GPA has executed Ex A8 in favour of defendant No.2 and therefore, Ex A8 has become invalid and liable to be cancelled. Therefore, issue no.1 is held in favour of plaintiff.

15. Issue No.2 : The title of the plaintiff earlier execution of the sale deed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1 had executed Ex A2 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 basing on the GPA given by the plaintiffs and as per the finding given in Issue No.1,

Ex A8 has become invalid. Therefore, the fact remains that the plaintiffs have become absolute owners and in view of the principle possession follows title, the plaintiffs are deemed in possession of the property and therefore, they are entitled for perpetual injunction. Therefore, Issue No.2 is held accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed. The registered sale deed bearing document no. 12414/2004 dt 18.12.2004 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal is cancelled as null and void and the defendants perpetually restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of March 2016.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1. PW1 : B.Swamy 1.DW1: B.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

1Ex A1:True copy of layout 2Ex A2:Resolution dt 26.11.2005 3Ex A3:CC of sale deed dt 31.03.1997 4Ex A4:CC of sale deed dt 20.10.1997 5Ex A5:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.1997 6Ex A6:CC of sale deed dt 19.09.1997 7Ex A7:CC of sale deed dt 12.04.1998 8Ex A8:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.2006

FOR DEFENDANTS

1Ex B1:CC of Rectification Deed dt 20.09.2007 2Ex B2:CC of sale deed dt 18.10.2005

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NASGAR

Present : Sri K. Lakshman I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B.Nagar

Tuesday this the 29th day of March 2016

O.S. NO. 49/2008

Between :

1. Rajamma. B, W/o Gangaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Household,

2. Swamy.B, S/o Gangaiah, Aged abut 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Chandrasekhar.B, S/o Swamy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Agriculture All are r/o 1-10, Boduppal village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .. Plaintiffs

AND 1.Sri B. Ramesh, S/o Pochaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, r/o Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2. Sri Danavathi Hari, S/o Sri D. Chandya, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Govt. Service, R/o 8-43/8/A/G, Balaji Hills, Boduppal Village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. .. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s B.Vijaysen Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffs and M/s J.V.R.Murthy, Advocates for the Defendants and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.

12414/2004 undated 18.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

2. The averments of the plaint are in brief that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac 3-36 ½ gts in Sy. No. 206, 207, 208, 210 and 212 situated at Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 by name Sri Gangaiah and his father Late Balaiah was the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1. The father of defendant No.1 namely Sri Pochaiah is the younger is the younger brother of late Gangaiah and that there was a family partition effected about more than 30 years ago, in which Ac 53-00 gts of land in Sy. No. 62, 133, 140, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 240, 241 was allotted to the branch of Gangaiah, after his death in the year 1995, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and one Rajashekar were issued pattadar pass book and title deeds.

3. It is further avered in the plaint that the plaintiffs converted the said lant inot house plots likewise the family members of defendant No.1 and others have also sold their respective lands as house plots under lay out which were allotted to an extent of 53 acres towards their share in the family partition. That the plaintiffs had obtained layout to an extent of Ac 17-30 gts covered by four layouts dated 18.07.1982 and sold some of the plots. The plaintiffs were allotted land in Sy. No.

206 towards their share but it was included in the layout of the plaintiffs because the entire lands was not allotted by means and bounds. Therefore, in order to enable the respective parties to sell the part of land executed GPA and therefore, defendant No.1 was given registered GPA document bearing No. 3/94 dated 05.05.1994 and plaintiff was given registered GPA document bearing No. 463/1998

dt 01.12.1998 by the family members. Subsequently, due to some disputes arose

between family members, the plaintiffs have cancelled the GPA executed in favour of GPA by cancellation of deed bearing document No. 11/01 dated 03.02.2001. But the defendant No.1 illegally sold several plots and one such plot bearing No.13 which is subject matter of the suit sold to defendant No.2 illegally under registered sale deed bearing document No. 12414/2004 dated 18.12.2004 and therefore, the said document is illegal. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement disputing the plaint averments.

5. The averments of the written statements filed by the defendants are that the plaintiffs knowingly have given wrong information in order to grab the registered plots and trying to dispose the same. That the family members have settled the matter and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of sale deeds.

That the plaintiffs admitted that they sold the plots to various people as per the lay out dated 18.07.1982, but they have not supplied how many plots are sold in that layout and how much extent of land left over as vacant plots. That the respective family members thus disposed off individual plots to various people as per their will and wish and due to hike of the price of the land, the plaintiffs unable to succeed in

OS No. 815/2005 filed this false case. The plaintiffs admitted that they sold an

extent of 1597 sq. yds through registered GPA dt 05.05.1994 and after lapse of two years the plaintiffs recovered 800 sq. yds., from defendant No.1 and even after that the suit is filed to grab the plots of the individuals and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following Issues are framed for trial

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.12.2004 bearing document no. 12414/2004 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and Exs A8 to

A8 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant no.1 is examined and

Exs B1 & B2 were got marked.

8. Heard both sides and perused the records.

9. Issue No.1 : The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that DW1 himself admitted during the cross-examination that he executed the sale deed Ex A8 and

B1 rectification deed after death of one of the principals and therefore, the said Ex

A8 and B1 has become invalid and DW1 also admitted that he was not authorized to sell the suit schedule plot no. 13 under two GPAs and therefore, he is not authorized to execute Ex A8 in favour of defendant no.2 and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of Ex A8 sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.2.

10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have not specifically denied the plea of the plaintiffs taken in the plaint that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 after cancellation of his earlier GPA and therefore, it amounts to admission of the plaint pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree.

11. On careful perusal of the plaint it is categorically mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint that defendant no.1 illegally sold the plots belonging to the plaintiffs and the same was came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs in the month of December 2006 and he lodged a complaint. It is further mentioned in the plaint that defendant no.1 in the capacity of GPA holder executed the sale deed after his GPA was cancelled by the plaintiffs by a registered document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and the defendant no.2 purchased the suit plot no. 13 under registered sale deed dt 18.12.2004 from defendant no.1 it is illegal and defendant no. 2 will not get any title and interest under the said document. On perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants, admittedly the defendants nor specifically denied the said averments of the plaintiffs taken in para no. 4 of the pleadings and that the defendants have also not stated in their pleadings that they are not admitted entire pleadings about the sais plea of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there is no denial as per Order 8 Rule 3 CPC and also a specific denial under Rule 5

Order 8 CPC.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalal & Sons and another V. Sita Bai (died) per LRs 2001 (2) ALD 547 held that order 8 of CPC deals with the principles to be followed by the defendant while filing written statement and as per Rule 5 every allegation of the fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by answer implication or stated to be not admitted it the pleadings of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability, provided that the

Court may in its discussion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise by such admission. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Duvvada Nandesham Choudhary v. State of A.P. 1964(2) page 95 held that while dealing with Rule 35 (5) of Order 8 CPC of Rule 3 and 5 Order 8 CPC has to be read together and that plea that the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the plaint except such as he has expressly admitted and that he puts the plaintiff to the proof of the allegations so denial must be deemed to be admitted.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohiya Tinukkia Properties Pvt

Ltd., Dibrugarh v. Atmaram Kumar explained the fact of Rule 5, Order 8 of CPC that

Rule 5 provides further allegation of the fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. Order 6 says is, that any allegation of fact imported either to be denied specifically or by a answer implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, even the allegation shall be taken to be admitted.

14. In view of the above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the defendants herein have to specifically denied the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 through GPA after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and due to which the defendant no.2 do not acquire any right and title and the said document is illegal. The defendants also not taken specific plea that the said allegation is not admitted in their written statement. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 as GPA holder of the plaintiffs only after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 has become an admitted fact in the absence of any specific denial as required under Rule 3 and 4 of Order 8 of CPC. As per Sec. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant also admitted in the evidence that he has executed Ex A8 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 and also Ex B1 rectification deed as GPA after death of principals. The said admission goes to show that the said two documents executed by defendant no.1 only after the death of one of the

principals and therefore, the said GPA basing on which the defendant no.1

executed Ex A8 has become invalid on the death of one of the principals. DW1 also admitted that he obtained two GPAs from the plaintiffs and the said two GPAs are not authorized him to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties and he was not authorized to sell the said plot. The said admissions of

DW1 establishes that the defendant no.1 without having any authority under the said GPA has executed Ex A8 in favour of defendant No.2 and therefore, Ex A8 has become invalid and liable to be cancelled. Therefore, issue no.1 is held in favour of plaintiff.

15. Issue No.2 : The title of the plaintiff earlier execution of the sale deed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1 had executed Ex A2 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 basing on the GPA given by the plaintiffs and as per the finding given in Issue No.1,

Ex A8 has become invalid. Therefore, the fact remains that the plaintiffs have become absolute owners and in view of the principle possession follows title, the plaintiffs are deemed in possession of the property and therefore, they are entitled for perpetual injunction. Therefore, Issue No.2 is held accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed. The registered sale deed bearing document no. 12414/2004 dt 18.12.2004 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal is cancelled as null and void and the defendants perpetually restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of March 2016.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1. PW1 : B.Swamy 1.DW1: B.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

1Ex A1:True copy of layout 2Ex A2:Resolution dt 26.11.2005 3Ex A3:CC of sale deed dt 31.03.1997 4Ex A4:CC of sale deed dt 20.10.1997 5Ex A5:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.1997 6Ex A6:CC of sale deed dt 19.09.1997 7Ex A7:CC of sale deed dt 12.04.1998 8Ex A8:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.2006

FOR DEFENDANTS

1Ex B1:CC of Rectification Deed dt 20.09.2007 2Ex B2:CC of sale deed dt 18.10.2005

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NASGAR

Present : Sri K. Lakshman I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B.Nagar

Tuesday this the 29th day of March 2016

O.S. NO. 63/2008

Between :

1. Rajamma. B, W/o Gangaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Household,

2. Swamy.B, S/o Gangaiah, Aged abut 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Chandrasekhar.B, S/o Swamy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Agriculture All are r/o 1-10, Boduppal village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .. Plaintiffs

AND 1.Sri B. Ramesh, S/o Pochaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, r/o Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2. K.Anitha, W/o K. Jayaram, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Govt. employee, r/o H. No. 269, LIG-VII Phase,

K.P.H.B.Colony, Hyderabad .. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s B.Vijaysen Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffs and M/s J.V.R.Murthy, Advocates for the Defendants and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.

11337/2006 dated 07.08.2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant

No.2 as null and void and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, over plaint schedule property.

2. The averments of the plaint are in brief that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac 3-36 ½ gts in Sy. No. 206, 207, 208, 210 and 212 situated at Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 by name Sri Gangaiah and his father Late Balaiah were the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1. The father of defendant No.1 namely Sri Pochaiah and his younger brother late Gangaiah effected family partition effected about more than 30 years ago, in which Ac 53-00 gts of land in Sy. No. 62, 133, 140, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 240, 241 was allotted to the branch of Gangaiah, after his death in the year 1995, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and one Rajashekar were issued pattadar pass book and title deeds.

3. It is further avered in the plaint that the plaintiffs converted the said land into house plots likewise the family members of defendant No.1 and others have also sold their respective lands as house plots under lay out which were allotted to an extent of 53 acres towards their share in the family partition. That the plaintiffs had obtained layout to an extent of Ac 17-30 gts covered by four layouts dated 18.07.1982 and sold some of the plots. The plaintiffs were allotted land in Sy. No.

206 towards their share but it was included in the layout of the plaintiffs because the entire lands was not allotted by means and bounds. Therefore, in order to enable the respective parties to sell the part of land, executed GPA and therefore, defendant No.1 was given registered GPA document bearing No. 3/94 dated 05.05.1994 and plaintiff was given registered GPA document bearing No. 463/1998

dt 01.12.1998 by the family members. Subsequently, due to some disputes arose

between family members, the plaintiffs have cancelled the GPA executed in favour of GPA by cancellation of deed bearing document No. 11/01 dated 03.02.2001. But the defendant No.1 illegally sold several plots and one such plot bearing No.67 which is subject matter of the suit sold to defendant No.2 illegally under registered sale deed bearing document No. 11337/2006 dated 07.08.2006 and therefore, the said document is illegal. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement disputing the plaint averments.

5. The averments of the written statements filed by the defendants are that the plaintiffs knowingly have given wrong information in order to grab the registered plots and trying to dispose the same. That the family members have settled the matter and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of sale deeds.

That the plaintiffs admitted that they sold the plots to various people as per the lay out dated 18.07.1982, but they have not supplied how many plots are sold in that layout and how much extent of land left over as vacant plots. That the respective family members disposed off individual plots to various people as per their will and wish and due to hike of the price of the land, the plaintiffs unable to succeed in OS

No. 815/2005 filed this false case. The plaintiffs admitted that they sold an extent of 1597 sq. yds through registered GPA dt 05.05.1994 and after lapse of two years the plaintiffs recovered 800 sq. yds., from defendant No.1 and even after that the suit is filed to grab the plots of the individuals and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following Issues are framed for trial

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 07.08.2006 bearing document no. 11337/2006 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and Exs A1 to

A8 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant no.1 is examined and

Exs B1 & B2 were got marked.

8. Heard both sides and perused the records.

9. Issue No.1 : The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that DW1 himself admitted during the cross-examination that he executed the sale deed Ex A8 and

B1 rectification deed after death of one of the principals and therefore, the said Ex

A8 and B1 has become invalid and DW1 also admitted that he was not authorized to sell the suit schedule plot no. 67 under two GPAs and therefore, he is not authorized to execute Ex A8 in favour of defendant no.2 and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of Ex A8 sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.2.

10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have not specifically denied the plea of the plaintiffs taken in the plaint that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 after cancellation of his earlier GPA and therefore, it amounts to admission of the plaint pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree.

11. On careful perusal of the plaint it is categorically mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint that defendant no.1 illegally sold the plots belonging to the plaintiffs and the same was came to the knowledge of the plaintffs in the month of December 2006 and he lodged a complaint. It is further mentioned in the plaint that defendant no.1 in the capacity of GPA holder executed the sale deed after his GPA was cancelled by the plaintiffs by a registered document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and the defendant no.2 purchased the suit plot no. 67 under registered sale deed dt 07.08.2006 from defendant no.1 it is illegal and defendant no. 2 will not get any title and interest under the said document. On perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants, admittedly the defendants not specifically denied the said averments of the plaintiffs taken in para no. 4 of the pleadings and that the defendants have also not stated in their pleadings that they are not admitted entire pleadings about the said plea of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there is no denial of plaint pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 3 CPC and also a specific denial under Rule 5 Order 8 CPC.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalal & Sons and another V. Sita Bai (died) per LRs 2001 (2) ALD 547 held that order 8 of CPC deals with the principles to be followed by the defendant while filing written statement and as per Rule 5 every allegation of the fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by answer implication or stated to not admitted in the pleadings of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability, provided that the

Court may in its decretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise by such admission. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Duvvada Nandesham Choudhary v. State of A.P. 1964(2) page 95 held that while dealing with Order 8 CPC of Rule 3 and 5 has to be read together and that plea that the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the plaint except such as he has expressly admitted and that he puts the plaintiff to the proof of the allegations so denial must be deemed to be admitted.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohiya Tinukkia Properties Pvt

Ltd., Dibrugarh v. Atmaram Kumar explained the Rule 5, Order 8 of CPC that Rule 5 provides each allegation of the fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. Order 6 says, that any allegation of fact imported either to be denied specifically or by a answer implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, such allegation shall be taken to be admitted.

14. In view of the above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the defendants herein have to specifically deny the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 through GPA after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and due to which the defendant no.2 do not acquire any right and title and the said document is illegal. The defendants also not taken specific plea that the said allegation is not admitted in their written statement. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 executed Ex A8 as GPA holder of the plaintiffs only after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 has become an admitted fact in the absence of any specific denial as required under Rule 3 and 5 of Order 8 of CPC. As per Sec. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant also admitted in the evidence that he has executed Ex A1 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 and also Ex B1 rectification deed as GPA after death of principals. The said admission goes to show that the said two documents executed by defendant no.1 only after the death of one of the

principals and therefore, the said GPA basing on which the defendant no.1

executed Ex A8 has become invalid on the death of one of the principals. DW1 also admitted that he obtained two GPAs from the plaintiffs and the said two GPAs are not authorized him to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties and he was not authorized to sell the said plot. The said admissions of

DW1 establishes that the defendant no.1 without having any authority under the said GPA, has executed Ex A8 in favour of defendant No.2 and therefore, Ex A8 has become invalid and liable to be cancelled. Therefore, issue no.1 is held in favour of plaintiff.

15. Issue No.2 : The title of the plaintiff earlier execution of the sale deed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1 had executed Ex A8 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 basing on the GPA given by the plaintiffs and as per the finding given in Issue No.1,

Ex A8 has become invalid. Therefore, the fact remains that the plaintiffs have become absolute owners and in view of the principle possession follows title, the plaintiffs are deemed to be in possession of the property and therefore, they are entitled for perpetual injunction. Therefore, Issue No.2 is held accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed. The registered sale deed bearing document no. 11337/2006 dt 07.08.2006 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal is cancelled as null and void and the defendants perpetually restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of March 2016.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1. PW1 : B.Swamy 1.DW1: B.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

1Ex A1:True copy of layout 2Ex A2:Resolution dt 26.11.2005 3Ex A3:CC of sale deed dt 31.03.1997 4Ex A4:CC of sale deed dt 20.10.1997 5Ex A5:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.1997 6Ex A6:CC of sale deed dt 19.09.1997 7Ex A7:CC of sale deed dt 12.04.1998 8Ex A8:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.2006

FOR DEFENDANTS

1Ex B1:CC of Rectification Deed dt 20.09.2007 2Ex B2:CC of sale deed dt 18.10.2005

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NASGAR

Present : Sri K. Lakshman I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B.Nagar

Tuesday this the 29th day of March 2016

O.S. NO. 17/2007

Between :

1. Rajamma. B, W/o Gangaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Household,

2. Swamy.B, S/o Gangaiah, Aged abut 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Chandrasekhar.B, S/o Swamy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Agriculture All are r/o 1-10, Boduppal village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .. Plaintiffs

AND 1.Sri B. Ramesh, S/o Pochaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, r/o Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

2. Sri Porika Bail Singh, S/o Porika Laxman Aged 38 years, Occ: Govt. employee, R/o H. No. 39/40, Padmavathi colony,

Swaroopnagar, Uppal, Hyderabad .. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s B.Vijaysen Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffs and M/s J.V.R.Murthy, Advocates for the Defendants and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.

9569/2005 undated 08.10.2005 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant

No.2 as null and void and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, over plaint schedule property.

2. The averments of the plaint are in brief that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac 3-36 ½ gts in Sy. No. 206, 207, 208, 210 and 212 situated at Boduppal village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 by name Sri Gangaiah and his father Late Balaiah were the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1. The father of defendant No.1 namely Sri Pochaiah and his younger brother late Gangaiah effected family partition about more than 30 years ago, in which Ac 53-00 gts of land in Sy. No. 62, 133, 140, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 240, 241 was allotted to the branch of Gangaiah, after his death in the year 1995, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and one Rajashekar were issued pattadar pass book and title deeds.

3. It is further avered in the plaint that the plaintiffs converted the said lant inot house plots likewise the family members of defendant No.1 and others have also sold their respective lands as house plots under lay out which were allotted to an extent of 53 acres towards their share in the family partition. That the plaintiffs had obtained layout to an extent of Ac 17-30 gts covered by four layouts dated 18.07.1982 and sold some of the plots. The plaintiffs were allotted land in Sy. No.

206 towards their share but it was included in the layout of the plaintiffs because the entire lands was not allotted by means and bounds. Therefore, in order to enable the respective parties to sell the part of land executed GPA and therefore, defendant No.1 was given registered GPA document bearing No. 3/94 dated 05.05.1994 and plaintiff was given registered GPA document bearing No. 463/1998

dt 01.12.1998 by the family members. Subsequently, due to some disputes arose

between family members, the plaintiffs have cancelled the GPA executed in favour of GPA by cancellation of deed bearing document No. 11/01 dated 03.02.2001. But the defendant No.1 illegally sold several plots and one such plot bearing No.66 which is subject matter of the suit sold to defendant No.2 illegally under registered sale deed bearing document No. 9569/2005 dated 08.10.2005 and therefore, the said document is illegal. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement disputing the plaint averments.

5. The averments of the written statements filed by the defendants are that the plaintiffs knowingly have given wrong information in order to grab the registered plots and trying to dispose the same. That the family members have settled the matter and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of sale deeds.

That the plaintiffs admitted that they sold the plots to various people as per the lay out dated 18.07.1982, but they have not supplied how many plots are sold in that layout and how much extent of land left over as vacant plots. That the respective family members thus disposed off individual plots to various people as per their will and wish and due to hike of the price of the land, the plaintiffs unable to succeed in

OS No. 815/2005 filed this false case. The plaintiffs admitted that they sold an

extent of 1597 sq. yds through registered GPA dt 05.05.1994 and after lapse of two years the plaintiffs recovered 800 sq. yds., from defendant No.1 and even after that the suit is filed to grab the plots of the individuals and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following Issues are framed for trial

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.10.2005 bearing document no. 9569/2005 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and Exs A1 to

A7 were got marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant no.1 is examined and

Exs B1 & B2 were got marked.

8. Heard both sides and perused the records.

9. Issue No.1 : The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that DW1 himself admitted during the cross-examination that he executed the sale deed Ex A1 and

B1 rectification deed after death of one of the principals and therefore, the said Ex

A1 and B1 has become invalid and DW1 also admitted that he was not authorized to sell the suit schedule plot no. 66 under two GPAs and therefore, he is not authorized to execute Ex A1 in favour of defendant no.2 and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of Ex A1 sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.2.

10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have not specifically denied the plea of the plaintiffs taken in the plaint that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A1 after cancellation of his earlier GPA and therefore, it amounts to admission of the plaint pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for decree.

11. On careful perusal of the plaint it is categorically mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint that defendant no.1 illegally sold the plots belonging to the plaintiffs and the same was came to the knowledge of th eplaintffs in the month of December 2006 and he lodged a complaint. It is further mentioned in the plaint that defendant no.1 in the capacity of GPA holder executed the sale deed after his GPA was cancelled by the plaintiffs by a registered document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and the defendant no.2 purchased the suit plot no. 66 under registered sale deed dt 08.10.2005 from defendant no.1 it is illegal and defendant no. 2 will not get any title and interest under the said document. On perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants, admittedly the defendants nor specifically denied the said averments of the plaintiffs taken in para no. 4 of the pleadings and that the defendants have also not stated in their pleadings that they are not admitted entire pleadings about the sais plea of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there is no denial of plaint pleadings as per Order 8 Rule 3 CPC and also a specific denial under Rule 5 Order 8 CPC.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jalal & Sons and another V. Sita Bai (died) per LRs 2001 (2) ALD 547 held that order 8 of CPC deals with the principles to be followed by the defendant while filing written statement and as per Rule 5 every allegation of the fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by answer implication or stated to be not admitted it the pleadings of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability, provided that the

Court may in its decretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise by such admission. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Duvvada Nandesham Choudhary v. State of A.P. 1964(2) page 95 held that while dealing with 8 CPC of Rule 3 and 5 has to be read together and that plea that the defendant does not admit any of the allegations in the plaint except such as he has expressly admitted and that he puts the plaintiff to the proof of the allegations so denial must be deemed to be admitted.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohiya Tinukkia Properties Pvt

Ltd., Dibrugarh v. Atmaram Kumar explained the Rule 5, Order 8 of CPC that Rule 5 provides each allegation of the fact in the plaint, if not denied in the written statement shall be taken to be admitted by the defendant. Order 6 says that any allegation of fact imported either to be denied specifically or by a answer implication or there should be at least a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, such the allegation shall be taken to be admitted.

14. In view of the above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the defendants herein have to specifically deny the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 executed Ex A1 through GPA after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 and due to which the defendant no.2 do not acquire any right and title and the said document is illegal. The defendants also not taken specific plea that the said allegation is not admitted in their written statement. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs that defendant no.1 executed Ex A1 as GPA holder of the plaintiffs only after cancellation of the said GPA vide document bearing no. 11/2001 dated 03.02.2001 has become an admitted fact in the absence of any specific denial as required under Rule 3 and 5 of Order 8 of CPC. As per Sec. 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant also admitted in the evidence that he has executed Ex A1 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 and also Ex B1 rectification deed as GPA after death of principals. The said admission goes to show that the said two documents executed by defendant no.1 only after the death of one of the

principals and therefore, the said GPA basing on which the defendant no.1

executed Ex A1 has become invalid on the death of one of the principals. DW1 also admitted that he obtained two GPAs from the plaintiffs and the said two GPAs are not authorized him to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties and he was not authorized to sell the said plot. The said admissions of

DW1 establishes that the defendant no.1 without having any authority under the said GPA has executed Ex A1 in favour of defendant No.2 and therefore, Ex A1 has become invalid and liable to be cancelled. Therefore, issue no.1 is held in favour of plaintiff.

15. Issue No.2 : The title of the plaintiff earlier execution of the sale deed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1 had executed Ex A2 sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 basing on the GPA given by the plaintiffs and as per the finding given in Issue No.1,

Ex A1 has become invalid. Therefore, the fact remains that the plaintiffs have become absolute owners and in view of the principle “possession follows title”, the plaintiffs are deemed in possession of the property and therefore, they are entitled for perpetual injunction. Therefore, Issue No.2 is held accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed. The registered sale deed bearing document no. 9569/2005 dt 08.10.2005 on the file of Sub Registrar, Uppal is cancelled as null and void and the defendants perpetually restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of March 2016.

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1. PW1 : B.Swamy 1.DW1: B.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

1Ex A1:CC of sale deed document no. 9569/2005 2Ex A2:CC of sale deed dt 31.03.1997 3Ex A3:CC of sale deed dt 20.10.1997 4Ex A4:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.1997 5Ex A5:CC of sale deed dt 19.09.1997 6Ex A6:CC of sale deed dt 12.04.1998 7Ex A7:CC of sale deed dt 31.07.2006

FOR DEFENDANTS

1Ex B1:CC of Rectification Deed dt 20.09.2007 2Ex B2:CC of sale deed dt 18.10.2005

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.