Currently Serving

K.Prakash Babu

II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge,Rajamahendravaram

PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

K.Prakash Babu, II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge,Rajamahendravaram, is posted at PDJ Court Complex ,Rajahmundry, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 325 court orders on record since 2025. 9 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, AS, CMA cases.

325

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/11/2017

Dommeti Venkata Padma Latha vs Smt Yeda Mahalakshmi

26 Mar 2026

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION) (FTC)::RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri.K.Prakasha Babu,

II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday, the 26th day of March, Two Thousand Twenty Five.

OS No.11/2017 C/W OS No.34/2023

OS No.11/2017:

BETWEEN:

1.Dommeti Venkata Padma Latha, W/o. Nagaraju, Hindu, A/31 years, Inamdarani, D.No.6-24, Munganda Post, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Kothapeta JCJC.

2.Dommeti Nagaraju, S/o.Satyanarayana, Hindu, A/32 years, Private employee, D.No.6-24, Mungada Post, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Kothapeta JCJC.

...Plaintiffs.

AND:

1.Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, A/39 years, Occupation-Money Lending Business, D.No.11-125, Radham Veedhi, Dowleswararam, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram JCJC.

2.Kudipudi Suryanarayana, S/o.Kudipudi Narayudu, Hindu, A/49 years, Occupation:Money Lending Business, D.No.11-125, Radham Veedhi, Dowleswararam, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram JCJC.

(2 nd defendant added as per orders in IA.No.410/2017

dated 13.03.2020.)

...Defendants.

OS No.34/2023

BETWEEN:

1.Kudipudi Suryanarayana, S/o.Kudipudi Narayudu, Hindu, A/34 years, Agricultulrist, R/o.H.No.6-26, Muthyalammagudi Veedhi, Munganda village, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Plaintiff

And

1.Dommeti Nagaraju, S/o.Suryanarayana, A/34 years, Occ.Private employee, R/o.D.No.6-24, Muthyalammagudi veedhi, Manganda village , P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

...Defendant.

This suits came on 03.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Siva Subba Rao, Advocate for Plaintiffs in

OS.No.11/2017, and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are set exparte in

OS.No.11/2017, and Sri S.Kondapalli, Advocate for plaintiff in

OS.No.34/2023 and of Sri Sri P.V.G, and Sro M.Siva Subba Rao,

Advocate for defendant in OS.No.34/2023 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

1.The case of the plaintiffs in the nutshell in OS

No.11/2017 as follows:

The plaintiffs prays to pass a decree to set aside or cancel the agreement for sale cum power of attorney dated 27.08.2015 registered as document No.3170/2015 in the office of SRO, Kadiyam and the agreement for sale cum power of attorney dated 02.09.2015 registered as document No.5451/2015 in the office of SRO,

Pidimgoyya and thereafter inform the same to the SROs Kaidyam and Pidimgoyya with direction to make relevant entries in its registers and for consequential permanent prohibitive injunction 3 restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule properties in any manner and or interfere with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit and to grant any such other or further reliefs as the

Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the

case.

It is averred from the plaint that the plaintiffs are wife and husband and 1st plaintiff is the owner of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, 2nd plaintiff is the owner of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property.

In the month of August, 2015, the plaintiffs are in need or money of the medical treatment of old age parents of 2nd plaintiff and approached the defendant for money, the defendant agreed to lent Rs.2,00,000/- subject to repayment of the same with 24% interest and registering the document in respect their immovable properties. Taking advantage of the situation, the plaintiffs scribe their signatures on two several deeds on 31.08.2015. The document

dated 27.08.2015 was presented before SRO, Kadiyam, on

31.08.2015 and the document secured from 2nd plaintiff was presented for registration before SRO, Pidimgoyya on 02.09.2015, the said two documents relating to plaint schedule properties are only sham and nominal and they do not select the true contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

The said document are liable to be cancelled. At present the defendant is planning to contemplating to alienate the plaint schedule properties with plaintiff’s exclusive possession without having any right. Hence the suit.

2.The defendant No.1 filed her written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and this defendant submits 1st plaintiff owner item No.1 of plaint schedule property and 2nd plaintiff owner of Item No.2 of plaint schedule property and the present suit is misconcieved and it is not maintainable.

It is submitted that the cause of action for the two documents is different, parties different, subject matter different, territorial jurisdiction of item No.1 of JCJ, Rajamundry where as territorial item

No.2 is JCJC, Amalapuram, so a common suit is not maintainable contra allegations are all false.

The defendant submits that the suit cannot be entertained by this Court for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction contra allegations are false.

The 1st plaintiff having admitted execution of agreement of sale

dated 27.08.2015, with respect to item No.1 and collected sale

consideration cannot, commit breach of contract or deviate from the terms of the agreement and is estopped from disowning the terms of contract.

The defendants submits that the plaintiffs voluntarily put the item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property to sale. The defendant under bonafide belief accepted the officer of the plaintiffs and invested money and purchased item No.1 and 2 for valid consideration, so she is entitled to the benefit Under section 53-A of

T.P.Act the plaintiff’s having collected money and used it for his 5 purposes is also estopped from resiling from terms of concluded contract, so the plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of sale cum GPAs in favour of defendants since special interest is created in favour of defendant.

It is submitted that the 1st plaintiff delivered actual physical possession to this defendant. Even otherwise the 1st plaintiff in the sale cum GPA categorically stated that so bar under section 91 of

IEV Act operates 1st plaintiff is debarred from raising plea regarding his possession.

That various allegations sale cum GPA dated 27.08.2015 sham and nominal documents, and that the transaction covered under it is a money lending transaction etc are all false and hereby denied. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof the allegations made in the plaint.

The defendant submits that the 1st plaintiff admitted execution sale deed GPA dated 27.08.2015 with respect to item No.1 in plaintiffs may be put to strict proof of the facts alleged in the plaint.

Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

3.The case of the plaintiffs in the nutshell in OS No.

34/2023 (OS No.5/2020) is as follows:

This is suit filed by the plaintiff to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who second plaintiff his any kind of persons acting from ever interfering with his peaceful possession 6 and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

The suit filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property purchased the same under document No.2755/2016, dated 31.03.2016 from Smt.Y.Mahalaxmi, which she empowered to execute the same through her registered document and since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment and since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any interruption.

When the plaintiff is developing the schedule property he received notices from the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Rajahmundry vide IA.No.410/2017 OS.No.11/2024 against his vendor for relief of declaration said A.G.P.A. stands on her name is null and void and not binding on him as his wife which the said proceedings are nothing collusive one in between them in owner to grab the schedule property of plaintiff that too after lapse of about three years, for which the said registered A.G.P.A. is still subsisting without any challenging proceedings over the same and since all these period only to cause heavy and irreparable loss to him filed the vexatious proceedings in that IA the plaintiff filed his counter thought the plaintiff is not a party to their collusive proceedings and no nexus in disputes if any between them. Hence, the plaintiff in his suit made an application before the police against the defendant herein having also approached the Hon’ble High Court to restrain the said police authorities from interfering in civil dispute without following due procedure.

On 26.12.2019 at about 5.00 PM the defendant people came to the schedule property and warned plaintiff with dire consequences and if he does not stall the construction within 15 days he will dispossess the plaintiff from the said property. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit to restrain the acts of defendant and his men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and the property is within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. Hence the suit.

4.The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaintiff suppressed the fact that the document No.5451/2015 dated 02.09.2015 referred to in paragraph 1 of the plaint is allegedly a power of attorney deed executed by this defendant infavour of Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi and that such power of attorney or any authorization purportedly given thereby was revoked by the defendant to the knowledge of the entire world by publishing of the same in Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 09.12.2016. As such as on 31.12.2016 when the plaintiff purportedly obtained conveyance deed registered as document No.2755/2016

Smt. Yedla Mahalakshmi acting as agent of this defendant had no right and authority to sell the property of this defendant or execute and register conveyance deed in his name and on this behalf.

Therefore, the alleged purported purchase of the schedule property by plaintiff from Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi is baseless and untenable and as such sale is void ab-initio, assuming without admitting that the plaintiff did pay consideration into the hands of

Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi. In this context, it is necessary to note that no amount towards sale consideration or otherwise was paid to or 8 received by the defendant either from plaintiff or Smt.Yedla

Mahalakshmi. As such the alleged sale deed void for want of consideration to its owner/seller.

The suit counter-blast to the suit OS.No.11/2017 filed by this defendant along with his wife Smt.Dommeti Venkata Padma latha against Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi, the alleged vendor of the said suit schedule property and executant of the sale deed propounded by plaintiff, before the Hon’ble Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking decree, inter alia, setting aside or cancel the agreement of sale cum power of attorney dated 27.08.2015 registered as document No.3170/2015, SRO, Kadiyam and document dated 02.09.2015 registered as document No.5451/2015, SRO, Pidimgoyya, both obtained by Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi , fraudulent miserpresentation, such suit was filed on 13.12.2016 to the knowledge of Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi and even the plaintiff in the suit.

Despite knowledge of the revocation of power of attorney and also pendency of the suit OS.11/2017 the plaintiff and Smt.Yedla

Mahalakshmi conspired and collusively brought into existence sale deed referred to and relied on by the plaintiff referred to in paragraph 1 of the plaint.

The plaintiff being not a bona fide transferee of subject matter f

OS.11/2017 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Rajahmundry and the sale

deed propounded by him being a sham and nominal or at least void for reasons afore-mentioned plaintiff is not entitled to claim absolute ownership of the plaint schedule property, as plaintiff has not gained 9 title to the schedule property, which is also subject matter on

OS.11/2017 mentioned above.

It is true that plaintiff is impleaded as 2nd defendant in

OS.11/2017 referred to supra since he purportedly acquired interest

in item No.2 of the schedule property in OS.11/2017 , pending such suit. It is now obvious that after receiving summons in the said suit and to circumvent effect of such suit and to create more hurdles to this defendant, Smt.Yedla Mahalakshmi and plaintiff in this suit collusively as 2nd defendant in OS.11/2017 engineered this suit based on fabricated void sale deed in favour of plaintiff.

It is submitted that the plaintiff was not inducted into or did not come into possession of the plaint schedule site lawfully and he has absolutely no manner of any right to enter the plaint schedule site or hold it.

In this context , it is significant to note that this defendant continues to be owner of the plaint schedule property, despite the agreement for sale cum power of attorney referred to in the plaint in this suit and also OS.11/17 and therefore cannot be a decree of prohibitive injunction against him.

The trial of the suit separately is untenable. At least this suit shall be transferred to the file of the Hon’ble Prl.Civl Judge (Senior

Division), Rajahmunry for trail and disposal along with OS.11/2017 by common judgment or in the alternative, this suit shall be stayed in view of the pendency of earlier suit as issues of fact and law and property and disputants are same.

A true copy of the plaint inOS.11/17 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajahmundry is annexed hereto as Annexure A and the same is treated as part of this written statement. The defendant therefore prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5.The evidence is recorded in OS No.11/2017 and the parties are arrayed in the suit OS No.11/2017 and OS No.34/2023 (OS

No.05/2020) are herein after referred as the plaintiffs in OS

No.11/2017 and defendants in OS No.34/2023 (OS No.05/2020) and

Vice-versa.

6.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and PW.2/Dammu

Krishnamraju was examined.

7.Basing on the pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

OS NO.11/2017:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for seeking relief of

cancellation of agreement for sale cum General Power

of attorney dated 27.08.2025 vide document

No.3170/2015?

2. So also whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation

of agreement for sale cum power of attorney dated

02.09.2015 vide document No.5451/2015 or not?

3. To what relief ?

8.Basing on the pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

OS.NO.34/2023.

1. Whether the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession

and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on

his date of suit or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for relief of permanent injunction or not?

3. To what relief?

9.Heard both sides. The learned counsels and I have given my earnest consideration respective submission.

ISSUES:

ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2 IN OS NO.11/2017:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for seeking relief of

cancellation of agreement for sale cum General Power

of attorney dated 27.08.2025 vide document

No.3170/2015?

2. So also whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation

of agreement for sale cum power of attorney dated

02.09.2015 vide document No.5451/2015 or not?

ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2 IN OS NO.34/2023:

1. Whether the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession

and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on

his date of suit or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for relief of permanent injunction or not?

10.Heard. The suit is filed for the cancellation of the deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1.

11.It is the case of the plaintiff that they borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the D1 from their dive necessities at the time of borrowing. The defendant No.1 made believe the plaintiffs that he is getting a deed of mortgage in support of the credit extended by him to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Believing the words, of the defendant No.1 the plaintiffs executed above documents.

12.Later, the plaintiffs came to know about the mischief committed by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs got issued the notice duly cancelling the agreement of sale cum General Power of

Attorney. Meanwhile, the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the D2 without delivery of the possession. Since the possession over the plaint schedule property still in the hands of the plaintiff.

13.It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of

Haryana & Anr it is categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court except for the purpose of house sites in the layouts and house flats in the buildings/apartment constructions. Sale Agreement cum

General Power of Attorney is not valid since nothing can be conveyed under Sale Agreement cum General Power of Attorney.

14.Therefore, the case facts on hand, the decided case facts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Suraj Lamp &

Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr reported in

AIR 2012 SC 206 are squarely applies.

Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.

16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance.

Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property.

They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.

17. It has been submitted that making declaration that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer is likely to create hardship to a large number of persons who have entered into such transactions and they should be given sufficient time to regularize the transactions by obtaining deeds of conveyance. It is also submitted that this decision should be made applicable prospectively to avoid hardship.

18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well-settled legal position that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not `transfers' or `sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale.

Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision.

19. We make it clear that our observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions.

For example, a person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance. A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings 15 and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers. In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty. Our observations regarding `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions.

20. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Gopal

Subramaniun, Senior Counsel, initially as Solicitor General and later as Amicus

Curiae.

15.Therefore, by relying on the above judgment the D1 cannot convey any right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property to the defendant No.2. even otherwise considered if a decree is not passed in favour of the plaintiff, the document executed by D1 in favour of D2 is none-est under law. However, the plaintiff approached the Court that cancellation of the Sale

Agreement cum General Power of Attorney for an abundant caution.

16.Since the plaintiff established all the necessary ingredient in cancelling the deed executed by P1 and P2 and by relying on the above said judgment, the case of the plaintiff shall be accepted and he is entitled for decree as prayed for. Hence issues are answered accordingly.

17. ISSUE NO.3 IN OS NO.11/2017 AND OS.No.34/2023:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed, by duly canceling agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 27.09.2015 vide document No.3170/2015 dated 27.08.2015, vide document

No.5451/2015 dated 02.09.2015 which are got registered in the file of Sub-Registrar, Kadiyam and Pidimgoyya respectively.

It is further decreed that by granting consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents not to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in OS.No.11/2017.

So far as per the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit

OS.No.34/2023 is dismissed, however without costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of March, 2026.

Sd/Sri K.Prakasha Babu II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1:Dometti Nagaraju.

PW2:Dammu Krishnam Raju.

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:Health record of mother of 2nd plaintiff dated 28.10.2018 to 23.11.2016.

Ex.A2:Health record of father of 2nd plaintiff dated 13.09.2017 to 02.06.2020.

Ex.A3:Agreement for sale cum Power of Attorney registered as documentNo.3170/2015,SRO,Kadiyam,dated 27.08.2015.

Ex.A4:Agreement of sale cum Power of Attorney registered as a document No.5451/205, SRO Pidimgoyyi, dated 02.09.2015.

Ex.A5:Paper Publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 09.12.2016.

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL.