Sri.K.Sita Rama Krishna Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT : SRI K.S.RAMA KRISHNA RAO, B.Com. LL.M.,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

MONDAY, THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2013

O.S.No.654 of 2007

Between:

1.Potluri Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Late P.S.V. Prasad aged about 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.9-2-105, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

2.Adapa Sandhya, W/o. Venugopal, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.9-1-187/2, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

3.V.L. Anuradha, W/o.Vellanki Sudhakar Babu, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Thotapalli, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District.

4.Abbineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.9-2-105, Santhinagar,Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. … Plaintiffs

AND

1.P.Venkat Rao, S/o.Late P.Satyanarayana, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No.12-5-151/2, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad – 500017.

2.Sri Y.B.K.Rao, S/o.Y.Venkaiah, aged about 68 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.7-4-252, Near St.Martin School, Navajeevan Nagar, Ferojguda Post, Hyderabad – 11. … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Prabhunath, advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri CH. Shyam Rao, advocate for the defendant No.1 and Sri M.Raja Babu, advocate for defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that originally

Smt.K.Anjani Devi, Sri M.Veera Raghavaiah, Sri M.V.Seetha Rama Rao,

Sri Vege Sitharamaiah and Smt.Abbineni Anasuya purchased land admeasuring Ac.271-31 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 under registered sale deeds bearing

Nos.748, 749 and 750 of 1959. The lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e., O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble

Munsiff Magistrate Court, West, Hyderabad and Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. Smt. Abbineni Anasuya is mother of plaintiffs. The extent of land in Sy.No.98 is Ac.20-13 gts., in

Sy.No.99 the extent is Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 the extent is Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 the extent is Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 the extent is

Ac.15-29 gts., and in Sy.No.103 the extent is Ac.10-02 gts. After death of their mother, the plaintiffs became joint owners of 300 Sq.yards which is part in Sy.No.104/1 part of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and it is described as suit schedule property.

3.The competent authority issued a draft statement dated 17.1.1983 under Section 8 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation

Act) 1976, declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Ac.105-07 gts., as she had an extent of Ac.92-21 gts., equivalent to 3,74,438.60 Sq.metres out of Sy.No.98 to 103 through court decree in O.S.No.62/1963 dated 12.9.1969 and an extent of land 3 of Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1, 104/2 and 105 to 108 as she inherited 1/7th share from her father. The 1/7th share of the declarant is 51,396.37 Sq.metres. The total holding of declarant (mother of the plaintiffs) is 4,25,834.97 Sq.metres and she was allowed to retain 1000

Sq.metres of land in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur village under Section 4 (1)

(b) of the Act. She was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres. The final orders under Section 10 (3) of the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, were published in the

A.P.Gazette No.15 dated 7.5.1998. Aggrieved by the orders, the mother of plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and it was admitted and status-quo was ordered on 26.8.1999 till the disposal of the case. The mother of the plaintiff died on 29.12.2000 and the plaintiffs were added as legal representatives in the said appeal

No.62/1999 which is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

4.The M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Limited represented by its director Sri M.Komaraiah got issued legal notice dated 6.6.2006 to eight persons including plaintiffs stating that the M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions Limited entered into agreement of sale with addressees 1 to 3 for purchasing land admeasuring Ac.35-00 gts., in Sy.No.100, 101 and 103 of Kondapur village and Sri Y.B.K.Rao (defendant No.2) and

P.V.S.R.Dasu have subscribed their signatures on the said agreement

dated 2.7.1996 as witnesses. The M/s.Shalivahana Constructions paid

agreed amounts on different dates and obtained receipts. The addressees 1 to 3 are bound to get registrations in favour of nominees of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions. In 1997 the amendment was executed as Y.B.K.Rao has joined as one of the parties to the said 4 agreement and it was also agreed to pay the balance amount in pro-rata basis as and when the original sale deeds/ notarized deed / allotment letter are surrendered by the addressees 1 to 3. On payment of substantial amount towards land / plots in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village the addressees 1 to 3 could not organize the registration of balance land despite repeated requests of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions. The

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions came to know that the land owners are making attempts to transfer the land in favour of the third parties and informed all the addressees to come forward to register the balance land in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village in favour of its nominees. After receipt of notice the plaintiffs made enquires with regard to their land and approached Sub-registrar Office and obtained sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the third parties.

5.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 to sell the land admeasuring Ac.38- 12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part & 104/1 part of Kondapur

Village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. At the time of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981, the defendant No.2 was the president of the said society. The agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 is unenforcible in law as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and also for the reason that at the time of said agreement, the parties were not aware of exact description of land agreed to be sold as 1/7th share of the land of the plaintiffs' mother which was inherited from her father has not yet been identified. The agreement of sale was not a concluded contract of sale. As per clause-4 of the agreement of sale dated 5 11.11.1981, the said society shall obtain all such permissions required to complete the sale transaction. The said society failed to obtain permission for the purchase of land from the government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society backed out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. Thus the said society abandoned the agreement of sale, by its conduct and its acquiescence and the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 was not given effect to.

6.After entering into the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 the said society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development

Authority for approval of the layout, in respect of the land of an extent of

Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part, along with some other land belongs to Sri K.V.G.L.V.Prasad Rao and his brothers. The Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority sanctioned the layout tentatively by is letter dated 4.2.1982 subject to three conditions i.e., (1) The roads shall be formed as per the specifications, (2) No plot shall be utilized, sold, leased or otherwise disposed of for the residential purpose unless the layout is finally approved by the

Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority and (3) As regards to amenities like water, drainage, electricity etc., shall be made by its own as the public system is not available in the area. In the said tentative sanction of layout by the Urban Development Authority was lapsed as per the rules governing for sanction of layout in view of the failure of the society in complying with the conditions imposed by the Urban

Development Authority. As such there is no approved layout in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part of Kondapur village.

6

7.In view of the initiation of Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings by the Competent Authority against the mother of the plaintiffs as she was an excess land holder of the urban land and by reason of its failure in obtaining the permission from the Government for the purchase of the land, the society backed out from its obligation of performance of the

Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.1981. The said agreement of sale was frustrated by reason of its failure to obtain the permission from the government for the purchase of the land, which is the condition precedent to enforce the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. The agreement of sale was not given effect to by reason of the failure of the society in obtaining the permission from the government and as the society also abandoned/repudiated the Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence.

8.Taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge or acquaintance with the English language and the trust reposed by the mother of the plaintiffs in defendant No.2, he managed in obtaining the

General Power of Attorney in his favour. As the 2nd defendant acted against the interest of his principal i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and failed to submit a detailed account of the acts done in pursuance of

G.P.A., the mother of the plaintiffs cancelled/revoked the General Power of Attorney on 16.11.1992 vide registered document No.1079/1992 and the same was informed to the defendant No.2, through a registered post. The 2nd defendant received the letter and he did not respond to the said cancellation of GPA. The said cancellation of General Power of

Attorney is validly made in law.

7

9.The defendant No.2, taking advantage of the GPA acted against the interests of his principal and illegally executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons without her consent and knowledge.

As per the said General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.2 was not authorized to sign the sale deeds and register the same in favour of any purchaser, without the notice and knowledge of the principal. Even after cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of individuals who colluded with him with a view to usurp the valuable property. The said cancellation of

General Power of Attorney is validly made in law and no rights accrue to the alleged purchasers of the property of the plaintiffs. All the sale of plots made by the 2nd defendant is illegal and invalid in law. The said sale transactions made by the 2nd defendant are void for another reason also that the same were made even without obtaining the Urban Land

Ceiling exemption/ permission from the Government and contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. In all the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2, it was mentioned that the plaintiffs’ mother is entitled to sell the land to an extent of 5 Acres of plot area as per G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 is available only to the extent of 5

Acres of plot area but the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds and the total land sold under the sale deeds was more than 5-00 Acres of plot area. It seems that the 2nd defendant has not only caused prejudice to the interests of the plaintiffs but also misled the purchasers.

10.Their discreet enquiry reveals that the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds in favour of several individuals by showing the mother of the plaintiffs as vendor No.4 and by referring the General 8 Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1988 and K.V.G.L.V. Prasada Rao and his two brothers as the Vendors 1 to 3 even though the said persons have no right or interest in the suit schedule property. The said sale deeds are void and do not convey any right or title to the alleged purchasers.

The plaintiffs made enquiries in the locality and approached the office of the Sub Registrar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District in regard to the transactions in respect of the suit schedule land and obtained the certified copies of the sale transactions by the defendants illegally with a view to depriving the rights of the real owner of the property. Upon such enquiries it came to light that a sale transaction has been entered into vide the document No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989, wherein the mother of the plaintiffs was shown as the vendor No.4 and the defendant No.1 as the Vendee. The 2nd defendant sold the valuable property of the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 and some other persons.

The defendant No.2 played fraud upon the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself and thereby caused irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 unjustly enriched himself to the prejudice of the plaintiffs and the transaction entered into between the defendant No.1 and 2 is clearly void. The subject sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on the strength of the GPA dated 21.01.1988 which was cancelled by a registered document dated 16.11.1992, is illegal and null and void.

11.The 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The sale deed dated 11.12.1989 vide Registered document No.14586/1989 is void as the 2nd defendant has no right whatsoever to execute the sale deed. The 1st defendant colluded with 9 the 2nd defendant and purchased the property. The sale deed dated 11.12.1989 is void and did not convey any right or title to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs secured the certified copies of the said documents from the offices concerned and have instituted the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed since the said transactions is null and void. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that the sale transaction of the suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.1 vide document

No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 is brought about by collusion of the defendants 1 and 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. All these came to the notice and knowledge of the plaintiffs when they made discreet enquiries in the locality and also upon perusing the sale deed in relation to the transaction.

12.The transaction covered by document No.14586/1989,

dated 11.12.1989 is null and void and can not create any rights in favour

of defendant No.1, in the suit schedule property, since the transaction is collusive, fraudulent having been brought about by misrepresentation and the said sale is contrary to the specific prohibition provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. The transaction between defendants Nos.1 and 2 is void and no further rights could accrue in favour of any other person by reasons of such fraudulent and void transaction. The transaction entered into vide registered document

No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 deserves to be set aside as being void in law.

13.The cause of action for the suit arose on 11.12.1989 when the sale deed bearing No.14586/1989 was executed and when the plaintiffs received legal notice dated 14.06.2006 and when the plaintiffs made discreet enquires in the locality and approached the authorities 10 for certified copies and when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989. The suit is filed within limitation.

14.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 are that the plaintiffs are put to strict proof that the lands in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 13 totally admeasuring Acs.271-31 gts., were purchased by Smt.K.Anjani

Devi, Sri M.Veera Raghavaiah, Sri M.V.Seetha Rama Rao, Sri Vege

Sitharamaiah and Smt.Abbineni Anasuya, under registered sale deeds bearing Nos.748, 749 and 750 of 1959 and these lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e., O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble Munsiff Magistrate Court, West, Hyderabad and

Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted to her share of land in Sy.Nos.98 to 103, admeasuring Ac.92-21 gts. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof that their mother Smt. Abbineni Anasuya was initial owner of agricultural land of

Ac.92-21 gts; in Sy.No.98 is Ac.20-13 gts., in Sy.No.99 the extent is

Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 the extent is Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 the extent is Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 the extent is Ac.15-29 gts., and in

Sy.No.103 the extent is Ac.10-02 gts., of Kondapur village and after death of their mother, the plaintiffs became joint owners of 300 Sq.yards which is part in Sy.No.104/1 part of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally

Mandal.

15.The plaintiffs are put to strict proof that the competent authority issued a draft statement dated 17.1.1983 under Section 8 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976, declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Ac.105-07 gts., as she had an extent of Ac.92-21 gts., equivalent to 3,74,438.60 11 Sq.meters out of Sy.No.98 to 103 through court decree in

O.S.No.62/1963 dated 12.9.1969 and an extent of land of Ac.12-26 gts.,

in Sy.Nos.104/1, 104/2 and 105 to 108 as she inherited 1/7th share from her father and the 1/7th share of the declarant is 51,396.37 Sq.metres and the total holding of declarant (mother of the plaintiffs) is 4,25,834.97 Sq.metres and she was allowed to retain 1000 Sq.metres of land in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur village under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act.

She was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97

Sq.metres. The final orders under Section 10 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, were published in the A.P.Gazette

No.15 dated 7.5.1998. Aggrieved by the orders, the mother of plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and it was admitted and status-quo was ordered on 26.8.1999 till the disposal of the case.

The mother of the plaintiff died on 29.12.2000 and the plaintiffs were added as legal representatives in the said appeal No.62/1999 which is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad.

16.The plaintiffs are put to strict proof that M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions Limited represented by its director Sri M.Komaraiah got issued legal notice dated 6.6.2006 to eight persons including plaintiffs stating that the M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Limited entered into agreement of sale with addressees 1 to 3 for purchasing land admeasuring Ac.35-00 gts., in Sy.No.100, 101 and 103 of Kondapur village and Sri Y.B.K.Rao (defendant No.2) and P.V.S.R.Dasu have subscribed their signatures on the said agreement dated 2.7.1996 as witnesses. The M/s.Shalivahana Constructions paid agreed amounts on different dates and obtained receipts. The addressees 1 to 3 are bound 12 to get registrations in favour of nominees of M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions. In 1997 the amendment was executed as Y.B.K.Rao has joined as one of the parties to the said agreement and it was also agreed to pay the balance amount in pro-rata basis as and when the original sale deeds/ notarized deed / allotment letter are surrendered by the addressees 1 to 3. On payment of substantial amount towards land / plots in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village the addressees 1 to 3 could not organize the registration of balance land despite repeated requests of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions. The M/s.Shalivahana Constructions came to know that the land owners are making attempts to transfer the land in favour of the third parties and informed all the addressees to come forward to register the balance land in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village in favour of its nominees. After receipt of notice the plaintiffs made enquires with regard to their land and approached Sub-registrar

Office and obtained sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the third parties.

17.The plaintiffs are put to strict proof that the mother of the plaintiffs entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 to sell the land admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part & 104/1 part of Kondapur Village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. At the time of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981, the defendant No.2 was the president of the said society. The agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 is unenforcible in law as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land under the Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and also for the reason that at the time of said agreement, the parties were not aware of exact 13 description of land agreed to be sold as 1/7th share of the land of the plaintiffs' mother which was inherited from her father has not yet been identified. The agreement of sale was not a concluded contract of sale.

As per clause-4 of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981, the said society shall obtain all such permissions required to complete the sale transaction. The said society failed to obtain permission for the purchase of land from the government under the provisions of the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society backed out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. Thus the said society abandoned the agreement of sale, by its conduct and its acquiescence and the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 was not given effect to. This defendant reserves his right to comment about the unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 as it is not mentioned in the list of documents and no copy is served on him.

18.This defendant purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 for valid sale consideration and since then he has been in possession of the same. The cancellation of GPA by the mother of the plaintiffs is in collusion with the defendant No.2 to cause loss to this defendant. The letter dated 16.11.1992, postal acknowledgment, legal notice dated 06.06.2006 and reply notice dated 26.06.2006 are fabricated. This defendant constructed boundary wall and a room over the suit schedule property and obtained house No.1-3/7/H/214 and the suit property was assessed for tax with PTIN/Asst.NO.020694512, dated 30.11.2006 for

Rs.3,240/- with effect from 01.04.2006 and this defendant paid the amount under receipt No.05013049, dated 29.03.2007 for the period 14 2006-2007. He also paid tax of Rs.3,240/- for the period 2007 to 2008 under receipt No.070153502, dated 31.03.2008. This defendant applied for allotment of excess land taken by the government under Urban Land

Ceiling and Regulation Act 1976 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008 under application No.13555, dated 29.08.2008 in respect of registered sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989. This defendant is in possession of 248.43 Sq.metres of land. This defendant already paid Rs.1,08,564/- under D.D.bearing No.909782, dated 30.08.2008. He filed an application before the GHMC for LRs No.3178,

dated 06.05.2008/G/Circle XI/GHMC/08 for regularization of land. He

also paid Rs.22,358/- under D.D. This defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property since more than 20 years. The plaintiffs filed the present suit after a gap of 17 years. The registered sale deed bearing

No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 in respect of suit schedule property is valid. This defendant perfected title by adverse possession. This defendant denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

19.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 are that the present suit is filed for mere cancellation of sale deed without seeking consequential relief of possession and so it is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and hence liable to be dismissed in limine. Further the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit as their mother who is the landlady Smt.Abbineni Anasuya has not questioned or challenged the subject sale deed at any point of time during her life time.

20.The lands in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 totally admeasuring Ac.271-31 gts., were 15 purchased by Smt. K.Anjani Devi. M.Veera Raghavaiah, M.V.Seetha

Rama Rao, Vege Seetharamaiah and Smt. A.Anasuya in 1959 through registered sale deeds bearing Nos.748, 749 and 750/1959 and the said lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e.,

O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble Munsiff Magistrate Court,

Hyderabad West, and Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted Ac.92-21 gts.; in

Sy.No.98, of an extent of Ac.20-13 gts., in Sy.No.99 of an extent of

Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 of an extent of

Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 of an extent of Ac.15-29 gts., and in

Sy.No.103 of an extent of Ac.10-02 gts., situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District. But it is absolutely false and baseless to say that after death of their mother the plaintiffs became the owners and possessors of the plaint schedule land of 300 Sq.yards, which is part of survey number.104/1 part situated at

Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District.

In fact during the life time of the mother of the plaintiffs she sold the said plot No.214 admeasuring 300 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.104/1 of Kondapur

Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District for valuable sale consideration to defendant No.1 through this defendant i.e., her registered General Power of Attorney.

21.This defendant being the President, Venkateswara HAL Co- operative Housing Society entered into an agreement on 11.11.1981 for purchase of lands of an extent of Acs.38-12 gts in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102

Part, 103 Part and 104/1 Part of Kondapur village, Serilingampalli

Mandal, R.R.District with the landlady Smt. Abbineni Anasuya and under the said agreement the possession of the said lands was delivered to the

Society. Further this defendant is not aware of the death and date of 16 death of the plaintiffs' mother till he came to know in the year 2003 through the suit filed by Sri Bhagawan Bala Sai Baba Central Trust in

O.S.No.1014/2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

R.R.District.

22.The alleged legal notice dated 06.06.2006 of

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Ltd., is no way concerned with the present suit and the same is no way relevant to the present suit. If at all if the same is relevant, then the plaintiffs would have made

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions as party to this suit as such the plaintiffs have to establish before this Hon'ble Court as to in what way the said notice is relevant for the purpose of this suit. Further no reason is given by the plaintiffs as to why the plaintiffs made enquiries with regard to the land belonging to the plaintiffs situated at Kondapur Village, only after receipt of the alleged notice. And that itself establishes that the said allegations are leveled only with a malafide intention to bring the present suit within limitation. But the suit filed by the plaintiffs that too being legal heirs of the original landlady namely Abbineni Anasuya, who had not taken any action during her life time and who had never questioned or challenged the sale deeds executed by this defendant, is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further the plaintiffs are having the absolute knowledge about the same and their mother entering into the agreement with the Venkateswara HAL Co-operative Housing Society and also in pursuance of the said agreement execution of Registered

GPA in favour of this defendant who is also the President of the society and this defendant in turn executing sale deeds in favour of several persons particularly in favour of defendant No.1 and other members on behalf of the mother of the plaintiffs. And the same is evident from the 17 entire plaint averments where they have categorically pleaded about their mother entering into the agreement with the said society and in pursuance of the said agreement execution of registered G.P.A., in favour of this defendant and selling of the plots and execution of number of sale deeds to different persons by this defendant based on the said G.P.A. As such it is absolutely baseless, concocted and incorrect to say that the plaintiffs have made enquiries with regard to the land only after receipt of the said legal notice issued on behalf of

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Ltd., and that they came to know about the sale deeds during 2006. Further the plaintiffs have purposely not made the said M/s.Shalivahana Constructions who is alleged to have issued the said notice as party to this suit. As such it seems that the plaintiffs have purposely created the same to cover up illegal and untenable claim.

23.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL Employees Co-operative

Housing Society represented by its President and Secretary, to sell the land bearing survey numbers: 101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and 104/1

Part admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District and inducted the Society into possession of the land on the date of the agreement itself and at the time of the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 this defendant was the President of the Society and even now he continued to be the

President of the Society. It is submitted that it is absolutely false and baseless to say that the said agreement of sale was entered into subject to the clearance and permission by the competent authority under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. In fact there was no such 18 stipulation under the agreement and as on the date of the agreement there were no ULC proceedings at all. All other allegations leveled therein are false, baseless and concocted for the purpose of the suit and this defendant denies all such allegations. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that at the time of the agreement of sale the parties were not aware of the exact description of the land agreed to be sold. In fact the vendor under the said agreement i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs specifically declared that she is the exclusive owner of the land in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part and 103 part and an extent of Ac.8-26 gts., out of Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1 & 104/2 as she is entitled for 1/7th share in her fathers' property and the same is confirmed and reiterated by her in the corrected agreement dated 17.08.1991 and also under the final receipt dated 11.11.1991. As such the said agreement of sale

dated 11-11-1981 is a concluded contract of sale in all respects. In fact

the father of the landlady namely Vege Seetharamaiah had got seven children and all of them had 1/7th share each in his estate of Ac.88-39 gts., and after the death of the said Seetharamaiah, in the oral arrangement among the children, Smt. Abbineni Anasuya landlady was allotted with the lands including an extent of Ac.8-26 gts., in

Sy.No.104/1 as the same is situated adjacent to her separate lands. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the society shall obtain ULC permission under the agreement and it failed to obtain the same and as such the Society baked out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. In fact the society never abandoned the agreement of sale by its conduct and its acquiescence and on the other hand society had performed its part of agreement by paying the entire agreed sale consideration Rs.3,83,000/- that too by way of Bank demand drafts and the same is evident from the receipt 19 executed by the mother of the plaintiffs on 11.11.1991 and for which receipt the father of the plaintiffs and husband of plaintiff No.1 are stood as witnesses.

24.After entering into the agreement of sale on 11.11.1981 the society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority for approval of layout, in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part along with other lands in Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111 and obtained sanction on 04.02.1982.

but the other allegations are baseless and imaginary as the said layout never elapsed as alleged by the plaintiffs and as such this defendant deny the said allegations. And the society, in the same year, as per the said layout made the land leveled and divided into plots by laying roads and entered into agreements with the members of the society and allotted plots to them.

25.The society never backed out from its obligation under the agreement of sale and it was never a condition precedent under the agreement to obtain permission from the government and as such the society never abandoned / repudiated the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence and on the other hand the society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady under the agreement and the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya, in pursuance of the said agreement executed registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant bearing D.No.31 of 1988 dated 21.01.1988 authorising him to act on behalf of her in all respects in respect of the said land. As such it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the agreement of sale was not given effect to by reason of the failure of the society in obtaining the permission from the Government and as the society also abandoned/ 20 repudiated the agreements of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence.

26.There is a registered G.P.A. executed by the landlady Smt.

Abbineni Anasuya in favour of this defendant bearing D.No.31/1988,

dated 21.01.1988, in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated

11.11.1981, wherein this defendant is authorized to act on behalf of the

principal landlady absolutely in all respects in respect of the said land of

Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of

Kondapur village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District. It is absolutely false and baseless to say that taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge or acquaintance with the English language and the trust reposed by the mother of the plaintiffs on this defendant in obtaining the GPA in his favour. If really that being so, the mother of the plaintiffs would have taken action against this defendant and against the documents executed by him during her lifetime. Further this defendant never acted against the interest of his principal i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and the question of failing to submit detailed account of the acts done in pursuance of the GPA does not arise at all. And to the knowledge of this defendant the said GPA bearing D.No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 is never cancelled at any point of time much less on 16.11.1992 vide D.No.1079/1992 and this defendant is never informed with about the alleged cancellation at any point of time. This defendant submit that the mother of the plaintiffs cannot cancel the said GPA as the same is in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 which is coupled with interest in favour of the Venkateswara HAL Co- operative society Ltd., as this defendant being the President of the said society and even if the said GPA is cancelled as alleged by the plaintiffs 21 it will not have any sanctity in the eye of law. As such the alleged cancellation is illegal and invalid in law.

27.This defendant is specifically authorised to do all such acts as per clauses 1 to 6 of the said G.P.A. When once the landlady had executed the registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant authorizing him absolutely in all respects to sell the said land and having allowed the agent to do the acts and deeds on her behalf and having been sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration and having inducted defendant No.1 into possession of the suit plot under registered sale deed bearing document No.14586/1989,

dated 11.12.1989. And according to the plaintiffs when the suit land is

vacant land as defined under the ULC Act and which can not be sold without obtaining ULC exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed a registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant authorising him to sell the same on her behalf.

28.Further the said sale deed executed on behalf of the landlady by this defendant being the authorized agent of landlady Smt.

A.Anasuya that too for valuable sale consideration is very much legal and valid document and defendant No.1 had acquired title and became absolute owner in possession of the suit plot. Further this defendant never played any fraud against the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself. As such the transaction entered into between this defendant and defendant No.1 is valid and binding on the original landlady Smt. A.Anasuya and also on the plaintiffs. And it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the subject sale deed executed by this defendant in favour of 1st defendant on the strength of GPA dated 22 21.01.1988 which was cancelled by a registered document dated 16.11.1992 is illegal and null and void.

29.It is absolutely false and baseless to say that this defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 and that the sale deed dated 11.12.1989 bearing D.No.

No.14586/1989, is void document and that there is collusion between the first and second defendants. In fact this defendant sold the schedule property to defendant No.1, as defendant No.1 being the member of the society and this defendant being the registered G.P.A. of the landlady Smt.A.Anasuya and executed the sale deed, being the registered and authorized G.P.A. on behalf of the landlady, in favour of defendant No.1. As such it is false and incorrect to say that the transaction entered into between this defendant and defendant No.1 is void. In fact the said sale deed executed by this defendant on behalf of the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya is legally valid sale deed and passed on title in favour defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property. And further there is absolutely no collusion or fraud between defendant No.1 and this defendant as defendant No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration being the member of the society and the defendant No.1 is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property as she purchased it from landlady Smt. A.Anasuya through this defendant under registered sale deed bearing

No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 for valuable sale consideration.

Further it is deemed to have notice of their title in view of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act of registered documents and established physical possession of defendant No.1.

23

30.When the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya through her legally authorized agent has sold the schedule plot to defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed, now the plaintiffs cannot say that the said sale is contrary to the provisions of

ULC Act and the same is untenable either on facts or in law and more over the plaintiffs have no locus standi to take such a plea after more that seventeen years after the execution of the sale deed and further when the purchaser under the said sale deed is continuously in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. And ultimately it is for the ULC authorities or for the government to say so, but not for the plaintiffs.

And further the plaintiffs have not made the ULC authorities or the government as parties to the suit. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the present suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and not for the declaration of title and hence the plaintiffs cannot seek cancellation of sale deed on the plea that the same is prohibited under ULC Act.

31.There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The sale deed which is sought to be cancelled is executed on 11.12.1989 and further there is no mention as to how the plaintiffs came to know and as to when they came to know about the said sale only on receiving notice purported to have been issued by M/s.Shalivahana Constructions, who is no way concerned with the suit and A.Anasuya executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant to execute sale deeds. This defendant denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

24

32.Basing on the rival contentions the court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2) Whether the sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 was brought into existence by playing fraud on the plaintiffs ?

3) Whether the registered cancellation deed dated 16/11/1992 cancelling the GPA dated 21.01.1988 of the defendant No.2 will have any bearing on the sale deed vide document No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 of the defendant No.1 ?

4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?

5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of the sale deed vide document No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 executed by the defendant No.1 as null and void as prayed for ?

7) To what relief ?

33.At the event of trial the plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A20. On the other hand the defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B5 to B8. The defendant No.2 is examined as DW.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4, B9 to B35.

25

34.Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs filed common written arguments and defendant No.2 filed common written arguments.

35. Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing

of the suit ?

36.The plaintiffs in their plaint stated that their mother

Smt.Abbineni Anasuya was owner of agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.No.98 to 103 by virtue of partition decree in OS

No.62/1963 on the file of the Hon’ble Munsiff Magistrate, West,

Hyderabad. After death of their mother they (plaintiffs) became joint owners of plaint schedule land of 300 Sq.yards in Sy.No.104/1 part of

Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal. The PW.1 deposed the same in her chief examination affidavit. They further pleaded that their mother inherited Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1, 104/2 and 105 to 108 from her father. The PW.1 deposed in her chief examination affidavit that their mother also had 1/7th share in her father’s land being one of the legal heirs. The defendant No.1 in his written statement pleaded that he purchased the suit property under registered sale deed bearing

No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He deposed the same in his chief examination. The defendant No.2 in his written statement stated that the present suit is filed for mere cancellation of sale deed without seeking consequential relief of possession. The 2nd defendant is examined as DW.2 and he deposed that the society and its members were in possession of the said land from 11.11.1981 and the plots covered by the layout were allotted to the members of the society 26 and the possession of the same was delivered long back. The suit is filed in 2007. The plaintiffs have not filed any specific document to show their possession over the suit schedule property for the year 2007.

The PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that they have not filed any revenue record to show that they were in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., including the suit plot as on the date of filing the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the mother of the plaintiffs filed Appeal No.62 of 1999 before the Chief

Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and it was pending at the time of filing the present suit and the said appellate authority passed status-quo order dated 27.08.1999 to be maintained till the disposal of the case. The plaintiffs are in possession by the date of filing the suit and subsequently it was taken by the state government under panchanama under Ex.A15 and finally the said taking over the possession and allotment of the land to Hyderabad Urban Land

Development Authority was invalidated by the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 02.03.2009 in W.P.No.18342/2008 under Ex.A17. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the entire land reverted back to the original owners and the plaintiffs have been in possession of entire land including the suit property. He further submitted that the doctrine that the possession follows title is applicable to the suit property because it is vacant land. He relied on the following decisions reported in: AIR 1978 M.P.76 (Para 6), in the case of Amritlal V.

Keshriprasad Bilaiya; AIR 1978 A.P. 242 (Para 12), in the case of Meram

Pocham V. The Agent to the State Government; AIR 1961 M.P. 212 (Para 4), in the case of Nagar Palika, Bina V.Shrinandalal; AIR 1970 Mysore 249 (Para 25), in the case of Devish V. M.K.Subbaiah; AIR 1994 Orissa 26 (Para 12), in the case of Sadhu Meher V.Rajkumar Patel; AIR 1982 AP1 27 (F.B) (Para 18), in the case of Gaddam Narasa Reddy V.Collector,

Adilabad district; AIR 1927 Nagpur 177 ( at page 179), in the case of

Narayana V. Vithoba. The principle observed in the above decisions is possession follows title in case of vacant land. No doubt the suit schedule plot is vacant plot and so possession can be determined basing on title. According to PW.1, after death of their mother they became joint owners of land of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103 including suit land. The contention of the DW.1 is that he purchased the suit plot under registered sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 and since then he has been in possession of the same. He filed the original sale deed and it is marked as Ex.B5. It shows that the DW.1 purchased the suit plot from K.V.G.L.V.Prasad Rao, K.B.Tilak, K.Vijaya

Mohan and Smt. Abbineni Anasuya represented by their GPA holder Sri

Y.B.K. Rao. The 4th vendor, Abbineni Anasuya is the mother of plaintiffs.

The GPA holder Sri Y.B.K.Rao is defendant No.2. As per Ex.B5, the defendant No.2 in the capacity of GPA sold the suit plot to the DW.1.

The recitals of Ex.B5 show the possession of DW.1 over the suit plot.

Further the DW.1 deposed that after purchasing the suit plot he constructed boundary wall and a room and obtained H.No.1-3/7/H/214 from Municipality and he paid tax. He filed special notice of property tax

dated 30.11.2006, property tax receipt dated 29.03.2007 and property

tax receipt dated 31.03.2008 and they are marked as Exs.B6 to B8. The said two property tax receipts which are marked as Exs.B7 and B8 show that DW.1 paid property tax for H.No.1-3/7/H/214, Kondapur for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Of course the Ex.B5 is in question, it holds good for all practical purposes till its validity is finally adjudicated. The

Ex.B5 i.e., sale deed bearing No.14586/1989 coupled with Exs.B6 to B8 which are special notice of property tax dated 30.11.2006, property tax 28 receipt dated 29.03.2007 and property tax receipt dated 31.03.2008 categorically show the possession of DW.1 over the suit schedule plot.

Therefore, I am of considered opinion that DW.1 is in possession of the suit schedule plot at the time of filing the suit. When the DW.1 is found in possession of suit schedule property, it can be safely said that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. In view of these reasons I hold that the plaintiffs are not in possession of suit schedule land. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

37. Issue No.2: Whether the sale deed bearing No.14586/1989,

dated 11.12.1989 was brought into existence by playing fraud

on the plaintiffs ?

38.The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that the 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The suit sale transaction is brought about by collusion of the defendants No.1 & 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. The suit sale transaction is void and no further rights could accrue in favour of any other person by reason of fraud. The suit sale transaction is collusive, fraudulent having been brought about by misrepresentation and contrary to the specific prohibition provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated the same. On the other hand the defendant No.2 in his written statement stated that mother of the plaintiffs executed GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in his (defendant No.2) favour in respect of land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101/part, 102/part, 103/part and 104/1 part. Further mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 under Ex.B1 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative 29 Housing Society in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. She also executed corrected agreement of sale dt.17.08.1991 under Ex.B9 in favour of the said society. He (defendant No.2) executed number of sale deeds to different persons. He never acted against the interest of his principal i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs never informed him about cancellation of GPA. He (defendant No.2) never played fraud against the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself. There is no collusion between him and purchasers. The suit sale transaction is valid. If Urban Land Ceiling exemption is required, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA in his favour to sell the said land.

The DW.1 stated the same in his chief examination affidavit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of his principal and illegally executed sale deeds in favour of several persons without consent and knowledge of his

principal. The mother of the plaintiffs is entitled to sell the land to an

extent of Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, but the total land sold under the sale deeds was more than

Ac.5-00 gts. The defendant No.2 played fraud upon the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself and thereby caused irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 unjustly enriched himself to the prejudice of plaintiffs and the transaction entered into between the defendant No.2 and purchasers is clearly void. The suit sale transaction is brought about by collusion of defendants No.1 & 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. On the other hand the counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that the defendant No.2 being GPA holder of mother of the plaintiffs executed number of sale deeds in favour of purchasers for valuable sale consideration and there is no question of 30 fraud or collusion as alleged by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Paras 15, 17, 18 and 25) in the case of Ram Chandra Singh V. Savitri Devi and 2006 (6) ALT 523 (F.B) (Para 76) in the case of Yanamala Maheswari V. Ananathula Sayamma.

In the first citation it is observed that fraud would render the transaction void ab initio. In the second citation it is observed that if a person’s property is sold by another, it amounts playing fraud on the statute and title cannot pass to the transferee.

39.The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

No.2 played fraud against them and sold their valuable property.

According to the plaintiffs their mother was owner of Ac.92-21 gts., in

Sy.Nos.98 to 103 and Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.No.104 of Kondapur village.

Their mother died on 29.12.2000 and after her death they became joint owners of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103 including the suit schedule property. In the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, their mother was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres and their mother preferred appeal before the Appellate authority and the said appeal is pending and there is status-quo order and after death of their mother they were added as legal representatives in the said appeal. The plaintiffs stated that their mother entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara

HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part and the said agreement of sale was not given effect to, because of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The plaintiffs further stated that the defendant No.2 managed in obtaining General Power of Attorney from their mother and acted against the interest of their mother and 31 executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons without her consent and knowledge. The defendant No.2 admitted the execution of

General Power of Attorney in his favour and agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society by the mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1981 and she also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant in the year 1988. The 2nd defendant is the president of said society. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant managed in obtaining General Power of Attorney from the mother of the plaintiffs.

However the plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that the defendant No.2 managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained

General Power of Attorney. The PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her mother executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd defendant. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiff voluntarily executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2. Another contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of their mother and executed several sale deeds and failed to give account to their mother. No doubt the mother of the plaintiff is principal and the 2nd defendant is agent as per GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 under Ex.A18. The defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers.

The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 failed to give account to their mother. The mother of the plaintiff executed GPA in 1988 and she died in 2000. The defendant No.2 executed most of the sale deeds within 5 years from 1988. During her lifetime the principal i.e., mother of plaintiffs did not ask the defendant No.2 for accounts.

32 She cancelled the said GPA by cancellation deed dated 16.11.1992.

After cancellation of GPA she lived for 8 years. The mother of the plaintiffs should have taken action against the defendant No.2. Further the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and she also executed registered GPA in favour of the defendant No.2 and the society paid the entire consideration. The 2nd defendant filed some receipts issued by the mother of the plaintiffs and bank counter foils and they are marked as Exs.B10 to B35. These documents show that the mother of the plaintiffs received certain amounts from Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Limited represented by its president, Y.B.K.Rao i.e., defendant No.2, in pursuance of agreement dated 11.11.1981. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the receipts and counter foils are nothing to do with the present suit, because the transaction with Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society is strange to the suit sale deed and there is no reference of said society and so called agreement of sale in the suit sale deed. The contents of a document shall only be considered to understand the intention of the parties and the transaction therein. As per Section 91 and 92 of

Evidence Act no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add or subtract the terms of agreement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decisions:

AIR 1959 SC 1362 (Para 6) in the case of The Union of India V.Kishorilal

Guptha; (2006) 6 SCC 293 (Paras 22, 23 and 28) in the case of State

Bank of India V.Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd; AIR 1996 SC 2025 (Para 7) in the case of T.N.Electricity Board V. N Raju Reddiar; (2003) 6

SCC 595 (Paras 19, 20 and 22) in the case of Roop Kumar V. Mohan 33 Thedani and (2004) 2 SCC 283 (Para 7) in the case of Krishi utpadan

Mandi Samiti V. Bipin Kumar. In the first citation it is observed that when the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for drawing upon hypothetical considerations or supposed intentions of the parties. In the second citation it is observed that the surrounding circumstances are relevant only in case of ambiguity in the document.

In the third citation it is observed that once a contract is reduced to writing, it is not open to any party to seek to prove the terms of contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. In the forth citation it is observed that oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. In the fifth citation it is observed that no party is allowed to lead evidence to the terms of written document. No doubt the contents of document shall only be considered to understand the nature of the document and the intention of the parties. In the present case mother of the plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society on 11.11.1981 and she executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 and she cancelled the said GPA under cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers in the capacity of agent of mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The remedies under Specific Relief Act are equitable remedies. The person who seeks equity must do equity. The law of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence are aimed for dispensation of justice. The duty of the court 34 is to find out the truth. No doubt the contents of the document alone shall be looked into to understand the terms of the document. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in 1981 and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.08.1991 in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society and registered GPA bearing No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 in favour of 2nd defendant and cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and issued receipts in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society. So the contents of all documents are very much useful and helpful to understand the ground realities.

40.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell the land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village and the 2nd defendant was the president of the said society and the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts acknowledging the amounts. The receipts and counter foils are marked as Exs.B10 to B35. Ex.B35 is receipt dated 11.11.1991 issued by mother of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered as it is not registered one, as it creates interest. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1980 All 180 in the case of Ratan lal Vs. V.Harishanker in which is held that if a document is compulsorily registrable and has not been registered, it will be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the said receipt doesn’t create any right and so it doesn’t require registration under Section 17 35 of Registration Act. I have carefully gone through the receipt dated 11.11.1991. The contents show that mother of the plaintiffs acknowledged the previous payments of Rs.1,35,000/- and present payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. She further stated that she did not have any objection for the sale deeds registered by the defendant No.2 and the sale deeds that would be registered in future by the second defendant in pursuance of registered GPA. The contents of said receipt do not confer any new rights and so it doesn’t require registration.

41.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipts cannot be considered because the plaintiffs denied the signatures of their mother on the said receipts. In the cross-examination the PW.1 denied the signatures of her mother on the said receipts. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed the said receipts. The plaintiffs admitted that their mother executed agreement of sale, general power of attorney and cancellation of said general power of attorney. The certified copies of the said documents are before this court. The signatures of the mother of the plaintiffs on those documents and receipts look alike. The plaintiffs did not place any material to show that the signatures on receipts do not belong to their mother. Therefore I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs executed receipts. The contents of receipt dated 11.11.1991 show that mother of the plaintiff acknowledged previous payments and present payment and she undertook not to make any objection for the sale deeds executed and sale deeds that would be executed by the defendant No.2. So, it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2. When the mother of the plaintiffs had 36 knowledge of sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant, there is no question of fraud played by the defendant No.2. Therefore the act of the defendant No.2 does not come within the ambit of fraud played upon either plaintiffs or mother of the plaintiffs.

42.The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.2 colluded with purchasers and therefore the sale is void. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 sold Ac.38- 12 gts., in the shape of plots though his principal was eligible Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area as per exemption given in G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. He further submitted that defendant No.2 sold the plots in contravention of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. No doubt Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were pending at the time of suit sale transaction and as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 there is exemption of Ac.5-00 gts., only. Mere mentioning these two aspects in the suit sale transaction does not prove collusion between 2nd defendant and purchaser, because the purchaser paid sale consideration. If anything goes against Urban Land Ceiling proceedings and

G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, the purchaser would be put to loss but not the plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that there is no collusion between 2nd defendant and purchaser.

43.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.1 is not bonafide purchaser, because of collusion between him and defendant No.2. He relied on AIR 2004 P&H 315 (Para 19) in the case of Hans Raj V. Karmi and AIR 1989 Patna 50 (Para 11) in the case of Ram Chandra Singh V. Sub-Divisional officer, Hajipur. In the first citation it is observed that transferee cannot be treated to be bonafide transferee for consideration without notice when no amount is shown to 37 be paid. In the present case the defendant No.1 paid sale consideration and so he is considered as bonafide purchaser. In the second citation it is observed that the conduct of parties to the transaction is relevant for the purpose of determination of question as to whether the intention of the parties to the said transaction was that no title will pass to the vendee irrespective of payment of consideration. In the present case this court has come to conclusion that there is no collusion between the vendee and defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit plot falls in S.No.104/1 part of Serilingampally and the mother of the plaintiffs acquired the land in the said survey number from her father towards her 1/7th share and it was divided and so the defendant No. 2 had no right to sell the suit plot. The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered general power of attorney bearing No.

31/1988 and it is marked as Ex.A18. It shows that the mother of the plaintiffs authorized the defendant No.2 to deal with the land in S.Nos.

101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part to an extent of Ac.38.12 gts.

If the land was not divided, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed

General Power of Attorney in respect of land in S.No.104/1part.

Therefore the plaintiffs are not permitted to take stand that the land in

S.No.104/1 was not divided and their mother had no right or capacity to alienate the land in S.No.104/1. In view of the above detailed discussion

I am of considered opinion that the suit sale deed was not brought into existence by the defendants by playing fraud on the plaintiffs or their mother. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

44. Issue No.3: Whether the registered cancellation deed

dated 16/11/1992 cancelling the GPA dated 21.01.1988 of the

defendant No.2 will have any bearing on the sale deed vide

38

document No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989 of the defendant

No.1 ?

45.In this case the plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.14586/1989 dated 11.12.1989 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. The contention of the plaintiffs is that their mother executed registered GPA in favour of the defendant

No.2 and their mother cancelled the said GPA under registered cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992. The sale deed bearing No.14586/1989 dated 11.12.1989 which is in question was executed much prior to execution of cancellation deed bearing

No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992. Therefore the cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992 is nothing to do with the suit sale deed. Therefore I hold that the cancellation deed bearing

No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 has no affect on sale deed bearing

No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

46. Issue No.4: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?

47.The defendant No.2 in his written statement stated that the plaintiffs would have made M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited as a party to the suit. He further pleaded that the plaintiffs have not made the ULC authorities and the government as parties to the suit. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 argued that M/s Shalivahana

Constructions Limited, ULC authority and government are necessary parties. The plaintiffs in their pleadings stated that they came to know about the suit sale deed after receiving legal notice issued by M/s 39 Shalivahana Constructions Limited. The plaintiffs further stated the

Urban Land Ceiling Authority declared their mother as excess vacant land holder and their mother preferred appeal. These facts are admitted by the defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited and Urban Land Ceiling

Authority are not necessary parties. He relied on the following decisions:

(1995) 2 SCC 326 in the case of U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs.

Gyan Devi; (1995) 3 SCC 147 in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs.

Shivanath Misra and 1994 (2) ALT 592 in the case of Chalasani

Setharamaiah Vs. Chinthapally Ramachandra Rao. In the first and second decisions it is held that necessary party is a party whose presence is necessary to determine the issue. In the third decision it is held that suit of cannot be defeated by reason of non joinder of parties.

The main suit is filed for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing

No.14586/1989 dated 11.12.1989 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. Neither M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited nor

Urban Land Ceiling authority nor government is party to the said sale deed. The entire allegations of the plaintiffs are against the defendant

No.2, but not against M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited or Urban

Land Ceiling authority or government. The presence of M/s Shalivahana

Constructions Limited or Urban Land Ceiling authority or government is not required to decide the suit. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that suit of the plaintiffs is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Issue No.4 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs.

48. Issue No.5: Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

49.The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that after receipt of legal notice dated 06.06.2006 under Ex.A19 issued by M/s Shalivahana 40 Constructions Limited, they came to know about the execution of sale deeds by the 2nd defendant in favour of third parties in respect of their land. They made discreet enquiries in the locality and they secured certified copies of said documents from the offices concerned and filed the present suit for cancellation of sale deed. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated the same. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that the plaintiffs created legal notice

dated 06.06.2006 with a malafide intention to bring the present suit

within limitation. The suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation, since the mother of the plaintiffs had not taken any action during her life time. The plaintiffs have knowledge about agreement of sale and registered GPA executed their mother and selling of plots by 2nd defendant to different persons.

50.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the sale deed in question is void because it was executed during the pendency of

Urban Land Ceiling proceedings contrary to Section 5 (3), 10 (4) and 42 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The suit is not barred by limitation and the plaintiffs filed the present suit as they have reasonable apprehension that there is possibility of making claim over the property by the purchasers. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since the sale deed is void there is no question of limitation. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderlal Bhanabhai

Bhagat and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in AIR 2012

Gujarat 71 sale deed even if void, its validity has to be challenged within reasonable time. Therefore I am of considered opinion that even in case of suit for cancellation of sale deed on void ground, the law of limitation 41 is certainly apply. A party is not allowed to initiate proceedings as and when he wishes even in case of void transactions.

51.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the suit sale transaction is voidable since the transaction was brought into existence by collusion and fraud of the defendants. The plaintiffs received legal notice on 14.06.2006 and obtained sale deed and encumbrance certificate and filed the present suit. The defendants did not plead the prior knowledge of plaintiffs about the suit sale deed. The mother of plaintiffs did not know about the suit sale deed. The plaintiffs also did not know about the suit sale deed prior to receipt of notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited under Ex.A19. As per

Article 59 of Limitation Act, the limitation for cancellation of sale deed begins to run from the date of knowledge about the fraud. In the present case the plaintiffs came to know about the suit sale deed after receipt of notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following judgments: AIR 1959 Mad.26 (Para 5) in the case of In re Mareppa Gounder; AIR 1968 SC 956 (Para 6) in the case of Ningawwa V Byrappa Siddappa Hireknrabar and AIR1971 SC 2184 (Para 20) in the case of Syed Shah Gulam Ghouse

Mohiuddin V Syed Shah Ahmad Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri. The gist of these judgments is that the limitation runs from the date when the fraud came to the notice of person. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 2nd defendant and purchasers played fraud and the plaintiffs came to know about the said fraud only after receipt of legal notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited.

52.The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that there is no fraud played by the 2nd defendant and he sold the plots to 42 purchasers in the capacity of GPA holder under registered sale deeds.

The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that there is no reference about all the sale deeds executed by 2nd defendant in the legal notice. The plaintiffs and their mother had knowledge about the execution of sale deeds by the defendant No.2. He relied on decisions reported in 2009-JT-3-569 in the case of Abdul Rahim Vs.SK.Abdul Zabar and 2006-AIRKarR-5-271 in the case of Prem Singh Vs. Birbal. In these decisions it is observed that the limitation for cancellation of sale deed is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that as per Section 3 of Limitation Act suit is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond limitation, even in the absence of defense.

53.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 has not led any evidence to show that the plaintiffs have knowledge prior to legal notice dt.6.6.2006 and so he waived his initial objection as to limitation. He relied on the following decisions: AIR 1925

Nag 398 in the case of Guna Bai Vs. Motilal and 2003 (4) SCC 161 in the case of Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh. In the first citation it is held that if the suit is prima facie within time, but the defendants take the plea that the plaintiff was aware of the necessary facts to file the suit prior to the date when he admits in the plaint, it is for the defendants to allege and prove. In the second citation it is held that in the absence of plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into.

When the issue of limitation is question of fact, the defendants are at liberty to disprove the case of the plaintiffs in the cross examination.

The defendant No.2 need not take the stand of limitation in his chief examination. The defendant No.2 in his written statement has taken the 43 stand of limitation. He is at liberty to disprove that the plaintiffs have knowledge only after receipt of legal notice dt.6.6.2006.

54.I have perused the evidence on record. According to PW.1 they came to know about the suit sale deed after receipt of notice dated 06.06.2006 issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. In the cross-examination the PW.1 categorically admitted that their mother informed her about the reason for cancelling the GPA and the reason is non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.2 to her and execution of sale deed by him without her knowledge. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the admission alone cannot be considered and the whole evidence should be read together and the

P.W.1 denied their knowledge about suit sale transaction. The P.W.1 categorically stated that their mother informed them about execution of sale deed. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the

P.W.1 gave answers for two questions and it is not properly recorded. On the face of it there is no error in recording two answers in one sentence.

The P.W.1 categorically stated that their mother informed them about execution of sale deed. So it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs informed them (plaintiffs) about the execution of sale deed by the defendant No.2. Further the PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that they filed O.S.No.78/1999 against four defendants on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for perpetual injunction

in respect of land in Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101, 102 and 103. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 filed certified copy of said plaint and the

PW.1 admitted her signature on the said certified copy of plaint and it is marked as Ex.B2. The contents of Ex.B2 show that A.Anasuya, P.Vijaya

Laxmi, A.Sandhya, A.Anuradha, A.Sreenivasa Rao, P.Nageswara Rao, 44 M.Krishna and M.Satyanarayana filed suit for perpetual injunction against K.S.V.Prasad Rao and three others in respect of land in

Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 of Kondapur village. In the said plaint the present plaintiffs are shown as plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and the mother of the present plaintiff is shown as plaintiff No.1. The averments of the said plaint show that there was a family settlement and after the said settlement the plaintiff No.1 along with her family members made certain alienations and after the said alienations the plaintiff No.1 and her family members i.e., plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were left with land of Ac.6- 13 gts., in Sy.No.99, Ac.5-29 gts., in Sy.No.100, Ac.0-27 gts., in

Sy.No.101, Ac.2-03 gts., in Sy.No.102 and Ac.0-19 gts., in Sy.No.103 of

Kondapur village. The OS No.78/1999 was filed in the year 1999. The present plaintiffs are the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 in the said suit. According to them, in 1999 they have Ac.15-11 gts., in Sy.Nos.99 to 103 of

Kondapur village. In the present plaint the plaintiffs pleaded that after death of their mother they became owners of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. As per the plaint pleadings in OS No.78/1999, the plaintiffs and their mother made certain alienations. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaint in OS 78/99 is not relevant and it cannot be looked into and it is extraneous material. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following citations : 2001 (9) SCC 471 (Para 18) in the case of Ram Bharose Sharma V. Mahant Ram Swaroop;

AIR 1959 SC 504 (Para 14) Kishorilal V. Chaltibai; AIR 1971 S.C 1542 in the case of Chikkam Koteswara Rao V. Chikkam Subba Rao; AIR 1974 SC 1121 in the case of M/s Prem Ex-serviceman co operative tenant

Farming society V. State of Haryana and AIR 1979 SC 861 (Para 23) in the case of Avadh Kishore Dass V.Ram Gopal. In the first citation it is observed that admission is primarily a mixed question of fact and law 45 and has to be determined on the facts of each case. In the second and fifth citations it is held that admissions are not conclusive and the maker is at liberty to prove that they are mistaken or untrue. In the third citation it is observed that the admission must be clear and there should not be any doubt or ambiguity. In the forth citation it is observed that admission depends upon the circumstances in which it was made. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the contents in previous pleadings are relevant and they are treated as admissions. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 341 in the case of Basant

Singh V. Janki Singh, Kishundhari Singh, in which it is held that an admission by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him in a prior suit is an admission within the meaning of Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act and may be proved against him in other litigations. In the present case the P.W.1 admitted her signature on copy of plaint in OS 78/99 and filing of the said suit. Further she did not give any explanation for the contents of plaint in OS 78/99. Since there is no rebuttal evidence, the contents in the previous pleadings are relevant. In the cross- examination the PW.1 admitted that their mother informed her about the reason for cancellation of GPA and the reason is non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.2 to her and execution of sale deed by him without her knowledge. The evidence elicited in the cross- examination coupled with Ex.B2 categorically shows that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale transactions during the lifetime of their mother. In view of these reasons I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the suit sale transaction and other sale transactions made by the defendant No.2 in favour of purchasers much prior to legal notice dated 06.06.2006. When the plaintiffs have 46 knowledge about the sale transaction even prior to 1999, the present suit is said to be filed beyond limitation.

55.Further the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that as per explanation I of section 3 of Transfer of Property

Act in case of registered instruments a person shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument. As per explanation III, a person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that as per the proviso appended to explanation III, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice. In the present case this court has come to conclusion that defendant No.2 has not committed fraud in the capacity of agent upon the mother of plaintiffs. Even according to the plaintiffs their mother cancelled the GPA of the defendant No.2 under registered cancellation deed bearing No. 1079/92 dt.16.11.92. When the mother of the plaintiffs cancelled the GPA of the defendant No.2 in the year 1992, she should have verified whether her agent executed any sale deeds. She would have known about sale deed if she had made proper enquiry. As per section 3 of Transfer of Property

Act, she is said to have notice of sale deed. The mother of the plaintiff should have challenged the suit sale deed much earlier. Even according to the P.W.1, their mother informed about sale deed during her lifetime.

After sifting entire material on record from all facets, I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the suit sale deed during the lifetime of their mother who died in 2000. The present suit is filed in 2007 and so it is barred by limitation. The issue No.5 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

47

56. Issue No.6: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

cancellation of the sale deed vide document No.14586/1989,

dated 11.12.1989 executed by the defendant No.1 as null and

void as prayed for ?

57.The contention of the plaintiffs is that their mother entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The said agreement became unenforceable as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land.

The plaintiffs filed copies of Form III, draft statement, Form III, Order dt.5.3.1983, letter dt.5.5.1983, Notice, Notifications, Letter, Declaration dt.15.4.1998, Notice, Oder dt.2.2.2008, Panchanama dt.11.2.2008,

G.O.Ms.No.978 and Order in W.P.10813 and 18342 of 2008 and they are marked as Ex.A3 to A17. The 2nd defendant managed their mother and obtained registered GPA and executed number of sale deeds in favour of several persons and the said sale transaction are void, because they were made without obtaining Urban Land Ceiling exemption / permission from the government and contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. As per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 the mother of the plaintiffs was entitled to sell the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area but the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds in respect of land more than Ac.5-00 gts. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit sale transaction is void because it was made in contravention of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd 48 defendant is that there is no stipulation under agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with regard to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society obtained sanction of layout on 04.02.1982 from Bhagyanagar

Urban Development Authority in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 and 104/1 part along with other lands in

Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111. The society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 authorizing the defendant No.2 to act on behalf of principal. By virtue of the said GPA the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds. When the suit land is vacant land as defined under Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976 and which cannot be sold without obtaining exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to sell the land. The plaintiffs have no right to say that the sale is contrary to the provisions of Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. It is for the Urban Land Ceiling authority or for the government to say but not for the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the special officer and competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 issued notification under Section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976 for acquisition of land by the government and so the land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances with effect from 15.05.1998 and the mother of the plaintiffs preferred appeal in Appeal No.62/1999 and they appellate authority passed status-quo order on 27.08.1999 and after death of plaintiffs mother, plaintiffs made an application to implead 49 them as legal representatives. The appellate authority vacated the status-quo order without notice to the plaintiffs. The special officer issued an order dated 10.01.2007 under Section 5 of the Act against dead person i.e., mother of the plaintiffs proposing to take possession of the land. The possession of the land of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres was taken by government under panchanama dated 11.02.2008. After repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 the appellate authority passed an order dated 08.05.2008 closing the appeal as abated. The government issued G.O.Ms.No.978 dated 02.08.2008 allotting the entire surplus land to Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority. The plaintiffs filed writ petition No.18342/2008 and it was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court, dated 02.03.2009. The suit sale transaction is null and void as per the Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) R/W

Section 42 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decision reported in 2006 (6) ALT 671 (D.B) (Paras 42 & 43) in the case of

Parchuri Rathankar Rao V. State of A.P. In this case it is held that sale of surplus land is null and void as per Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) R/W Section 42 of the Act. No doubt Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated in respect of land of mother of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 in his cross-examination admitted the same. According to the plaintiffs the competent authority issued draft statement dated 17.01.1983 under

Section 8 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Ac.105-07 gts. So mother of the plaintiffs was aware of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings in the year 1983. The mother of the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 and corrected agreement of sale

dated 17.08.1991 with the Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

50 Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. In the said corrected agreement of sale there is no mention about Urban Land Ceiling exemption or permission.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society did not give effect because of ULC permission and the said agreement of sale became frustrated. On the other hand the learned counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.08.1991 and registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. Further the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts under Exs.B10 to B35 acknowledging the payments made on behalf of the Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society. I have perused the receipts and they show that Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society made payments to the mother of the plaintiffs in the years 1981, 1982, 1988, 1989 & 1991. As per Ex.B35 the mother of the plaintiffs issued final receipt acknowledging previous payments and the present payment and she mentioned that she has no objection for the sale deeds executed and the sale deeds to be executed by the defendant

No.2. In view of these facts I am of considered opinion that there is no justification in the contention of plaintiffs that the agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 became frustrated.

58.The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs 51 submitted that the defendant No.2 sold the land without obtaining ULC permission which is requirement under the said GPA. In the GPA at clause 11, the principal authorized the agent i.e., defendant No.2 to obtain copies of pahanies other documents of title etc., clearance like tax clearance, revenue nil encumbrances, U.L.C. etc., on the said property. In the said GPA the particulars of pendency of ULC proceedings are not noted. Obtaining ULC exemption is not a condition precedent to sell the land. The mother of the plaintiffs having knowledge about the ULC proceedings and G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988, executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts. The defendant No.2 had also knowledge about

ULC proceedings and the said G.O.Ms.No.733. Both the principal and agent had knowledge about ULC proceedings and G.O.Ms.No.733. Even then the 2nd defendant in the capacity of agent sold the entire land. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 relied on the following judgments reported in 1990 (3) ALT 262 in the case of J.Pitchaiah V. Special officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and others; 1999 (1) ALD 135 in the case of Shak Azeem and others V. Special officer and competent authority, Hyderabad Land Ceiling Office,

Hyderabad and others; 1992 (1) APLJ 411 in the case of N.Yakoob V. The

Government of A.P.; 1998 (4) ALT 603 in the case of P.S.Rao V. Special officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and another and AIR 2012 Gujrat 71 in the case of Sunder Lal Bhanabhai

Bhagat and others V. State of Gujrat and others. In the first citation it is held that the land owner is liable to deliver excess land out of the land retained by him and not the land sold by him. In the second citation it is observed that the authorities are at liberty to order surrender of lands retained by the declarant excluding the lands sold to bonafide 52 purchasers. In the third and forth citations, G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 is discussed. In the fifth citation it is held that sale deed even if void, its validity has to be challenged within reasonable time and the person who had misrepresented other person and had persuaded him to purchase land for consideration and sold the land to him cannot challenge sale deed executed by him to be void. It is the duty of seller of the property to see that the lawful rights are conveyed in favour of the purchaser. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 had knowledge about ULC proceedings and

G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The plaintiffs had also knowledge about the suit sale transaction. The present suit is filed very long time after execution of suit sale deed. The purchaser under suit sale deed is bonafide purchaser. Therefore, though the suit sale deed is void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, there is no any affect to its validity because the mother of the plaintiffs or plaintiffs failed to take action within time.

59.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit sale deed is not valid for want of consideration, authority and competency. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that no consideration was passed and the defendant No.2 has no authority and capacity to execute the sale deed. According to the recitals of sale deed consideration was received by the vendors. The defendant No.2 in his cross-examination stated that the vendee did not pay the sale consideration directly to the vendors. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since consideration has not passed, the suit sale deed is not valid as per

Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of plaintiffs 53 executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and she also executed registered GPA in his favour and the society paid the entire consideration. The 2nd defendant filed some receipts issued by the mother of the plaintiffs and bank counter foils and they are marked as

Exs.B10 to B35. These documents show that the mother of the plaintiffs received certain amounts from Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Limited represented by its president, Y.B.K.Rao i.e., defendant No.2, in pursuance of agreement dated 11.11.1981. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the receipts and counter foils are nothing to do with the present suit, because the transaction with Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society is strange to the suit sale deed and there is no reference of said society and so called agreement of sale in the suit sale deed. The contents of a document shall only be considered to understand the intention of the parties and the transaction therein. As per Section 91 and 92 of

Evidence Act no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add or subtract the terms of agreement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decisions:

AIR 1959 SC 1362 (Para 6) in the case of The Union of India V.Kishorilal

Guptha; (2006) 6 SCC 293 (Paras 22, 23 and 28) in the case of State

Bank of India V.Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd; AIR 1996 SC 2025 (Para 7) in the case of T.N.Electricity Board V. N Raju Reddiar; (2003) 6

SCC 595 (Paras 19, 20 and 22) in the case of Roop Kumar V. Mohan

Thedani and (2004) 2 SCC 283 (Para 7) in the case of Krishi utpadan

Mandi Samiti V. Bipin Kumar. In the first citation it is observed that when the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for drawing upon hypothetical considerations or supposed intentions of the 54 parties. In the second citation it is observed that the surrounding circumstances are relevant only in case of ambiguity in the document.

In the third citation it is observed that once a contract is reduced to writing, it is not open to any party to seek to prove the terms of contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. In the forth citation it is observed that oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. In the fifth citation it is observed that no party is allowed to lead evidence to the terms of written document. No doubt the contents of document shall only be considered to understand the nature of the document and the intention of the parties. In the present case mother of the plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society on 11.11.1981 and she executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 and she cancelled the said GPA under cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers in the capacity of agent of mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The remedies under Specific Relief Act are equitable remedies. The person who seeks equity must do equity. The law of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence are aimed for dispensation of justice. The duty of the court is to find out the truth. No doubt the contents of the document alone shall be looked into to understand the terms of the document. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society 55 and registered GPA in favour of 2nd defendant and cancellation deed and issued receipts in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society. So the contents of all documents are very much useful and helpful to understand the ground realities.

60.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell the land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village and the 2nd defendant was the president of the said society and the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts acknowledging the amounts. The receipts and counter foils are marked as Exs.B10 to B35. Ex.B35 is receipt dated 11.11.1991 issued by mother of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered as it is not registered one, as it creates interest. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1980 All 180 in the case of Ratan lal Vs. V.Harishanker in which is held that if a document is compulsorily registrable and has not been registered, it will be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the said receipt doesn’t create any right and so it doesn’t require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. I have carefully gone through the receipt dated 11.11.1991. The contents show that mother of the plaintiffs acknowledged the previous payments of Rs.1,35,000/- and present payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. She further stated that she did not have any objection for the sale deeds registered by the defendant No.2 and the sale deeds that would be registered in future by the second defendant in 56 pursuance of registered GPA. The contents of said receipt do not confer any new rights and so it doesn’t require registration.

61.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered because the plaintiffs denied the signature of their mother on the said receipt. In the cross-examination the PW.1 denied the signatures of her mother and father on the said receipt. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed the said receipt and father of the PW.1 and husband of the PW.1 are the witnesses. The plaintiffs admitted that their mother executed agreement of sale, general power of attorney and cancellation of said general power of attorney. The certified copies of the said documents are before this court. The signatures of the mother of the plaintiffs on those documents and receipt dt.11.11.91 look alike. The plaintiffs did not place any material to show that the signatures on receipt dt.11.11.91 do not belong to their mother. Therefore I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs executed receipt dt.11.11.91. The contents of receipt dt.11.11.91 show that mother of the plaintiff acknowledged previous payments and present payment and she undertook not to make any objection for the sale deeds executed and sale deeds that would be executed by the defendant No.2. So, it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that sale deed is not valid for want of consideration. If at all, the mother of the plaintiffs should have challenged during her lifetime.

Therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs have no right to question the validity of sale deed for want of consideration.

57

62.Another contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

No.2 has no competency and authority to execute the sale deed. As per the contents of sale deed the defendant No.2 executed the sale deed in the capacity of agent. As per Ex.35, receipt dated 11.11.1991 the mother of the plaintiff authorized the defendant No.2 to execute sale deeds and so the plaintiffs are not allowed to question the validity of execution of sale deed executed by the defendant No.2. The sale deed was executed very long back and plaintiffs and their mother had knowledge about the sale deed and so they cannot question the validity.

After examining the entire material on record from all facets, I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation suit sale deed. Issue No.6 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

63. Issue No.7: To what relief?

64.In view of my findings recorded above I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief much less as prayed for. Issue

No.7 is answered accordingly.

65.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.

Typed by Personal Assistant to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 1 st day of April, 2013.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

PW.1: Smt. Potluri Vijayalakshmi

On behalf of the Defendants:

DW.1: Sri P.Venkat Rao 58 DW.2: Sri Y.B.K.Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989.

Ex.A2: Encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Form No.III, dated 12.01.1983.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of draft statement dated 17.01.1983.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of Form No.III, dated 25.02.1983.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of order of Special Officer and competent authority

dated 05.03.1983.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of letter of Special Officer and competent authority, dated 05.05.1983.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of notification, dated 05.05.1983.

Ex.A9: Certified copy of notification, dated 17.05.1983.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of letter, dated 15.04.1998.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of declaration, dated 15.04.1998.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of notification, dated 07.05.1998.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of notice, dated 10.01.2007.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of proceedings of Special Officer and competent authority, dated 02.02.2008.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of panchanama, dated 11.02.2008.

Ex.A16: Certified copy of G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02.08.2008.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of Order in W.P.No.10813/2008 and 18342/2008,

dated 02.03.2009.

Ex.A18: Certified copy of GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988.

Ex.A19: Certified copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2006.

Ex.A20: Certified copy of reply notice dated 26.06.2006.

On behalf of the Defendants:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.78/1999 on the file of the

Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.B3: Certified copy of petition in O.P.No.141/1999 on the file of the

Hon’ble District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

59 Ex.B4: Certified copy of judgment and decree in L.G.C.No.13/2002,

dated 12.10.2006, on the file of the Hon’ble Special Court under

AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Ex.B5: Registered sale deed bearing No.14586/1989, dated 11.12.1989.

Ex.B6: Special notice of property tax, dated 30.11.2006.

Ex.B7: Receipt of property tax, dated 29.03.2007.

Ex.B8: Receipt of property tax, dated 31.03.2008.

Ex.B9: Xerox copy of corrected agreement of sale, dated 17.08.1991.

Ex.B10: Xerox copy of voucher dated 11.11.1981.

Ex.B11: Xerox copy of voucher dated 29.11.1981.

Ex.B12: Xerox copy of voucher dated 23.01.1982.

Ex.B13: Xerox copy of receipt dated 21.09.1987.

Ex.B14: Xerox copy of receipt dated 22.02.1988.

Ex.B15: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 24.02.1988.

Ex.B16: Xerox copy of receipt dated 24.02.1988.

Ex.B17: Xerox copy of receipt dated 04.05.1988.

Ex.B18: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 19.12.1988.

Ex.B19: Xerox copy of receipt dated 19.12.1988.

Ex.B20: Xerox copy of receipt dated 20.07.1989.

Ex.B21: Xerox copy of receipt dated 17.08.1991.

Ex.B22: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 14.10.1991.

Ex.B23: Xerox copy of receipt dated 15.10.1991.

Ex.B24: Xerox copy of receipt dated 28.10.1991.

Ex.B25: Xerox copy of receipt dated 29.10.1991.

Ex.B26: Xerox copy of receipt dated 30.10.1991.

Ex.B27: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 04.11.1991.

Ex.B28: Xerox copy of receipt dated 04.11.1991.

Ex.B29: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 06.11.1991.

Ex.B30: Xerox copy of receipt dated 06.11.1991.

Ex.B31: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 08.11.1991.

Ex.B32: Xerox copy of receipt dated 08.11.1991.

Ex.B33: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 09.11.1991.

Ex.B34: Xerox copy of receipt dated 09.11.1991.

Ex.B35: Xerox copy of receipt dated 11.11.1991.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

60

1

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT : SRI K.S.RAMA KRISHNA RAO, B.Com. LL.M.,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

MONDAY, THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2013

O.S.No.650 of 2007

Between:

1.Potluri Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Late P.S.V. Prasad aged about 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.9-2-105, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

2.Adapa Sandhya, W/o. Venugopal, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.9-1-187/2, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

3.V.L. Anuradha, W/o.Vellanki Sudhakar Babu, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Thotapalli, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District.

4.Abbineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.9-2-105, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. … Plaintiffs

AND

1.Kolla Siva Linga Prasad, S/o. Late Sri K.Krishnaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ: HAL Employee, R/o.MIG Flat No.67/1, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad – 500872.

2.Sri Y.B.K.Rao, S/o.Y.Venkaiah, aged about 68 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.7-4-252, Near St.Martin School, Navajeevan Nagar, Ferojguda Post, Hyderabad – 11. … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Prabhunath, advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri M.Raja Babu, advocate for the defendants No.1 & 2 and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.9369/1991, dated 21.10.1991 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that originally

Smt.K.Anjani Devi, Sri M.Veera Raghavaiah, Sri M.V.Seetha Rama Rao,

Sri Vege Sitharamaiah and Smt.Abbineni Anasuya purchased land admeasuring Ac.271-31 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 under registered sale deeds bearing

Nos.748, 749 and 750 of 1959. The lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e., O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble

Munsiff Magistrate Court, West, Hyderabad and Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. Smt. Abbineni Anasuya is mother of plaintiffs. The extent of land in Sy.No.98 is Ac.20-13 gts., in

Sy.No.99 the extent is Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 the extent is Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 the extent is Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 the extent is

Ac.15-29 gts., and in Sy.No.103 the extent is Ac.10-02 gts. After death of their mother, the plaintiffs became joint owners of 300 Sq.yards which is part in Sy.No.103 part of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and it is described as suit schedule property.

3.The competent authority issued a draft statement dated 17.1.1983 under Section 8 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation

Act) 1976, declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Ac.105-07 gts., as she had an extent of Ac.92-21 gts., equivalent to 3,74,438.60 Sq.metres out of Sy.No.98 to 103 through court decree in O.S.No.62/1963 dated 12.9.1969 and an extent of land 3 of Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1, 104/2 and 105 to 108 as she inherited 1/7th share from her father. The 1/7th share of the declarant is 51,396.37 Sq.metres. The total holding of declarant (mother of the plaintiffs) is 4,25,834.97 Sq.metres and she was allowed to retain 1000

Sq.metres of land in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur village under Section 4 (1)

(b) of the Act. She was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres. The final orders under Section 10 (3) of the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, were published in the

A.P.Gazette No.15 dated 7.5.1998. Aggrieved by the orders, the mother of plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and it was admitted and status-quo was ordered on 26.8.1999 till the disposal of the case. The mother of the plaintiff died on 29.12.2000 and the plaintiffs were added as legal representatives in the said appeal

No.62/1999 which is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

4.The M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Limited represented by its director Sri M.Komaraiah got issued legal notice dated 6.6.2006 to eight persons including plaintiffs stating that the M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions Limited entered into agreement of sale with addressees 1 to 3 for purchasing land admeasuring Ac.35-00 gts., in Sy.No.100, 101 and 103 of Kondapur village and Sri Y.B.K.Rao (defendant No.2) and

P.V.S.R.Dasu have subscribed their signatures on the said agreement

dated 2.7.1996 as witnesses. The M/s.Shalivahana Constructions paid

agreed amounts on different dates and obtained receipts. The addressees 1 to 3 are bound to get registrations in favour of nominees of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions. In 1997 the amendment was executed as Y.B.K.Rao has joined as one of the parties to the said 4 agreement and it was also agreed to pay the balance amount in pro-rata basis as and when the original sale deeds/ notarized deed / allotment letter are surrendered by the addressees 1 to 3. On payment of substantial amount towards land / plots in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village the addressees 1 to 3 could not organize the registration of balance land despite repeated requests of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions. The

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions came to know that the land owners are making attempts to transfer the land in favour of the third parties and informed all the addressees to come forward to register the balance land in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village in favour of its nominees. After receipt of notice the plaintiffs made enquires with regard to their land and approached Sub-registrar Office and obtained sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the third parties.

5.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 to sell the land admeasuring Ac.38- 12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part & 104/1 part of Kondapur

Village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. At the time of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981, the defendant No.2 was the president of the said society. The agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 is unenforceable in law as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and also for the reason that at the time of said agreement, the parties were not aware of exact description of land agreed to be sold as 1/7th share of the land of the plaintiffs' mother which was inherited from her father has not yet been identified. The agreement of sale was not a concluded contract of sale. As per clause-4 of the agreement of sale dated 5 11.11.1981, the said society shall obtain all such permissions required to complete the sale transaction. The said society failed to obtain permission for the purchase of land from the government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society backed out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. Thus the said society abandoned the agreement of sale, by its conduct and its acquiescence and the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 was not given effect to.

6.After entering into the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 the said society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development

Authority for approval of the layout, in respect of the land of an extent of

Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part, along with some other land belongs to Sri K.V.G.L.V.Prasad Rao and his brothers. The Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority sanctioned the layout tentatively by is letter dated 4.2.1982 subject to three conditions i.e., (1) The roads shall be formed as per the specifications, (2) No plot shall be utilized, sold, leased or otherwise disposed of for the residential purpose unless the layout is finally approved by the

Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority and (3) As regards to amenities like water, drainage, electricity etc., shall be made by its own as the public system is not available in the area. In the said tentative sanction of layout by the Urban Development Authority was lapsed as per the rules governing for sanction of layout in view of the failure of the society in complying with the conditions imposed by the Urban

Development Authority. As such there is no approved layout in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part of Kondapur village.

6

7.In view of the initiation of Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings by the Competent Authority against the mother of the plaintiffs as she was an excess land holder of the urban land and by reason of its failure in obtaining the permission from the Government for the purchase of the land, the society backed out from its obligation of performance of the

Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.1981. The said agreement of sale was frustrated by reason of its failure to obtain the permission from the government for the purchase of the land, which is the condition precedent to enforce the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. The agreement of sale was not given effect to by reason of the failure of the society in obtaining the permission from the government and as the society also abandoned / repudiated the Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence.

8.Taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge or acquaintance with the English language and the trust reposed by the mother of the plaintiffs in defendant No.2, he managed in obtaining the

General Power of Attorney in his favour. As the 2nd defendant acted against the interest of his principal i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and failed to submit a detailed account of the acts done in pursuance of

G.P.A., the mother of the plaintiffs cancelled/revoked the General Power of Attorney on 16.11.1992 vide registered document No.1079/1992 and the same was informed to the defendant No.2, through a registered post. The 2nd defendant received the letter and he did not respond to the said cancellation of GPA. The said cancellation of General Power of

Attorney is validly made in law.

7

9.The defendant No.2, taking advantage of the GPA acted against the interests of his principal and illegally executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons without her consent and knowledge.

As per the said General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.2 was not authorized to sign the sale deeds and register the same in favour of any purchaser, without the notice and knowledge of the principal. Even after cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of individuals who colluded with him with a view to usurp the valuable property. The said cancellation of

General Power of Attorney is validly made in law and no rights accrue to the alleged purchasers of the property of the plaintiffs. All the sale of plots made by the 2nd defendant is illegal and invalid in law. The said sale transactions made by the 2nd defendant are void for another reason also that the same were made even without obtaining the Urban Land

Ceiling exemption/ permission from the Government and contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. In all the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2, it was mentioned that the plaintiffs’ mother is entitled to sell the land to an extent of 5 Acres of plot area as per G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 is available only to the extent of 5

Acres of plot area but the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds and the total land sold under the sale deeds was more than 5-00 Acres of plot area. It seems that the 2nd defendant has not only caused prejudice to the interests of the plaintiffs but also misled the purchasers.

10.Their discreet enquiry reveals that the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds in favour of several individuals by showing 8 the mother of the plaintiffs as vendor No.4 and by referring the General

Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1988 and K.V.G.L.V. Prasada Rao and his two brothers as the Vendors 1 to 3 even though the said persons have no right or interest in the suit schedule property. The said sale deeds are void and do not convey any right or title to the alleged purchasers.

The plaintiffs made enquiries in the locality and approached the office of the Sub Registrar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District in regard to the transactions in respect of the suit schedule land and obtained the certified copies of the sale transactions by the defendants illegally with a view to depriving the rights of the real owner of the property. Upon such enquiries it came to light, that a sale transaction has been entered into vide the document No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 wherein the mother of the plaintiffs was shown as the vendor No.4 and the defendant No.1 as the Vendee. The 2nd defendant sold the valuable property of the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 and some other persons.

The defendant No.2 played fraud upon the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself and thereby caused irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 unjustly enriched himself to the prejudice of the plaintiffs and the transaction entered into between the defendant No.1 and 2 is clearly void. The subject sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on the strength of the GPA dated 21.01.1988 which was cancelled by a registered document dated 16.11.1992, is illegal and null and void.

11.The 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The sale deed dated 21.10.1991 vide Registered document No.9369/1991 is void as the 2nd defendant has no right 9 whatsoever to execute the sale deed. The 1st defendant colluded with the 2nd defendant and purchased the property. The sale deed dated 21.10.1991 is void and did not convey any right or title to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs secured the certified copies of the said documents from the offices concerned and have instituted the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed since the said transactions is null and void. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that the sale transaction of the suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.1 vide Document

No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 is brought about by collusion of the defendants 1 and 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. All these came to the notice and knowledge of the plaintiffs when they made discreet enquiries in the locality and also upon perusing the sale deed in relation to the transaction.

12.The transaction covered by document No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 is null and void and can not create any rights in favour of defendant No.1, in the suit schedule property, since the transaction is collusive, fraudulent having been brought about by misrepresentation and the said sale is contrary to the specific prohibition provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976. The transaction between defendants Nos.1 and 2 is void and no further rights could accrue in favour of any other person by reasons of such fraudulent and void transaction. The transaction entered into vide registered document

No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 deserves to be set aside as being void in law.

13.The cause of action for the suit arose on 21.10.1991 when the sale deed bearing No.9369/1991 was executed and when the 10 plaintiffs received legal notice dated 14.06.2006 and when the plaintiffs made discreet enquires in the locality and approached the authorities for certified copies and when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of sale deed bearing No.9369/1991, dated 21.10.1991. The suit is filed within limitation.

14.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 are that it is absolutely false to say that after the death of their mother the plaintiffs became the owners and possessors of the plaint schedule land of 300 Sq.Yrds which is part of survey number 103 part, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal and

Municipality, R.R.District. In fact during the life tile of the mother of the plaintiffs she sold the said plot of 300 Sq.yards bearing plot No.325 in

Sy.No.103 Part of Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District for valuable sale consideration to this defendant through her Registered

General Power of Attorney i.e., defendant No.2.

15.In fact neither the plaintiffs' mother nor her registered

General Power of Attorney i.e., defendant No.2 informed about the ULC proceedings to this defendant at any point of time. Further this defendant is not aware of the death and date of death of the plaintiffs' mother.

16.This defendant is no way concerned with the said

M/s.Salivahana Constructions and issuance of the alleged legal notice and this defendant is not a party to the said notice and likewise the said

M/s.Salivahana Constructions is not a party to this suit as such the plaintiffs have to establish before this Hon'ble Court as to in what way the said notice is relevant for the purpose of this suit. Further no reason 11 is given by the plaintiffs as to why the plaintiffs made enquireis with regard to the land belonging to the plaintiffs situated at Kondapur village, only after receipt of the alleged notice. And that itself establishes that the said allegations are leveled only with a malafide intention to bring the present suit with in limitation. But the suit filed by the plaintiffs that too being legal heirs of the original landlady namely

Abbineni Anasuya, who had not taken any action during her life time and who had never denied the sale deed in favour of this defendant, is hopelessly barred by limitation and further the plaintiffs are having the absolute knowledge about the same and their mother entering into the agreement with the Venkateswara HAL Co-operative Housing Society and also in pursuance of the said agreement execution of Registered

GPA in favour of the second defendant who is also the President of the

Society and in turn execution of sale deeds in favour of several persons particularly in favour of this defendant and other members by the said

GPA on behalf of the mother of the plaintiffs. As such it is absolutely baseless, concocted and incorrect to say that the plaintiffs have made enquiries with regard to the land only after receipt of the said legal notice issued on behalf of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Ltd., and that they came to know that the sale deeds during 2006. Further the plaintiffs have purposely not made the said M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions who is alleged to have issued the said notice as party to this suit and this defendant is no way concerned with the alleged notice.

As such it seems that the plaintiffs have purposely created the same to cover up illegal and untenable claim.

17.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL Employees Co-Operative

12 Housing Society represented by its President and Secretary, to sell the land bearing Survey numbers:101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and 104/1

Part admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., situated at Kondapur village,

Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District and inducted the Society into possession of the land and at the time of the said agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 defendant No.2 was the President of the Society and

even now he continued to be the President of the Society. It is submitted that it is absolutely false and baseless to say that the said agreement of sale was entered into subject to the clearance and permission by the competent aurhority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 as there was no such stipulation under the agreement.

18.After entering into the agreement of sale on 11.11.1981 the society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority for approval of layout, in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and 104/1 Part along with other lands in Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111 and obtained sanction on 04.02.1982.

19.To the knowledge of this defendant the society never backed out from its obligation under the agreement of sale and it was never a condition precedent under the agreement to obtain permission from the Government and as such the society never abandoned/ repudiated the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence and on the other hand the Society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady under the agreement.

20.There is a registered G.P.A. executed by the landlady

Smt.Abbineni Anasuya in favour of defendant No.2 bearing 13 D.No.31/1988 dt:21.01.1988, in pursuance of the agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981, wherein defendant No.2 is authorized to act on behalf

of the principal landlady absolutely in all respects in respect of the said land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and 104/1

Part of Kondapur village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District.

21.In fact he is specifically authorized to do all such acts as per clauses 1 to 6 of the said G.P.A. Likewise all other allegations in the said para are false, baseless and concocted for the purpose of this suit.

Further when once the landlady had executed the registered G.P.A. in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him absolutely in all respects to see the said land and having allowed the agent to do the acts and deeds on her behalf and having been sold the suit schedule property to this defendant for valuable sale consideration and having inducted this defendant into possession of the suit plot under registered sale deed bearing document No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 that too admittedly during the subsistence of the G.P.A. and further the landlady and the

principal who alleged to have cancelled the G.P.A. has not challenged

the said sale deed at any point of time as such the plaintiffs can not now say that all the sale of plots made by the 2nd defendant are illegal and invalid in law. And according to the plaintiffs when the suit land is vacant land as defined under the ULC Act and which cannot be sold without obtaining ULC exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed a registered G.P.A. in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to sell the same on her behalf.

22.The said sale deed executed on behalf of the landlady by defendant No.2 being the authorized agent of landlady Smt.A.Anasuya 14 that too for valuable sale consideration is very much legal and valid document and this defendant had acquired title and became absolute owner in possession of the suit plot.

23.In fact defendant No.2 sold the schedule plot to defendant

No.1, as defendant No.1 being the member of the society and the defendant No.2 being the registered G.P.A. of the landlady

Smt.A.Anasuya and executed the sale deed, being the registered and authorized G.P.A. on behalf of the landlady, in favour of defendant No.1.

As such it is false and incorrect to say that the transaction entered into between the defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 is void. In fact the said sale deed executed by defendant No.2 on behalf of the landlady Smt.

A.Anasuya is legally valid sale deed and passed on title in favour of defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property. And further there is absolutely no collusion or fraud between defendant No.1 and defendant

No.2 as defendant No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration being the member of the Society and the defendant No.1 is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property as he purchased it from land lady Smt. A.Anasuya through defendant

No.2 under registered sale deed bearing D.No.9369/1991, dated 21.10.1991 for valuable sale consideration.

24.Further when the landlady Smt.A.Anasuya through her legally authorized agent has sold the schedule plot to this defendant for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed, now the plaintiffs can not say that the said sale is contrary to the provisions of

ULC Act and the same is untenable either on facts or in law and more over the plaintiffs have no locus standi to take such a plea after more 15 than seventeen years after the execution of the sale deed and further when the purchaser under the said sale deed is continuously in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. And ultimately it is for the ULC authorities or for the government to say so, but not for the plaintiffs.

And further the plaintiffs have not made the ULC authorities or the government as parties to the suit. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the present suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and not for the declaration of title and hence the plaintiffs cannot seek cancellation of sale deed on the plea that the same is prohibited under ULC Act. Further, even other wise, this defendant has perfected his title by being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit plot for more than 17 years since 1991.

25.There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. The suit is hopelessly barred by the limitation. This defendant denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

26.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 are that the present suit is filed for mere cancellation of sale deed without seeking consequential relief of possession and so it is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and hence liable to be dismissed in limine. Further the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit as their mother who is the land lady Smt.Abbineni Anasuya has not questioned or challenged the subject sale deed at any point of time during her lifetime.

16

27.The lands in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 totally admeasuring Ac.271-31 gts., were purchased by Smt. K.Anjani Devi. M.Veera Raghavaiah, M.V.Seetha

Rama Rao, Vege Seetharamaiah and Smt. A.Anasuya in 1959 through registered sale deeds bearing Nos.748, 749 and 750/1959 and the said lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e.,

O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble Munsiff Magistrate Court,

Hyderabad West, and Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted Ac.92-21 gts.; in

Sy.No.98, of an extent of Ac.20-13 gts., in Sy.No.99 of an extent of

Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 of an extent of

Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 of an extent of Ac.15-29 gts., and in

Sy.No.103 of an extent of Ac.10-02 gts., situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District. But it is absolutely false and baseless to say that after death of their mother the plaintiffs became the owners and possessors of the plaint schedule land of 300 Sq.yards, which is part of survey number 103 part situated at

Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District.

In fact during the life time of the mother of the plaintiffs she sold the said plot No.325 admeasuring 300 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur

Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District for valuable sale consideration to defendant No.1 through this defendant i.e., her registered General Power of Attorney.

28.This defendant being the President, Venkateswara HAL Co- operative Housing Society entered into an agreement on 11.11.1981 for purchase of lands of an extent of Acs.38-12 gts in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102

Part, 103 Part and 104/1 Part of Kondapur village, Serilingampalli

Mandal, R.R.District with the landlady Smt. Abbineni Anasuya and under 17 the said agreement the possession of the said lands was delivered to the

Society. Further this defendant is not aware of the death and date of death of the plaintiffs' mother till he came to know in the year 2003 through the suit filed by Sri Bhagawan Bala Sai Baba Central Trust in

O.S.No.1014/2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

R.R.District.

29.The alleged legal notice dated 06.06.2006 of

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Ltd., is no way concerned with the present suit and the same is no way relevant to the present suit. If at all if the same is relevant, then the plaintiffs would have made

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions as party to this suit as such the plaintiffs have to establish before this Hon'ble Court as to in what way the said notice is relevant for the purpose of this suit. Further no reason is given by the plaintiffs as to why the plaintiffs made enquiries with regard to the land belonging to the plaintiffs situated at Kondapur Village, only after receipt of the alleged notice. And that itself establishes that the said allegations are leveled only with a malafide intention to bring the present suit within limitation. But the suit filed by the plaintiffs that too being legal heirs of the original landlady namely Abbineni Anasuya, who had not taken any action during her life time and who had never questioned or challenged the sale deeds executed by this defendant, is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further the plaintiffs are having the absolute knowledge about the same and their mother entering into the agreement with the Venkateswara HAL Co-operative Housing Society and also in pursuance of the said agreement execution of registered

GPA in favour of this defendant who is also the President of the society and this defendant in turn executing sale deeds in favour of several 18 persons particularly in favour of defendant No.1 and other members on behalf of the mother of the plaintiffs. And the same are evident from the entire plaint averments where they have categorically pleaded about their mother entering into the agreement with the said society and in pursuance of the said agreement execution of registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant and selling of the plots and execution of number of sale deeds to different persons by this defendant based on the said G.P.A. As such it is absolutely baseless, concocted and incorrect to say that the plaintiffs' have made enquiries with regard to the land only after receipt of the said legal notice issued on behalf of

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Ltd., and that they came to know about the sale deeds during 2006. Further the plaintiffs have purposely not made the said M/s.Shalivahana Constructions who is alleged to have issued the said notice as party to this suit. As such it seems that the plaintiffs have purposely created the same to cover up illegal and untenable claim.

30.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL Employees Co-operative

Housing Society represented by its President and Secretary, to sell the land bearing survey numbers: 101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and 104/1

Part admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District and inducted the Society into possession of the land on the date of the agreement itself and at the time of the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 this defendant was the President of the Society and even now he continued to be the

President of the Society. It is submitted that it is absolutely false and baseless to say that the said agreement of sale was entered into subject 19 to the clearance and permission by the competent authority under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. In fact there was no such stipulation under the agreement and as on the date of the agreement there were no ULC proceedings at all. All other allegations leveled therein are false, baseless and concocted for the purpose of the suit and this defendant denies all such allegations. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that at the time of the agreement of sale the parties were not aware of the exact description of the land agreed to be sold. In fact the vendor under the said agreement i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs specifically declared that she is the exclusive owner of the land in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part and 103 part and an extent of Ac.8-26 gts., out of Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1 & 104/2 as she is entitled for 1/7th share in her fathers' property and the same is confirmed and reiterated by her in the corrected agreement dated 17.08.1991 and also under the final receipt dated 11.11.1991. As such the said agreement of sale

dated 11-11-1981 is a concluded contract of sale in all respects. In fact

the father of the landlady namely Vege Seetharamaiah had got seven children and all of them had 1/7th share each in his estate of Ac.88-39 gts., and after the death of the said Seetharamaiah, in the oral arrangement among the children, Smt. Abbineni Anasuya landlady was allotted with the lands including an extent of Ac.8-26 gts., in

Sy.No.104/1 as the same is situated adjacent to her separate lands. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the society shall obtain ULC permission under the agreement and it failed to obtain the same and as such the Society baked out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. In fact the society never abandoned the agreement of sale by its conduct and its acquiescence 20 and on the other hand society had performed its part of agreement by paying the entire agreed sale consideration Rs.3,83,000/- that too by way of Bank demand drafts and the same is evident from the receipt executed by the mother of the plaintiffs on 11.11.1991 and for which receipt the father of the plaintiffs and husband of plaintiff No.1 are stood as witnesses.

31.After entering into the agreement of sale on 11.11.1981 the society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority for approval of layout, in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part along with other lands in Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111 and obtained sanction on 04.02.1982.

but the other allegations are baseless and imaginary as the said layout never elapsed as alleged by the plaintiffs and as such this defendant deny the said allegations. And the society, in the same year, as per the said layout made the land leveled and divided into plots by laying roads and entered into agreements with the members of the society and allotted plots to them.

32.The society never backed out from its obligation under the agreement of sale and it was never a condition precedent under the agreement to obtain permission from the government and as such the society never abandoned / repudiated the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence and on the other hand the society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady under the agreement and the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya, in pursuance of the said agreement executed registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant bearing D.No.31 of 1988 dated 21.01.1988 authorising him to act on 21 behalf of her in all respects in respect of the said land. As such it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the agreement of sale was not given effect to by reason of the failure of the society in obtaining the permission from the Government and as the society also abandoned/ repudiated the agreements of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence.

33.There is a registered G.P.A. executed by the landlady Smt.

Abbineni Anasuya in favour of this defendant bearing D.No.31/1988,

dated 21.01.1988, in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated

11.11.1981, wherein this defendant is authorized to act on behalf of the

principal landlady absolutely in all respects in respect of the said land of

Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of

Kondapur village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District. It is absolutely false and baseless to say that taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge or acquaintance with the English language and the trust reposed by the mother of the plaintiffs on this defendant in obtaining the GPA in his favour. If really that being so, the mother of the plaintiffs would have taken action against this defendant and against the documents executed by him during her lifetime. Further this defendant never acted against the interest of his principal i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and the question of failing to submit detailed account of the acts done in pursuance of the GPA does not arise at all. And to the knowledge of this defendant the said GPA bearing D.No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 is never cancelled at any point of time much less on 16.11.1992 vide D.No.1079/1992 and this defendant is never informed with about the alleged cancellation at any point of time. This defendant submit that the mother of the plaintiffs cannot cancel the said GPA as 22 the same is in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 which is coupled with interest in favour of the Venkateswara HAL Co- operative society Ltd., as this defendant being the President of the said society and even if the said GPA is cancelled as alleged by the plaintiffs it will not have any sanctity in the eye of law. As such the alleged cancellation is illegal and invalid in law.

34.This defendant is specifically authorised to do all such acts as per clauses 1 to 6 of the said G.P.A. When once the landlady had executed the registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant authorizing him absolutely in all respects to sell the said land and having allowed the agent to do the acts and deeds on her behalf and having been sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration and having inducted defendant No.1 into possession of the suit plot under registered sale deed bearing document No.9369/1991,

dated 21.10.1991. And according to the plaintiffs when the suit land is

vacant land as defined under the ULC Act and which can not be sold without obtaining ULC exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed a registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant authorising him to sell the same on her behalf.

35.Further the said sale deed executed on behalf of the landlady by this defendant being the authorized agent of landlady Smt.

A.Anasuya that too for valuable sale consideration is very much legal and valid document and defendant No.1 had acquired title and became absolute owner in possession of the suit plot. Further this defendant never played any fraud against the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself. As such the transaction entered into between this 23 defendant and defendant No.1 is valid and binding on the original landlady Smt. A.Anasuya and also on the plaintiffs. And it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the subject sale deed executed by this defendant in favour of 1st defendant on the strength of GPA dated 21.01.1988 which was cancelled by a registered document dated 16.11.1992 is illegal and null and void.

36.It is absolutely false and baseless to say that this defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 and that the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 bearing

D.No.9369/1991 is void document and that there is collusion between the first and second defendants. In fact this defendant sold the schedule property to defendant No.1, as defendant No.1 being the member of the society and this defendant being the registered G.P.A. of the landlady Smt.A.Anasuya and executed the sale deed, being the registered and authorized G.P.A. on behalf of the landlady, in favour of defendant No.1. As such it is false and incorrect to say that the transaction entered into between this defendant and defendant No.1 is void. In fact the said sale deed executed by this defendant on behalf of the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya is legally valid sale deed and passed on title in favour defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property. And further there is absolutely no collusion or fraud between defendant No.1 and this defendant as defendant No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration being the member of the society and the defendant No.1 is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property as she purchased it from landlady Smt. A.Anasuya through this defendant under registered sale deed bearing

No.9369/1991, dated 21.10.1991 for valuable sale consideration.

24 Further it is deemed to have notice of their title in view of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act of registered documents and established physical possession of defendant No.1.

37.When the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya through her legally authorized agent has sold the schedule plot to defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed, now the plaintiffs cannot say that the said sale is contrary to the provisions of

ULC Act and the same is untenable either on facts or in law and more over the plaintiffs have no locus standi to take such a plea after more that seventeen years after the execution of the sale deed and further when the purchaser under the said sale deed is continuously in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. And ultimately it is for the ULC authorities or for the government to say so, but not for the plaintiffs.

And further the plaintiffs have not made the ULC authorities or the government as parties to the suit. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the present suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and not for the declaration of title and hence the plaintiffs cannot seek cancellation of sale deed on the plea that the same is prohibited under ULC Act.

38.There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The sale deed which is sought to be cancelled is executed on 21.10.1991 and further there is no mention as to how the plaintiffs came to know and as to when they came to know about the said sale only on receiving notice purported to have been issued by M/s.Shalivahana Constructions, who is no way concerned with the suit and A.Anasuya executed General Power 25 of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant to execute sale deeds. This defendant denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

39.Basing on the rival contentions the court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the defendant No.2 got no right whatsoever to execute the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 in favour of the defendant No.1?

2) Whether the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 was brought into the existence by playing fraud on the plaintiffs ?

3) Whether the registered document dated 16/11/1992 cancelling the GPA dated 21.01.1988 of the defendant No.2 will have any bearing on the sale

deed dated 21.10.1991 of the defendant No.1 ?

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of

the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 as prayed for ?

5) To what relief ?

40.At the event of trial the plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. On the other hand the defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B31.

41.Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs filed common written arguments and defendants filed common written arguments.

26

42. Issue No.1: Whether the defendant No.2 got no right

whatsoever to execute the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 in favour

of the defendant No.1?

43.The case of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to them in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The suit sale deed is void and did not convey any right or title to the 1st defendant. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated that the sale deed bearing No.

9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 which is marked as Ex.A1, executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is not valid as the same was executed in excess of authority conferred upon him through GPA bearing No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 under Ex.A18. She further deposed that the sale deed is not valid as it was executed without the consent and knowledge of their mother. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 under Ex.B1 in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur Village and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.8.1991 under Ex.B5. He is the president of the said society. Further the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing

No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in his favour in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur

Village and he executed number of sale deeds in favour of purchasers basing on the said GPA. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 2nd defendant managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained GPA. However the plaintiffs have not placed any material to 27 show that the defendant No.2 managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained General Power of Attorney. The PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her mother executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd defendant. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs voluntarily executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds without the knowledge and consent of their mother. No doubt the 2nd defendant in the capacity of

General Power of Attorney of mother of the plaintiffs executed several sale deeds including the suit sale deed. The mother of the plaintiffs executed GPA in favour of 2nd defendant in 1988 and the 2nd defendant sold the plots within 5 years and the suit sale deed was executed in 1991. The mother of the plaintiffs cancelled the GPA of defendant No.2 in 1992 under registered cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992,

dated 16.11.1992. The mother of the plaintiffs died in 2000. So it is

clear that mother of the plaintiffs lived 8 years after cancellation of GPA.

She should have known about the sale deeds executed by defendant

No.2 who is her agent. All the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 are registered sale deeds. Therefore the mother of the plaintiffs was deemed to have notice of sale transactions made by the defendant

No.2.

44.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 was not authorized to execute sale deeds under GPA bearing

No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied the following citations: AIR 1979 SC 553 (Para 11), in the case of

Syed Abdul Khader V.Rami Reddy; AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 20 (Para 20) in the case of Gopaldas V Thakurdas and 2006 (3) ALT 603 (Para 8) in 28 the case of N.Narasimha Reddy V. Sri Brahmathantra Parakaamut. In the first citation it is held that Power of Attorney has to be strictly construed and what it authorizes depends on its terms and the purpose for which it is executed. In the second citation it is held that no authority confers on the agent to sell or otherwise dispose of the property without the consent of the owner. In the third citation it is held that the right of agent subsists only as long as the principal permits him to continue. In the present case as per the terms of GPA bearing

No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 the mother of the plaintiffs authorized the defendant No.2 to sell her land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. As per the clauses of GPA bearing No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 the 2nd defendant is authorized to negotiate on terms for and to sell the lands admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. Therefore it is clear that the defendant

No.2 authorized to sell the lands of Ac.38-12 gts., belongs to mother of the plaintiffs. In view of these reasons, I am of considered opinion that defendant No.2 got right to execute the suit sale deed. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

45. Issue No.2: Whether the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 was

brought into the existence by playing fraud on the plaintiffs ?

46.The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that the 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The suit sale transaction is brought about by collusion of the defendants No.1 & 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. The suit sale transaction is void 29 and no further rights could accrue in favour of any other person by reason of fraud. The suit sale transaction is collusive, fraudulent having been brought about by misrepresentation and contrary to the specific prohibition provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated the same. On the other hand the defendant No.2 in his written statement stated that mother of the plaintiffs executed GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in his (defendant No.2) favour in respect of land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. Further mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village.

He (defendant No.2) executed number of sale deeds to different persons. He never acted against the interest of his principal i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs never informed him about cancellation of GPA. He (defendant No.2) never played fraud against the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself. There is no collusion between him and purchasers. The suit sale transaction is valid.

If Urban Land Ceiling exemption is required, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA in his favour to sell the said land. The

DW.1 stated the same in his chief examination affidavit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of his principal and illegally executed sale deeds in favour of several persons without consent and knowledge of his

principal. The mother of the plaintiffs is entitled to sell the land to an

extent of Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, but the total land sold under the sale deeds was more than 30 Ac.5-00 gts. The defendant No.2 played fraud upon the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself and thereby caused irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 unjustly enriched himself to the prejudice of plaintiffs and the transaction entered into between the defendant No.2 and purchasers is clearly void. The suit sale transaction is brought about by collusion of defendants No.1 & 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. On the other hand the counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that the defendant No.2 being GPA holder of mother of the plaintiffs executed number of sale deeds in favour of purchasers for valuable sale consideration and there is no question of fraud or collusion as alleged by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Paras 15, 17, 18 and 25) in the case of Ram Chandra Singh V. Savitri Devi and 2006 (6) ALT 523 (F.B) (Para 76) in the case of Yanamala Maheswari V. Ananathula Sayamma.

In the first citation it is observed that fraud would render the transaction void ab initio. In the second citation it is observed that if a person’s property is sold by another, it amounts playing fraud on the statute and title cannot pass to the transferee.

47.The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

No.2 played fraud against them and sold their valuable property.

According to the plaintiffs their mother was owner of Ac.92-21 gts., in

Sy.Nos.98 to 103 and Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.No.104 of Kondapur village.

Their mother died on 29.12.2000 and after her death they became joint owners of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103 including the suit schedule property. In the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, their mother was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres and their mother preferred appeal before the Appellate authority and the 31 said appeal is pending and there is status-quo order and after death of their mother they were added as legal representatives in the said appeal. The plaintiffs stated that their mother entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara

HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part and the said agreement of sale was not given effect to, because of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The plaintiffs further stated that the defendant No.2 managed in obtaining General Power of Attorney from their mother and acted against the interest of their mother and executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons without her consent and knowledge. The defendant No.2 admitted the execution of

General Power of Attorney in his favour and agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society by the mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1981 and she also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant in the year 1988. The 2nd defendant is the president of said society. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant managed in obtaining General Power of Attorney from the mother of the plaintiffs.

However the plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that the defendant No.2 managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained

General Power of Attorney. The PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her mother executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd defendant. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiff voluntarily executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 32 defendant No.2. Another contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of their mother and executed several sale deeds and failed to give account to their mother. No doubt the mother of the plaintiff is principal and the 2nd defendant is agent as per GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. The defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 failed to give account to their mother. The mother of the plaintiff executed GPA in 1988 and she died in 2000. The defendant No.2 executed most of the sale deeds within 5 years from 1988. During her lifetime the principal i.e., mother of plaintiffs did not ask the defendant No.2 for accounts. She cancelled the said GPA by cancellation deed dated 16.11.1992. After cancellation of

GPA she lived for 8 years. The mother of the plaintiffs should have taken action against the defendant No.2. Further the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and she also executed registered

GPA in favour of the defendant No.2 and the society paid the entire consideration. The 2nd defendant filed some receipts issued by the mother of the plaintiffs and bank counter foils and they are marked as

Exs.B6 to B31. These documents show that the mother of the plaintiffs received certain amounts from Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Limited represented by its president, Y.B.K.Rao i.e., defendant No.2, in pursuance of agreement dated 11.11.1981. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the receipts and counter foils are nothing to do with the present suit, because the transaction with Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society is 33 strange to the suit sale deed and there is no reference of said society and so called agreement of sale in the suit sale deed. The contents of a document shall only be considered to understand the intention of the parties and the transaction therein. As per Section 91 and 92 of

Evidence Act no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add or subtract the terms of agreement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decisions:

AIR 1959 SC 1362 (Para 6) in the case of The Union of India V.Kishorilal

Guptha; (2006) 6 SCC 293 (Paras 22, 23 and 28) in the case of State

Bank of India V.Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd; AIR 1996 SC 2025 (Para 7) in the case of T.N.Electricity Board V. N Raju Reddiar; (2003) 6

SCC 595 (Paras 19, 20 and 22) in the case of Roop Kumar V. Mohan

Thedani and (2004) 2 SCC 283 (Para 7) in the case of Krishi utpadan

Mandi Samiti V. Bipin Kumar. In the first citation it is observed that when the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for drawing upon hypothetical considerations or supposed intentions of the parties. In the second citation it is observed that the surrounding circumstances are relevant only in case of ambiguity in the document.

In the third citation it is observed that once a contract is reduced to writing, it is not open to any party to seek to prove the terms of contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. In the forth citation it is observed that oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. In the fifth citation it is observed that no party is allowed to lead evidence to the terms of written document. No doubt the contents of 34 document shall only be considered to understand the nature of the document and the intention of the parties. In the present case mother of the plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society on 11.11.1981 and she executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 and she cancelled the said GPA under cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers in the capacity of agent of mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The remedies under Specific Relief Act are equitable remedies. The person who seeks equity must do equity. The law of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence are aimed for dispensation of justice. The duty of the court is to find out the truth. No doubt the contents of the document alone shall be looked into to understand the terms of the document. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in 1981 and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.08.1991 in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society and registered GPA bearing No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 in favour of 2nd defendant and cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and issued receipts in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society. So the contents of all documents are very much useful and helpful to understand the ground realities.

48.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell the 35 land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village and the 2nd defendant was the president of the said society and the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts acknowledging the amounts. The receipts and counter foils are marked as Exs.B6 to B31. Ex.B31 is receipt dated 11.11.1991 issued by mother of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered as it is not registered one, as it creates interest. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1980 All 180 in the case of Ratan lal Vs. V.Harishanker in which is held that if a document is compulsorily registrable and has not been registered, it will be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the said receipt doesn’t create any right and so it doesn’t require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. I have carefully gone through the receipt dated 11.11.1991. The contents show that mother of the plaintiffs acknowledged the previous payments of Rs.1,35,000/- and present payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. She further stated that she did not have any objection for the sale deeds registered by the defendant No.2 and the sale deeds that would be registered in future by the second defendant in pursuance of registered GPA. The contents of said receipt do not confer any new rights and so it doesn’t require registration.

49.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipts cannot be considered because the plaintiffs denied the signatures of their mother on the said receipts. In the cross-examination the PW.1 denied the signatures of her mother on the said receipts. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed the said receipts. The plaintiffs admitted that their 36 mother executed agreement of sale, general power of attorney and cancellation of said general power of attorney. The certified copies of the said documents are before this court. The signatures of the mother of the plaintiffs on those documents and receipts look alike. The plaintiffs did not place any material to show that the signatures on receipts do not belong to their mother. Therefore I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs executed receipts. The contents of receipt dated 11.11.1991 show that mother of the plaintiff acknowledged previous payments and present payment and she undertook not to make any objection for the sale deeds executed and sale deeds that would be executed by the defendant No.2. So, it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2. When the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge of sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant, there is no question of fraud played by the defendant No.2. Therefore the act of the defendant No.2 does not come within the ambit of fraud played upon either plaintiffs or mother of the plaintiffs.

50.The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.2 colluded with purchasers and therefore the sale is void. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 sold Ac.38- 12 gts., in the shape of plots though his principal was eligible Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area as per exemption given in G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. He further submitted that defendant No.2 sold the plots in contravention of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. No doubt Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were pending at the time of suit sale transaction and as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 there is exemption of Ac.5-00 gts., only. Mere mentioning these two aspects in 37 the suit sale transaction does not prove collusion between 2nd defendant and purchaser, because the purchaser paid sale consideration. If anything goes against Urban Land Ceiling proceedings and

G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, the purchaser would be put to loss but not the plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that there is no collusion between 2nd defendant and defendant No.1.

51.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.1 is not bonafide purchaser, because of collusion between him and defendant No.2. He relied on AIR 2004 P&H 315 (Para 19) in the case of Hans Raj V. Karmi and AIR 1989 Patna 50 (Para 11) in the case of Ram Chandra Singh V. Sub-Divisional officer, Hajipur. In the first citation it is observed that transferee cannot be treated to be bonafide transferee for consideration without notice when no amount is shown to be paid. In the present case the defendant No.1 paid sale consideration and so he is considered as bonafide purchaser. In the second citation it is observed that the conduct of parties to the transaction is relevant for the purpose of determination of question as to whether the intention of the parties to the said transaction was that no title will pass to the vendee irrespective of payment of consideration. In the present case this court has come to conclusion that there is no collusion between the vendee and defendant No.2. In view of the above detailed discussion I am of considered opinion that the suit sale deed was not brought into existence by the defendants by playing fraud on the plaintiffs or their mother. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

52. Issue No.3: Whether the registered document dated

16/11/1992 cancelling the GPA dated 21.01.1988 of the

38

defendant No.2 will have any bearing on the sale deed dated

21.10.1991 of the defendant No.1 ?

53.In this case the plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. The contention of the plaintiffs is that their mother executed registered GPA in favour of the defendant No.2 and their mother cancelled the said GPA under registered cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992. The sale deed bearing

No.9369/1991 dated 21.10.1991 which is in question was executed much prior to the execution of cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992

dated 16.11.1992. Therefore the cancellation deed bearing

No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992 is nothing to do with the suit sale deed.

Therefore I hold that the cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 has no effect on sale deed bearing No.9369/1991, dated 21.10.1991. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

54. Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.10.1991 as prayed for ?

55.The contention of the plaintiffs is that their mother entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The said agreement became unenforceable as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land. The plaintiffs filed copies of Form III, draft statement, Form III, Order dt.5.3.1983, letter dt.5.5.1983, Notice, Notifications, Letter, Declaration 39 dt.15.4.1998, Notice, Order dt.2.2.2008, Panchanama dt.11.2.2008,

G.O.Ms.No.978 and Order in W.P.10813 and 18342 of 2008 and they are marked as Ex.A3 to A17. The 2nd defendant managed their mother and obtained registered GPA and executed number of sale deeds in favour of several persons and the said sale transaction are void, because they were made without obtaining Urban Land Ceiling exemption / permission from the government and contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. As per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 the mother of the plaintiffs was entitled to sell the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area but the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds in respect of land more than Ac.5-00 gts. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit sale transaction is void because it was made in contravention of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that there is no stipulation under agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with regard to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society obtained sanction of layout on 04.02.1982 from Bhagyanagar

Urban Development Authority in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 and 104/1 part along with other lands in

Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111. The society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 authorizing the defendant No.2 to act on behalf of principal. By virtue of the said GPA the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds. When the suit land is vacant land as defined under Urban Land (Ceiling and 40 Regulation) Act 1976 and which cannot be sold without obtaining exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to sell the land. The plaintiffs have no right to say that the sale is contrary to the provisions of Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. It is for the Urban Land Ceiling authority or for the government to say but not for the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the special officer and competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 issued notification under Section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976 for acquisition of land by the government and so the land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances with effect from 15.05.1998 and the mother of the plaintiffs preferred appeal in Appeal No.62/1999 and they appellate authority passed status-quo order on 27.08.1999 and after death of plaintiffs mother, plaintiffs made an application to implead them as legal representatives. The appellate authority vacated the status-quo order without notice to the plaintiffs. The special officer issued an order dated 10.01.2007 under Section 5 of the Act against dead person i.e., mother of the plaintiffs proposing to take possession of the land. The possession of the land of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres was taken by government under panchanama dated 11.02.2008. After repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 the appellate authority passed an order dated 08.05.2008 closing the appeal as abated. The government issued G.O.Ms.No.978 dated 02.08.2008 allotting the entire surplus land to Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority. The plaintiffs filed writ petition No.18342/2008 and it was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court, dated 02.03.2009. The suit sale 41 transaction is null and void as per the Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) R/W

Section 42 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decision reported in 2006 (6) ALT 671 (D.B) (Paras 42 & 43) in the case of

Parchuri Rathankar Rao V. State of A.P. In this case it is held that sale of surplus land is null and void as per Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) R/W Section 42 of the Act. No doubt Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated in respect of land of mother of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 in his cross-examination admitted the same. According to the plaintiffs the competent authority issued draft statement dated 17.01.1983 under

Section 8 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Ac.105-07 gts. So mother of the plaintiffs was aware of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings in the year 1983. The mother of the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 and corrected agreement of sale

dated 17.08.1991 with the Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. In the said corrected agreement of sale there is no mention about Urban Land Ceiling exemption or permission.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society did not give effect because of ULC permission and the said agreement of sale became frustrated. On the other hand the learned counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.08.1991 and registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. Further the mother of the 42 plaintiffs issued receipts under Exs.B6 to B31 acknowledging the payments made on behalf of the Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society. I have perused the receipts and they show that Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society made payments to the mother of the plaintiffs in the years 1981, 1982, 1988, 1989 & 1991. As per Ex.B31 the mother of the plaintiffs issued final receipt acknowledging previous payments and the present payment and she mentioned that she has no objection for the sale deeds executed and the sale deeds to be executed by the defendant

No.2. In view of these facts I am of considered opinion that there is no justification in the contention of plaintiffs that the agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 became frustrated.

56.The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 sold the land without obtaining ULC permission which is requirement under the said GPA. In the GPA at clause 11, the principal authorized the agent i.e., defendant No.2 to obtain copies of pahanies other documents of title etc., clearance like tax clearance, revenue nil encumbrances, U.L.C. etc., on the said property. In the said GPA the particulars of pendency of ULC proceedings are not noted. Obtaining ULC exemption is not a condition precedent to sell the land. The mother of the plaintiffs having knowledge about the ULC proceedings and G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988, executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts. The defendant No.2 had also knowledge about 43 ULC proceedings and the said G.O.Ms.No.733. Both the principal and agent had knowledge about ULC proceedings and G.O.Ms.No.733. Even then the 2nd defendant in the capacity of agent sold the entire land. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 relied on the following judgments reported in 1990 (3) ALT 262 in the case of J.Pitchaiah V. Special officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and others; 1999 (1) ALD 135 in the case of Shak Azeem and others V. Special officer and competent authority, Hyderabad Land Ceiling Office,

Hyderabad and others; 1992 (1) APLJ 411 in the case of N.Yakoob V. The

Government of A.P.; 1998 (4) ALT 603 in the case of P.S.Rao V. Special officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and another and AIR 2012 Gujrat 71 in the case of Sunder Lal Bhanabhai

Bhagat and others V. State of Gujrat and others. In the first citation it is held that the land owner is liable to deliver excess land out of the land retained by him and not the land sold by him. In the second citation it is observed that the authorities are at liberty to order surrender of lands retained by the declarant excluding the lands sold to bonafide purchasers. In the third and forth citations, G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 is discussed. In the fifth citation it is held that sale deed even if void, its validity has to be challenged within reasonable time and the person who had misrepresented other person and had persuaded him to purchase land for consideration and sold the land to him cannot challenge sale deed executed by him to be void. It is the duty of seller of the property to see that the lawful rights are conveyed in favour of the purchaser. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 had knowledge about ULC proceedings and

G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The plaintiffs had also knowledge 44 about the suit sale transaction. The present suit is filed very long time after execution of suit sale deed. The purchaser under suit sale deed is bonafide purchaser. Therefore, though the sale deed is void under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act there is no any affect to its validity because the mother of the plaintiffs or plaintiffs failed to take action within time.

57.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit sale deed is not valid for want of consideration, authority and competency. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that no consideration was passed and the defendant No.2 has no authority and capacity to execute the sale deed. According to the recitals of sale deed consideration was received by the vendors. The defendant No.2 in his cross-examination stated that the vendee did not pay the sale consideration directly to the vendors. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since consideration has not passed, the suit sale deed is not valid as per

Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and she also executed registered GPA in his favour and the society paid the entire consideration. The 2nd defendant filed some receipts issued by the mother of the plaintiffs and bank counter foils and they are marked as

Exs.B6 to B31. These documents show that the mother of the plaintiffs received certain amounts from Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Limited represented by its president, Y.B.K.Rao i.e., defendant No.2, in pursuance of agreement dated 11.11.1981. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the receipts and counter 45 foils are nothing to do with the present suit, because the transaction with Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society is strange to the suit sale deed and there is no reference of said society and so called agreement of sale in the suit sale deed. The contents of a document shall only be considered to understand the intention of the parties and the transaction therein. As per Section 91 and 92 of

Evidence Act no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add or subtract the terms of agreement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decisions:

AIR 1959 SC 1362 (Para 6) in the case of The Union of India V.Kishorilal

Guptha; (2006) 6 SCC 293 (Paras 22, 23 and 28) in the case of State

Bank of India V.Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd; AIR 1996 SC 2025 (Para 7) in the case of T.N.Electricity Board V. N Raju Reddiar; (2003) 6

SCC 595 (Paras 19, 20 and 22) in the case of Roop Kumar V. Mohan

Thedani and (2004) 2 SCC 283 (Para 7) in the case of Krishi utpadan

Mandi Samiti V. Bipin Kumar. In the first citation it is observed that when the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for drawing upon hypothetical considerations or supposed intentions of the parties. In the second citation it is observed that the surrounding circumstances are relevant only in case of ambiguity in the document.

In the third citation it is observed that once a contract is reduced to writing, it is not open to any party to seek to prove the terms of contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. In the forth citation it is observed that oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the 46 parties. In the fifth citation it is observed that no party is allowed to lead evidence to the terms of written document. No doubt the contents of document shall only be considered to understand the nature of the document and the intention of the parties. In the present case mother of the plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society on 11.11.1981 and she executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 and she cancelled the said GPA under cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers in the capacity of agent of mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The remedies under Specific Relief Act are equitable remedies. The person who seeks equity must do equity. The law of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence are aimed for dispensation of justice. The duty of the court is to find out the truth. No doubt the contents of the document alone shall be looked into to understand the terms of the document. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society and registered GPA in favour of 2nd defendant and cancellation deed and issued receipts in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society. So the contents of all documents are very much useful and helpful to understand the ground realities.

58.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell the land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 47 part of Kondapur village and the 2nd defendant was the president of the said society and the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts acknowledging the amounts. The receipts and counter foils are marked as Exs.B6 to B31. Ex.B31 is receipt dated 11.11.1991 issued by mother of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered as it is not registered one, as it creates interest. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1980 All 180 in the case of Ratan lal Vs. V.Harishanker in which is held that if a document is compulsorily registrable and has not been registered, it will be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the said receipt doesn’t create any right and so it doesn’t require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. I have carefully gone through the receipt dated 11.11.1991. The contents show that mother of the plaintiffs acknowledged the previous payments of Rs.1,35,000/- and present payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. She further stated that she did not have any objection for the sale deeds registered by the defendant No.2 and the sale deeds that would be registered in future by the second defendant in pursuance of registered GPA. The contents of said receipt do not confer any new rights and so it doesn’t require registration.

59.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered because the plaintiffs denied the signature of their mother on the said receipt. In the cross-examination the PW.1 denied the signatures of her mother and father on the said receipt. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed the said receipt and father of the PW.1 and husband of the PW.1 are the witnesses. The plaintiffs admitted that their mother 48 executed agreement of sale, general power of attorney and cancellation of said general power of attorney. The certified copies of the said documents are before this court. The signatures of the mother of the plaintiffs on those documents and receipt dt.11.11.91 look alike. The plaintiffs did not place any material to show that the signatures on receipt dt.11.11.91 do not belong to their mother. Therefore I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs executed receipt dt.11.11.91. The contents of receipt dt.11.11.91 show that mother of the plaintiff acknowledged previous payments and present payment and she undertook not make any objection for the sale deeds executed and sale deeds that would be executed by the defendant No.2. So, it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that sale deed is not valid for want of consideration. If at all, the mother of the plaintiffs should have challenged during her lifetime.

Therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs have no right to question the validity of sale deed for want of consideration.

60.The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that after receipt of legal notice dated 06.06.2006 issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions

Limited, they came to know about the execution of sale deeds by the 2nd defendant in favour of third parties in respect of their land. They made discreet enquiries in the locality and they secured certified copies of said documents from the offices concerned and filed the present suit for cancellation of sale deed. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated the same. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that the plaintiffs created legal notice dated 06.06.2006 with a malafide intention to bring the present suit within limitation. The suit of 49 the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation, since the mother of the plaintiffs had not taken any action during her life time. The plaintiffs have knowledge about agreement of sale and registered GPA executed their mother and selling of plots by 2nd defendant to different persons.

61.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the sale deed in question is void because it was executed during the pendency of

Urban Land Ceiling proceedings contrary to Section 5 (3), 10 (4) and 42 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The suit is not barred by limitation and the plaintiffs filed the present suit as they have reasonable apprehension that there is possibility of making claim over the property by the purchasers. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since the sale deed is void there is no question of limitation. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderlal Bhanabhai

Bhagat and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in AIR 2012

Gujarat 71 sale deed even if void, its validity has to be challenged within reasonable time. Therefore I am of considered opinion that even in case of suit for cancellation of sale deed on void ground, the law of limitation is certainly apply. A party is not allowed to initiate proceedings as and when he wishes even in case of void transactions.

62.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the suit sale transaction is voidable since the transaction was brought into existence by collusion and fraud of the defendants. The plaintiffs received legal notice on 14.06.2006 and obtained sale deed and encumbrance certificate and filed the present suit. The defendants did not plead the prior knowledge of plaintiffs about the suit sale deed. The mother of plaintiffs did not know about the suit sale deed. The plaintiffs 50 also did not know about the suit sale deed prior to receipt of notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. As per Article 59 of

Limitation Act, the limitation for cancellation of sale deed begins to run from the date of knowledge about the fraud. In the present case the plaintiffs came to know about the suit sale deed after receipt of notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following judgments: AIR 1959 Mad.26 (Para 5) in the case of In re Mareppa Gounder; AIR 1968 SC 956 (Para 6) in the case of Ningawwa V Byrappa Siddappa Hireknrabar and AIR1971

SC 2184 (Para 20) in the case of Syed Shah Gulam Ghouse Mohiuddin V

Syed Shah Ahmad Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri. The gist of these judgments is that the limitation runs from the date when the fraud came to the notice of person. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 2nd defendant and purchasers played fraud and the plaintiffs came to know about the said fraud only after receipt of legal notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited.

63.The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that there is no fraud played by the 2nd defendant and he sold the plots to purchasers in the capacity of GPA holder under registered sale deeds.

The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that there is no reference about all the sale deeds executed by 2nd defendant in the legal notice. The plaintiffs and their mother had knowledge about the execution of sale deeds by the defendant No.2. He relied on decisions reported in 2009-JT-3-569 in the case of Abdul Rahim Vs.SK.Abdul Zabar and 2006-AIRKarR-5-271 in the case of Prem Singh Vs. Birbal. In these decisions it is observed that the limitation for cancellation of sale deed is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the 51 defendant No.2 submitted that as per Section 3 of Limitation Act suit is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond limitation, even in the absence of defense.

64.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 has not led any evidence to show that the plaintiffs have knowledge prior to legal notice dt.6.6.2006 and so he waived his initial objection as to limitation. He relied on the following decisions: AIR 1925

Nag 398 in the case of Guna Bai Vs. Motilal and 2003 (4) SCC 161 in the case of Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh. In the first citation it is held that if the suit is prima facie within time, but the defendants take the plea that the plaintiff was aware of the necessary facts to file the suit prior to the date when he admits in the plaint, it is for the defendants to allege and prove. In the second citation it is held that in the absence of plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into.

When the issue of limitation is question of fact, the defendant is at liberty to disprove the case of the plaintiffs in the cross examination.

The defendant No.2 need not take the stand of limitation in his chief examination. The defendant No.2 in his written statement has taken the stand of limitation. He is at liberty to disprove that the plaintiffs have knowledge only after receipt of legal notice dt.6.6.2006.

65.I have perused the evidence on record. According to PW.1 they came to know about the suit sale deed after receipt of notice dated 06.06.2006 issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. In the cross-examination the PW.1 categorically admitted that their mother informed her about the reason for cancelling the GPA and the reason is non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.2 to her and 52 execution of sale deed by him without her knowledge. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the admission alone cannot be considered and the whole evidence should be read together and the

P.W.1 denied their knowledge about suit sale transaction. The P.W.1 categorically stated that their mother informed them about execution of sale deed. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the

P.W.1 gave answers for two questions and it is not properly recorded. On the face of it there is no error in recording two answers in one sentence.

The P.W.1 categorically stated that their mother informed them about execution of sale deed. So it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs informed them (plaintiffs) about the execution of sale deed by the defendant No.2. Further the PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that they filed O.S.No.78/1999 against four defendants on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for perpetual injunction

in respect of land in Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101, 102 and 103. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 filed certified copy of said plaint and the

PW.1 admitted her signature on the said certified copy of plaint and it is marked as Ex.B2. The contents of Ex.B2 show that A.Anasuya, P.Vijaya

Laxmi, A.Sandhya, A.Anuradha, A.Sreenivasa Rao, P.Nageswara Rao,

M.Krishna and M.Satyanarayana filed suit for perpetual injunction against K.S.V.Prasad Rao and three others in respect of land in

Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 of Kondapur village. In the said plaint the present plaintiffs are shown as plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and the mother of the present plaintiff is shown as plaintiff No.1. The averments of the said plaint show that there was a family settlement and after the said settlement the plaintiff No.1 along with her family members made certain alienations and after the said alienations the plaintiff No.1 and 53 her family members i.e., plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were left with land of Ac.6- 13 gts., in Sy.No.99, Ac.5-29 gts., in Sy.No.100, Ac.0-27 gts., in

Sy.No.101, Ac.2-03 gts., in Sy.No.102 and Ac.0-19 gts., in Sy.No.103 of

Kondapur village. The OS No.78/1999 was filed in the year 1999. The present plaintiffs are the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 in the said suit. According to them, in 1999 they have Ac.15-11 gts., in Sy.Nos.99 to 103 of

Kondapur village. In the present plaint the plaintiffs pleaded that after death of their mother they became owners of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. As per the plaint pleadings in OS No.78/1999, the plaintiffs and their mother made certain alienations. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaint in OS 78/99 is not relevant and it cannot be looked into and it is extraneous material. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following citations : 2001 (9) SCC 471 (Para 18) in the case of Ram Bharose Sharma V. Mahant Ram Swaroop;

AIR 1959 SC 504 (Para 14) Kishorilal V. Chaltibai; AIR 1971 S.C 1542 in the case of Chikkam Koteswara Rao V. Chikkam Subba Rao; AIR 1974 SC 1121 in the case of M/s Prem Ex-serviceman co operative tenant

Farming society V. State of Haryana and AIR 1979 SC 861 (Para 23) in the case of Avadh Kishore Dass V.Ram Gopal. In the first citation it is observed that admission is primarily a mixed question of fact and law and has to be determined on the facts of each case. In the second and fifth citations it is held that admissions are not conclusive and the maker is at liberty to prove that they are mistaken or untrue. In the third citation it is observed that the admission must be clear and there should not be any doubt or ambiguity. In the forth citation it is observed that admission depends upon the circumstances in which it was made. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the contents in 54 previous pleadings are relevant and they are treated as admissions. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 341 in the case of Basant

Singh V. Janki Singh, Kishundhari Singh, in which it is held that an admission by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him in a prior suit is an admission within the meaning of Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act and may be proved against him in other litigations. In the present case the P.W.1 admitted her signature on copy of plaint in OS 78/99 and filing of the said suit. Further she did not give any explanation for the contents of plaint in OS 78/99. Since there is no rebuttal evidence, the contents in the previous pleadings are relevant. In the cross- examination the PW.1 admitted that their mother informed her about the reason for cancellation of GPA and the reason is non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.2 to her and execution of sale deed by him without her knowledge. The evidence elicited in the cross- examination coupled with Ex.B2 categorically shows that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale transactions during the life time of their mother. In view of these reasons I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the suit sale transaction and other sale transactions made by the defendant No.2 in favour of purchasers much prior to legal notice dated 06.06.2006. When the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale transaction even prior to 1999, the present suit is said to be filed beyond limitation.

66.Further the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that as per explanation I of section 3 of Transfer of Property

Act in case of registered instruments a person shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument. As per explanation III, a person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice. The 55 learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that as per the proviso appended to explanation III, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice. In the present case this court has come to conclusion that defendant No.2 has not committed fraud in the capacity of agent upon the mother of plaintiffs. Even according to the plaintiffs their mother cancelled the GPA of the defendant No.2 under registered cancellation deed bearing No. 1079/92 dt.16.11.92. When the mother of the plaintiffs cancelled the GPA of the defendant No.2 in the year 1992, she should have verified whether her agent executed any sale deeds. She would have known about sale deed if she had made proper enquiry. As per section 3 of Transfer of Property

Act, she is said to have notice of sale deed. The mother of the plaintiff should have challenged the suit sale deed much earlier. Even according to the P.W.1, their mother informed about sale deed during her lifetime.

After sifting entire material on record from all facets, I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the suit sale deed during the lifetime of their mother who died in 2000. The present suit is filed in 2007 and so it is barred by limitation.

67.Another contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

No.2 has no competency and authority to execute the sale deed. As per the contents of sale deed the defendant No.2 executed the sale deed in the capacity of agent. As per Ex.31, receipt dated 11.11.1991 the mother of the plaintiff authorized the defendant No.2 to execute sale deeds and so the plaintiffs are not allowed to question the validity of execution of sale deed executed by the defendant No.2.The sale deed was executed very long back and plaintiffs and their mother had knowledge about the sale deed and so they cannot question the validity.

56 After examining the entire material on record from all facets, I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation suit sale deed. Issue No.4 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

68. Issue No.5: To what relief?

69.In view of my findings recorded above I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief much less as prayed for. Issue

No.5 is answered accordingly.

70.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.

Typed by Personal Assistant to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 1 st day of April, 2013.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

PW.1: Smt.Potluri Vijayalakshmi

On behalf of the Defendants:

DW.1: Y.B.K.Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.9369/1991, dated 21.10.1991.

Ex.A2: Encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Form No.III, dated 12.01.1983.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of draft statement dated 17.01.1983.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of Form No.III, dated 25.02.1983.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of order of Special Officer and competent authority

dated 05.03.1983.

57 Ex.A7: Certified copy of letter of Special Officer and competent authority

dated 05.05.1983.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of notification, dated 05.05.1983.

Ex.A9: Certified copy of notification, dated 17.05.1983.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of letter, dated 15.04.1998.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of declaration, dated 15.04.1998.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of notification, dated 07.05.1998.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of notice, dated 10.01.2007.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of proceedings of Special Officer and competent authority, dated 02.02.2008.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of panchanama, dated 11.02.2008.

Ex.A16: Certified copy of G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02.08.2008.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of Order in W.P.No.10813/2008 and 18342/2008,

dated 02.03.2009.

Ex.A18: Certified copy of GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988.

Ex.A19: Certified copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2006.

Ex.A20: Certified copy of reply notice dated 26.06.2006.

Ex.A21: Certified copy of memo, dated 25.08.2009.

On behalf of the Defendants:

Ex.B1: Xerox copy of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981.

Ex.B2: Xerox copy of plaint in O.S.No.78/1999 on the file of the Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.B3: Xerox copy of petition in O.P.No.141/1999 on the file of the

Hon’ble District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.B4: Xerox copy of judgment and decree in L.G.C.No.13/2002, dated 12.10.2006, on the file of the Hon’ble Special Court under AP

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Ex.B5: Xerox copy of corrected agreement of sale, dated 17.08.1991.

Ex.B6: Xerox copy of voucher dated 11.11.1981.

Ex.B7: Xerox copy of voucher dated 29.11.1981.

Ex.B8: Xerox copy of voucher dated 23.01.1982.

Ex.B9: Xerox copy of receipt dated 21.09.1987.

Ex.B10: Xerox copy of receipt dated 22.02.1988.

Ex.B11: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 24.02.1988.

58 Ex.B12: Xerox copy of receipt dated 24.02.1988.

Ex.B13: Xerox copy of receipt dated 04.05.1988.

Ex.B14: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 19.12.1988.

Ex.B15: Xerox copy of receipt dated 19.12.1988.

Ex.B16: Xerox copy of receipt dated 20.07.1989.

Ex.B17: Xerox copy of receipt dated 17.08.1991.

Ex.B18: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 14.10.1991.

Ex.B19: Xerox copy of receipt dated 15.10.1991.

Ex.B20: Xerox copy of receipt dated 28.10.1991.

Ex.B21: Xerox copy of receipt dated 29.10.1991.

Ex.B22: Xerox copy of receipt dated 30.10.1991.

Ex.B23: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 04.11.1991.

Ex.B24: Xerox copy of receipt dated 04.11.1991.

Ex.B25: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 06.11.1991.

Ex.B26: Xerox copy of receipt dated 06.11.1991.

Ex.B27: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 08.11.1991.

Ex.B28: Xerox copy of receipt dated 08.11.1991.

Ex.B29: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 09.11.1991.

Ex.B30: Xerox copy of receipt dated 09.11.1991.

Ex.B31: Xerox copy of receipt dated 11.11.1991.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT : SRI K.S.RAMA KRISHNA RAO, B.Com. LL.M.,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

MONDAY, THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2013

O.S.No.653 of 2007

Between:

1.Potluri Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Late P.S.V. Prasad aged about 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.9-2-105, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

2.Adapa Sandhya, W/o. Venugopal, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.9-1-187/2, Santhinagar, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

3.V.L. Anuradha, W/o.Vellanki Sudhakar Babu, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Thotapalli, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District.

4.Abbineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.9-2-105, Santhinagar,Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. … Plaintiffs

AND

1.P.S.Chakravarthy, S/o.P.Prakash Rao, aged about 37 years, Occ: R/o.B-164, HAL Colony, HAL Campus, Hyderabad – 500042.

2.Sri Y.B.K.Rao, S/o.Y.Venkaiah, aged about 68 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.H.No.7-4-252, Near St.Martin School, Navajeevan Nagar, Ferojguda Post, Hyderabad – 11. … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Prabhunath, advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri M.Raja Babu, advocate for the defendants No.2 and defendant No.1 remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that originally

Smt.K.Anjani Devi, Sri M.Veera Raghavaiah, Sri M.V.Seetha Rama Rao,

Sri Vege Sitharamaiah and Smt.Abbineni Anasuya purchased land admeasuring Ac.271-31 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 under registered sale deeds bearing

Nos.748, 749 and 750 of 1959. The lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e., O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble

Munsiff Magistrate Court, West, Hyderabad and Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. Smt. Abbineni Anasuya is mother of plaintiffs. The extent of land in Sy.No.98 is Ac.20-13 gts., in

Sy.No.99 the extent is Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 the extent is Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 the extent is Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 the extent is

Ac.15-29 gts., and in Sy.No.103 the extent is Ac.10-02 gts. After death of their mother, the plaintiffs became joint owners of 300 Sq.yards which is part in Sy.No.103 part of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and it is described as suit schedule property.

3.The competent authority issued a draft statement dated 17.1.1983 under Section 8 (1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976, declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Acs.105-07 gts., as she had an extent of Acs.92- 21 gts., of land equivalent to 3,74,438.60 Sq.metres out of Sy.No.98 to 103 through court decree in O.S.No.62/1963 dated 12.9.1969 and an extent of land of Acs.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1, 104/2 and 105 to 108 as she inherited 1/7th share from her father. The 1/7th share of the declarant is 51,396.37 Sq.metres. The total holding of declarant (mother of the plaintiffs) is 4,25,834.97 Sq.metres and she was allowed to retain 1000 Sq.metres of land in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur village under

Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. She was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres. The final orders under Section 10 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, were published in the A.P.Gazette No.15 dated 7.5.1998. Aggrieved by the orders, the mother of plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and it was admitted and status-quo was ordered on 26.8.1999 till the disposal of the case. The mother of the plaintiff died on 29.12.2000 and the plaintiffs were added as legal representatives in the said appeal

No.62/1999 which is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

4.M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Limited represented by its director Sri M.Komaraiah got issued legal notice dated 6.6.2006 to eight persons including plaintiffs stating that M/s.Shalivahana Constructions

Limited entered into agreement of sale with addressees 1 to 3 for purchasing land admeasuring Acs.35-00 gts., in Sy.No.100, 101 and 103 of Kondapur village and Sri Y.B.K.Rao (defendant No.2) and P.V.S.R.Dasu have subscribed their signatures on the said agreement dated 2.7.1996 as witnesses. M/s.Shalivahana Constructions paid agreed amounts on different dates and obtained receipts. The addressees 1 to 3 are bound to get registrations in favour of nominees of M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions. In 1997 the amendment was executed as Y.B.K.Rao has joined as one of the parties to the said agreement and it was also agreed to pay the balance amount in pro-rata basis as and when the original sale deeds/ notarized deed / allotment letter are surrendered by the addressees 1 to 3. On payment of substantial amount towards land / plots in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village the addressees 1 to 3 could not organize the registration of balance land despite repeated requests of M/s.Shalivahana Constructions. M/s.Shalivahana Constructions came to know that the land owners are making attempts to transfer the land in favour of the third parties and informed all the addressees to come forward to register the balance land / plots in Sy.No.100 of Kondapur village in favour of its nominees. After receipt of notice the plaintiffs made enquires with regard to their land and approached Sub-registrar

Office and obtained sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the third parties.

5.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 to sell the land admeasuring Ac.38- 12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part & 104/1 part of Kondapur

Village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. At the time of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981, the defendant No.2 was the president of the said society. The agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 is unenforcible in law as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and also for the reason that at the time of said agreement, the parties were not aware of exact description of land agreed to be sold as 1/7th share of the land of the plaintiffs' mother which was inherited from her father has not yet been identified. The agreement of sale was not a concluded contract of sale. As per clause-4 of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981, the said society shall obtain all such permissions required to complete the sale transaction. The said society failed to obtain permission for the purchase of land from the government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society backed out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. Thus the said society abandoned the agreement of sale, by its conduct and its acquiescence and the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 was not given effect to.

6.After entering into the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 the said society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development

Authority for approval of the layout, in respect of the land of an extent of

Acs.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part, along with some other land belongs to Sri K.V.G.L.V.Prasad Rao and his brothers. The Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority sanctioned the layout tentatively by is letter dated 4.2.1982 subject to three conditions i.e., (1) The roads shall be formed as per the specifications, (2) No plot shall be utilized, sold, leased or otherwise disposed of for the residential purpose unless the layout is finally approved by the

Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority and (3) As regards to amenities like water, drainage, electricity etc., shall be made by its own as the public system is not available in the area. In the said tentative sanction of layout by the Urban Development Authority was lapsed as per the rules governing for sanction of layout in view of the failure of the society in complying with the conditions imposed by the Urban

Development Authority. As such there is no approved layout in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part, 104/1 Part of Kondapur village.

7.In view of the initiation of Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings by the Competent Authority against the mother of the plaintiffs as she was an excess land holder of the urban land and by reason of its failure in obtaining the permission from the Government for the purchase of the land, the society backed out from its obligation of performance of the

Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.1981. The said agreement of sale was frustrated by reason of its failure to obtain the permission from the government for the purchase of the land, which is the condition precedent to enforce the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. The agreement of sale was not given effect to by reason of the failure of the society in obtaining the permission from the government and as the society also abandoned / repudiated the Agreement of Sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence.

8.Taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge or acquaintance with the English language and the trust reposed by the mother of the plaintiffs in defendant No.2, he managed in obtaining the

General Power of Attorney in his favour. As the 2nd defendant acted against the interest of his principal i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and failed to submit a detailed account of the acts done in pursuance of

G.P.A., the mother of the plaintiffs cancelled/revoked the General Power of Attorney on 16.11.1992 vide registered document No.1079/1992 and the same was informed to the defendant No.2, through a registered post. The 2nd defendant received the letter and he did not respond to the said cancellation of GPA. The said cancellation of General Power of

Attorney is validly made in law.

9.The defendant No.2, taking advantage of the GPA acted against the interests of his principal and illegally executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons without her consent and knowledge.

As per the said General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.2 was not authorized to sign the sale deeds and register the same in favour of any purchaser, without the notice and knowledge of the principal. Even after cancellation of the General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of individuals who colluded with him with a view to usurp the valuable property. The said cancellation of

General Power of Attorney is validly made in law and no rights accrue to the alleged purchasers of the property of the plaintiffs. All the sale of plots made by the 2nd defendant is illegal and invalid in law. The said sale transactions made by the 2nd defendant are void for another reason also that the same were made even without obtaining the Urban Land

Ceiling exemption/ permission from the Government and contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In all the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2 it was mentioned that the plaintiffs’ mother is entitled to sell the land to an extent of 5 Acres of plot area as per G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 is available only to the extent of 5

Acres of plot area but the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds and the total land sold under the sale deeds was more than 5-00 Acres of plot area. It seems that the 2nd defendant has not only caused prejudice to the interests of the plaintiffs but also misled the purchasers.

10.Their (plaintiffs) discreet enquiry reveals that the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds in favour of several individuals by showing the mother of the plaintiffs as vendor No.4 and by referring the General Power of Attorney dated 21.01.1988 and K.V.G.L.V. Prasada

Rao and his two brothers as the Vendors 1 to 3 even though the said persons have no right or interest in the suit schedule property. The said sale deeds are void and do not convey any right or title to the alleged purchasers. The plaintiffs made enquiries in the locality and approached the office of the Sub Registrar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District in regard to the transactions in respect of the suit schedule land and obtained the certified copies of the sale transactions by the defendants illegally with a view to depriving the rights of the real owner of the property. Upon such enquiries it came to light, that a sale transaction has been entered into vide the document No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 wherein the mother of the plaintiffs was shown as the vendor No.4 and the defendant No.1 as the Vendee. The 2nd defendant sold the valuable property of the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 and some other persons.

The defendant No.2 played fraud upon the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself and thereby caused irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 unjustly enriched himself to the prejudice of the plaintiffs and the transaction entered into between the defendant No.1 and 2 is clearly void. The subject sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on the strength of the GPA dated 21.01.1988 which was cancelled by a registered document dated 16.11.1992, is illegal and null and void.

11.The 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The sale deed dated 21.10.1992 vide Registered document No.10399/1992 is void as the 2nd defendant has no right whatsoever to execute the sale deed. The 1st defendant colluded with the 2nd defendant and purchased the property. The sale deed dated 21.10.1992 is void and did not convey any right or title to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs secured the certified copies of the said documents from the offices concerned and have instituted the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed since the said transaction is null and void. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that the sale transaction of the suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.1 vide Document

No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 is brought about by collusion of the defendants 1 and 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. All these came to the notice and knowledge of the plaintiffs when they made discreet enquiries in the locality and also upon perusing the sale deed in relation to the transaction.

12.The transaction covered by document No.10399/1992,

dated 21.10.1992, is null and void and can not create any rights in

favour of defendant No.1, in the suit schedule property, since the transaction is collusive, fraudulent having been brought about by misrepresentation and the said sale is contrary to the specific prohibition provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The transaction between defendants Nos.1 and 2 is void and no further rights could accrue in favour of any other person by reasons of such fraudulent and void transaction. The transaction entered into vide registered document No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 deserves to be set aside as being void in law.

13.The cause of action for the suit arose on 21.10.1992 when the sale deed bearing No.10399/1992 was executed and when the plaintiffs received legal notice dated 14.06.2006 and when the plaintiffs made discreet enquires in the locality and approached the authorities for certified copies and when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of sale deed bearing No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992. The suit is filed within limitation.

14.The defendant No.1 remained ex parte.

15. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 are that the present suit is filed for mere cancellation of sale deed without seeking consequential relief of possession and so it is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and hence liable to be dismissed in limine. Further the plaintiffs have no right to file the present suit as their mother who is the land lady Smt.Abbineni Anasuya has not questioned or challenged the subject sale deed at any point of time during her life time.

16.The lands in Sy.Nos.98 to 104/1, 104/2, 105 to 112, 114 to 118, 121, 122, 126 and 134 totally admeasuring Ac.271-31 gts., were purchased by Smt. K.Anjani Devi. M.Veera Raghavaiah, M.V.Seetha

Rama Rao, Vege Seetharamaiah and Smt. A.Anasuya in 1959 through registered sale deeds bearing Nos.748, 749 and 750/1959 and the said lands were subsequently partitioned through the partition suit i.e.,

O.S.No.62/1963 on the file of Hon'ble Munsiff Magistrate Court,

Hyderabad West, and Smt. A.Anasuya was allotted Ac.92-21 gts.; in

Sy.No.98, of an extent of Ac.20-13 gts., in Sy.No.99 of an extent of

Ac.16-13 gts., in Sy.No.100 Ac.16-27 gts., in Sy.No.101 of an extent of

Ac.13-17 gts., in Sy.No.102 of an extent of Ac.15-29 gts., and in

Sy.No.103 of an extent of Ac.10-02 gts., situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District. But it is absolutely false and baseless to say that after death of their mother the plaintiffs became the owners and possessors of the plaint schedule land of 300 Sq.yards on plot No.328 which is part of survey number 103 part, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality,

R.R.District. In fact during the life time of the mother of the plaintiffs she sold the said plot No. 328 admeasuring 300 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.103 of

Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District for valuable sale consideration to defendant No.1 through this defendant i.e., her registered General Power of Attorney.

17.This defendant being the President, Venkateswara HAL Co- operative Housing Society entered into an agreement on 11.11.1981 for purchase of lands of an extent of Acs.38-12 gts in Sy.Nos.101 Part, 102

Part, 103 Part and 104/1 Part of Kondapur village, Serilingampalli

Mandal, R.R.District with the landlady Smt. Abbineni Anasuya and under the said agreement the possession of the said lands was delivered to the

Society. Further this defendant is not aware of the death and date of death of the plaintiffs' mother till he came to know in the year 2003 through the suit filed by Sri Bhagawan Bala Sai Baba Central Trust in

O.S.No.1014/2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

R.R.District.

18.The alleged legal notice dated 06.06.2006 of

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions Ltd., is no way concerned with the present suit and the same is no way relevant to the present suit. If at all if the same is relevant, then the plaintiffs would have made

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions as party to this suit as such the plaintiffs have to establish before this Hon'ble Court as to in what way the said notice is relevant for the purpose of this suit. Further no reason is given by the plaintiffs as to why the plaintiffs made enquiries with regard to the land belonging to the plaintiffs situated at Kondapur Village, only after receipt of the alleged notice. And that itself establishes that the said allegations are leveled only with a malafide intention to bring the present suit within limitation. But the suit filed by the plaintiffs that too being legal heirs of the original landlady namely Abbineni Anasuya, who had not taken any action during her life time and who had never questioned or challenged the sale deeds executed by this defendant, is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further the plaintiffs are having the absolute knowledge about the same and their mother entering into the agreement with the Venkateswara HAL Co-operative Housing Society and also in pursuance of the said agreement execution of Registered

GPA in favour of this defendant who is also the President of the society and this defendant in turn executing sale deeds in favour of several persons particularly in favour of defendant No.1 and other members on behalf of the mother of the plaintiffs. And the same is evident from the entire plaint averments where they have categorically pleaded about their mother entering into the agreement with the said society and in pursuance of the said agreement execution of registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant and selling of the plots and execution of number of sale deeds to different persons by this defendant based on the said

G.P.A. As such it is absolutely baseless, concocted and incorrect to say that the plaintiffs have made enquiries with regard to the land only after receipt of the said legal notice issued on behalf of M/s.Shalivahana

Constructions Ltd., and that they came to know about the sale deeds during 2006. Further the plaintiffs have purposely not made the said

M/s.Shalivahana Constructions who is alleged to have issued the said notice as party to this suit. As such it seems that the plaintiffs have purposely created the same to cover up illegal and untenable claim.

19.The mother of the plaintiffs entered into agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL Employees Co-operative

Housing Society represented by its President and Secretary, to sell the land bearing survey numbers: 101 Part, 102 Part, 103 Part and 104/1

Part admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., situated at Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District and inducted the Society into possession of the land on the date of the agreement itself and at the time of the said agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 this defendant was the President of the Society and even now he continued to be the

President of the Society. It is submitted that it is absolutely false and baseless to say that the said agreement of sale was entered into subject to the clearance and permission by the competent authority under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. In fact there was no such stipulation under the agreement and as on the date of the agreement there were no ULC proceedings at all. All other allegations leveled therein are false, baseless and concocted for the purpose of the suit and this defendant denies all such allegations. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that at the time of the agreement of sale the parties were not aware of the exact description of the land agreed to be sold. In fact the vendor under the said agreement i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs specifically declared that she is the exclusive owner of the land in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part and 103 part and an extent of Ac.8-26 gts., out of Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.Nos.104/1 & 104/2 as she is entitled for 1/7th share in her fathers' property and the same is confirmed and reiterated by her in the corrected agreement dated 17.08.1991 and also under the final receipt dated 11.11.1991. As such the said agreement of sale

dated 11-11-1981 is a concluded contract of sale in all respects. In fact

the father of the landlady namely Vege Seetharamaiah had got seven children and all of them had 1/7th share each in his estate of Ac.88-39 gts., and after the death of the said Seetharamaiah, in the oral arrangement among the children, Smt. Abbineni Anasuya landlady was allotted with the lands including an extent of Ac.8-26 gts., in

Sy.No.104/1 as the same is situated adjacent to her separate lands. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the society shall obtain ULC permission under the agreement and it failed to obtain the same and as such the Society baked out from its obligation of performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981. In fact the society never abandoned the agreement of sale by its conduct and its acquiescence and on the other hand society had performed its part of agreement by paying the entire agreed sale consideration Rs.3,83,000/- that too by way of Bank demand drafts and the same is evident from the receipt executed by the mother of the plaintiffs on 11.11.1991 and for which receipt the father of the plaintiffs and husband of plaintiff No.1 are stood as witnesses.

20.After entering into the agreement of sale on 11.11.1981 the society applied to the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority for approval of layout, in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part along with other lands in Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111 and obtained sanction on 04.02.1982.

but the other allegations are baseless and imaginary as the said layout never elapsed as alleged by the plaintiffs and as such this defendant deny the said allegations. And the society, in the same year, as per the said layout made the land leveled and divided into plots by laying roads and entered into agreements with the members of the society and allotted plots to them.

21.The society never backed out from its obligation under the agreement of sale and it was never a condition precedent under the agreement to obtain permission from the government and as such the society never abandoned / repudiated the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence and on the other hand the society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady under the agreement and the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya, in pursuance of the said agreement executed registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant bearing D.No.31 of 1988 dated 21.01.1988 authorising him to act on behalf of her in all respects in respect of the said land. As such it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the agreement of sale was not given effect to by reason of the failure of the society in obtaining the permission from the Government and as the society also abandoned/ repudiated the agreements of sale dated 11.11.1981 by its conduct and acquiescence.

22.There is a registered G.P.A. executed by the landlady Smt.

Abbineni Anasuya in favour of this defendant bearing D.No.31/1988,

dated 21.01.1988, in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated

11.11.1981, wherein this defendant is authorized to act on behalf of the

principal landlady absolutely in all respects in respect of the said land of

Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of

Kondapur village, Serilingampalli Mandal, R.R.District. It is absolutely false and baseless to say that taking advantage of the innocence and lack of knowledge or acquaintance with the English language and the trust reposed by the mother of the plaintiffs on this defendant in obtaining the GPA in his favour. If really that being so, the mother of the plaintiffs would have taken action against this defendant and against the documents executed by him during her lifetime. Further this defendant never acted against the interest of his principal i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and the question of failing to submit detailed account of the acts done in pursuance of the GPA does not arise at all. And to the knowledge of this defendant the said GPA bearing D.No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 is never cancelled at any point of time much less on 16.11.1992 vide D.No.1079/1992 and this defendant is never informed with about the alleged cancellation at any point of time. This defendant submit that the mother of the plaintiffs cannot cancel the said GPA as the same is in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 which is coupled with interest in favour of the Venkateswara HAL Co- operative society Ltd., as this defendant being the President of the said society and even if the said GPA is cancelled as alleged by the plaintiffs it will not have any sanctity in the eye of law. As such the alleged cancellation is illegal and invalid in law.

23.This defendant is specifically authorised to do all such acts as per clauses 1 to 6 of the said G.P.A. When once the landlady had executed the registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant authorizing him absolutely in all respects to sell the said land and having allowed the agent to do the acts and deeds on her behalf and having been sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration and having inducted defendant No.1 into possession of the suit plot under registered sale deed bearing document No.10399/1992,

dated 21.10.1992. And according to the plaintiffs when the suit land is

vacant land as defined under the ULC Act and which can not be sold without obtaining ULC exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed a registered G.P.A. in favour of this defendant authorising him to sell the same on her behalf.

24.Further the said sale deed executed on behalf of the landlady by this defendant being the authorized agent of landland Smt.

A.Anasuya that too for valuable sale consideration is very much legal and valid document and defendant No.1 had acquired title and became absolute owner in possession of the suit plot. Further this defendant never played any fraud against the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself. As such the transaction entered into between this defendant and defendant No.1 is valid and binding on the original landlady Smt. A.Anasuya and also on the plaintiffs. And it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that the subject sale deed executed by this defendant in favour of 1st defendant on the strength of GPA dated 21.01.1988 which was cancelled by a registered document dated 16.11.1992 is illegal and null and void.

25.It is absolutely false and baseless to say that this defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 and that the sale deed dated 21.10.1992 bearing

D.No.10399/1992 is void document and that there is collusion between the first and second defendants. In fact this defendant sold the schedule property to defendant No.1, as defendant No.1 being the member of the society and this defendant being the registered G.P.A. of the landlady Smt.A.Anasuya and executed the sale deed, being the registered and authorized G.P.A. on behalf of the landlady, in favour of defendant No.1. As such it is false and incorrect to say that the transaction entered into between this defendant and defendant No.1 is void. In fact the said sale deed executed by this defendant on behalf of the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya is legally valid sale deed and passed on

Title in favour defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property. And further there is absolutely no collusion or fraud between defendant No.1 and this defendant as defendant No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property for valuable sale consideration being the member of the society and the defendant No.1 is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property as he purchased it from landlady Smt. A.Anasuya through this defendant under registered sale deed bearing

No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 for valuable sale consideration.

Further it is deemed to have notice of their title in view of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act of registered documents and established physical possession of defendant No.1.

26.When the landlady Smt. A.Anasuya through her legally authorized agent has sold the schedule plot to defendant No.1 for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed, now the plaintiffs cannot say that the said sale is contrary to the provisions of

ULC Act and the same is untenable either on facts or in law and more over the plaintiffs have no locus standi to take such a plea after more that seventeen years after the execution of the sale deed and further when the purchaser under the said sale deed is continuously in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. And ultimately it is for the ULC authorities or for the government to say so, but not for the plaintiffs.

And further the plaintiffs have not made the ULC authorities or the government as parties to the suit. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the present suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and not for the declaration of title and hence the plaintiffs cannot seek cancellation of sale deed on the plea that the same is prohibited under ULC Act.

27.There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the sale deed which is sought to be cancelled is executed on 21.10.1992 and further there is no mention as to how the plaintiffs came to know and as to when they came to know about the sale deed only on receiving a notice purported to have been issued by M/s.Shalivahana Constructions who is no way concerned with the suit and who is not a party to this suit that too when the plaintiffs themselves knowing fully well that the landlady

Smt.A.Anasuya executed a registered GPA in favour of the 2nd defendant to execute sale deeds on her behalf. This defendant denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

28.Basing on the rival contentions the court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the defendant No.2 got no right to execute the sale deed vide document No.10399/1992, dated

21.10.1992 in favour of the defendant No.1?

2) Whether the sale deed bearing No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 was brought into the existence by the

defendants by playing fraud on the plaintiffs ?

3) Whether the registered cancellation deed dated 16/11/1992 cancelling the GPA of the defendant No.2

dated 21.01.1988 will have any bearing on the sale

deed vide document No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 of the defendant No.1 ?

4) Whether the suit is filed within limitation ?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of the sale deed vide document No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1?

6) To what relief ?

29.At the event of trial the plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A22. On the other hand the defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B31.

30.Heard the arguments of learned counsels of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. The plaintiffs filed common written arguments and defendant No.2 filed common written arguments.

31. Issue No.1: Whether the defendant No.2 got no right to

execute the sale deed vide document No.10399/1992, dated

21.10.1992 in favour of the defendant No.1?

32.The case of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to them in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The suit sale deed bearing No. 10399/1992 under Ex.A1 is void and did not convey any right or title to the 1st defendant. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated that the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is not valid as the same was executed in excess of authority conferred upon him through GPA bearing No.31/1988

dated 21.01.1988 under Ex.A18. She further deposed that the sale

deed is not valid as it was executed without the consent and knowledge of their mother. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dt.11.11.1981 under Ex.B1 and corrected agreement of sale dt.17.8.1991 under Ex.B5 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and 1991 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur

Village. He is the president of the said society. Further the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in his favour in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur Village and he executed number of sale deeds in favour of purchasers basing on the said GPA.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 2nd defendant managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained GPA. However the plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that the defendant No.2 managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained General Power of

Attorney. The PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her mother executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd defendant.

Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiff voluntarily executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant

No.2. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds without the knowledge and consent of their mother. No doubt the 2nd defendant in the capacity of General Power of

Attorney of mother of the plaintiffs executed several sale deeds including suit sale deed which is marked as Ex.A1. The mother of the plaintiffs executed GPA in favour of 2nd defendant in 1988 and the 2nd defendant sold the plots within 5 years. The mother of the plaintiffs cancelled the GPA of defendant No.2 in 1992 under registered cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992 dated. 16.11.1992 which is marked as Ex.A19. The mother of the plaintiffs died in 2000. So it is clear that mother of the plaintiffs lived 8 years after cancellation of GPA.

She should have known about the sale deeds executed by defendant

No.2 who is her agent. All the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 are registered sale deeds. Therefore the mother of the plaintiffs was deemed to have notice of sale transactions made by the defendant

No.2.

33.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 was not authorized to execute sale deeds under GPA bearing

No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied the following citations: AIR 1979 SC 553 (Para 11), in the case of

Syed Abdul Khader V.Rami Reddy; AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 20 (Para 20) in the case of Gopaldas V Thakurdas and 2006 (3) ALT 603 (Para 8) in the case of N.Narasimha Reddy V. Sri Brahmathantra Parakaamut. In the first citation it is held that Power of Attorney has to be strictly construed and what it authorizes depends on its terms and the purpose for which it is executed. In the second citation it is held that no authority confers on the agent to sell or otherwise dispose of the property without the consent of the owner. In the third citation it is held that the right of agent subsists only as long as the principal permits him to continue. In the present case as per the terms of GPA bearing

No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 the mother of the plaintiffs authorized the defendant No.2 to sell her land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. As per the clauses of GPA bearing No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 the 2nd defendant is authorized to negotiate on terms for and to sell the lands admeasuring Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. Therefore it is clear that the defendant

No.2 authorized to sell the lands of Ac.38-12 gts., belongs to mother of the plaintiffs. In view of these reasons, I am of considered opinion that defendant No.2 got right to execute the suit sale deed. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

34. Issue No.2: Whether the sale deed bearing

No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 was brought into the

existence by the defendants by playing fraud on the plaintiffs ?

35.The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that the 2nd defendant has no right to alienate or sell the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 or to any other person. The suit sale transaction is brought about by collusion of the defendants No.1 & 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. The suit sale transaction is void and no further rights could accrue in favour of any other person by reason of fraud. The suit sale transaction is collusive, fraudulent having been brought about by misrepresentation and contrary to the specific prohibition provided under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated the same. On the other hand the defendant No.2 in his written statement stated that mother of the plaintiffs executed GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in his (defendant No.2) favour in respect of land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103. Further mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village.

He (defendant No.2) executed number of sale deeds to different persons. He never acted against the interest of his principal i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs never informed him about cancellation of GPA. He (defendant No.2) never played fraud against the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself. There is no collusion between him and purchasers. The suit sale transaction is valid.

If Urban Land Ceiling exemption is required, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA in his favour to sell the said land. The

DW.1 stated the same in his chief examination affidavit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of his principal and illegally executed sale deeds in favour of several persons without consent and knowledge of his

principal. The mother of the plaintiffs is entitled to sell the land to an

extent of Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, but the total land sold under the sale deeds was more than

Ac.5-00 gts. The defendant No.2 played fraud upon the plaintiffs with a view to get wrongful gain for himself and thereby caused irreparable loss and hardship to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 unjustly enriched himself to the prejudice of plaintiffs and the transaction entered into between the defendant No.2 and purchasers is clearly void. The suit sale transaction is brought about by collusion of defendants No.1 & 2 and by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs. On the other hand the counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that the defendant No.2 being GPA holder of mother of the plaintiffs executed number of sale deeds in favour of purchasers for valuable sale consideration and there is no question of fraud or collusion as alleged by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Paras 15, 17, 18 and 25) in the case of Ram Chandra Singh V. Savitri Devi and 2006 (6) ALT 523 (F.B) (Para 76) in the case of Yanamala Maheswari V. Ananathula Sayamma.

In the first citation it is observed that fraud would render the transaction void ab initio. In the second citation it is observed that if a person’s property is sold by another, it amounts playing fraud on the statute and title cannot pass to the transferee.

36.The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

No.2 played fraud against them and sold their valuable property.

According to the plaintiffs their mother was owner of Ac.92-21 gts., in

Sy.Nos.98 to 103 and Ac.12-26 gts., in Sy.No.104 of Kondapur village.

Their mother died on 29.12.2000 and after her death they became joint owners of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103 including the suit schedule property. In the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, their mother was declared as surplus holder to an extent of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres and their mother preferred appeal before the Appellate authority and the said appeal is pending and there is status-quo order and after death of their mother they were added as legal representatives in the said appeal. The plaintiffs stated that their mother entered into an unregistered agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara

HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in

Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part and the said agreement of sale was not given effect to, because of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The plaintiffs further stated that the defendant No.2 managed in obtaining General Power of Attorney from their mother and acted against the interest of their mother and executed several sale deeds in favour of several persons without her consent and knowledge. The defendant No.2 admitted the execution of

General Power of Attorney in his favour and agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society by the mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1981 and she also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant in the year 1988. The 2nd defendant is the president of said society. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant managed in obtaining General Power of Attorney from the mother of the plaintiffs.

However the plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that the defendant No.2 managed the mother of the plaintiffs and obtained

General Power of Attorney. The PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that her mother executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 2nd defendant. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiff voluntarily executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2. Another contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 acted against the interest of their mother and executed several sale deeds and failed to give account to their mother. No doubt the mother of the plaintiff is principal and the 2nd defendant is agent as per GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. The defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.2 failed to give account to their mother. The mother of the plaintiff executed GPA in 1988 and she died in 2000. The defendant No.2 executed most of the sale deeds within 5 years from 1988. During her lifetime the principal i.e., mother of plaintiffs did not ask the defendant No.2 for accounts. She cancelled the said GPA by cancellation deed dated 16.11.1992 which is marked as

Ex.A19. After cancellation of GPA she lived for 8 years. The mother of the plaintiffs should have taken action against the defendant No.2.

Further the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and she also executed registered GPA in favour of the defendant No.2 and the society paid the entire consideration. The 2nd defendant filed some receipts issued by the mother of the plaintiffs and bank counter foils and they are marked as Exs.B6 to B31. These documents show that the mother of the plaintiffs received certain amounts from Venkateswara

HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Limited represented by its president, Y.B.K.Rao i.e., defendant No.2, in pursuance of agreement

dated 11.11.1981. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that

the receipts and counter foils are nothing to do with the present suit, because the transaction with Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society is strange to the suit sale deed and there is no reference of said society and so called agreement of sale in the suit sale deed. The contents of a document shall only be considered to understand the intention of the parties and the transaction therein. As per Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add or subtract the terms of agreement. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decisions: AIR 1959 SC 1362 (Para 6) in the case of The Union of India V.Kishorilal Guptha; (2006) 6 SCC 293 (Paras 22, 23 and 28) in the case of State Bank of India V.Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd;

AIR 1996 SC 2025 (Para 7) in the case of T.N.Electricity Board V. N Raju

Reddiar; (2003) 6 SCC 595 (Paras 19, 20 and 22) in the case of Roop

Kumar V. Mohan Thedani and (2004) 2 SCC 283 (Para 7) in the case of

Krishi utpadan Mandi Samiti V. Bipin Kumar. In the first citation it is observed that when the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for drawing upon hypothetical considerations or supposed intentions of the parties. In the second citation it is observed that the surrounding circumstances are relevant only in case of ambiguity in the document. In the third citation it is observed that once a contract is reduced to writing, it is not open to any party to seek to prove the terms of contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. In the forth citation it is observed that oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. In the fifth citation it is observed that no party is allowed to lead evidence to the terms of written document. No doubt the contents of document shall only be considered to understand the nature of the document and the intention of the parties. In the present case mother of the plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society on 11.11.1981 and she executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 and she cancelled the said GPA under cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers in the capacity of agent of mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The remedies under Specific Relief Act are equitable remedies. The person who seeks equity must do equity. The law of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence are aimed for dispensation of justice. The duty of the court is to find out the truth. No doubt the contents of the document alone shall be looked into to understand the terms of the document. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in 1981 and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.08.1991 in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society and registered GPA bearing No.31/1988 dated 21.01.1988 in favour of 2nd defendant and cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and issued receipts in favour of Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society. So the contents of all documents are very much useful and helpful to understand the ground realities.

37.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell the land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village and the 2nd defendant was the president of the said society and the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts acknowledging the amounts. The receipts and counter foils are marked as Exs.B6 to B31. Ex.B31 is receipt dated 11.11.1991 issued by mother of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered as it is not registered one, as it creates interest. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1980 All 180 in the case of Ratan lal Vs. V.Harishanker in which is held that if a document is compulsorily registrable and has not been registered, it will be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the said receipt doesn’t create any right and so it doesn’t require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. I have carefully gone through the receipt dated 11.11.1991. The contents show that mother of the plaintiffs acknowledged the previous payments of Rs.1,35,000/- and present payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. She further stated that she did not have any objection for the sale deeds registered by the defendant No.2 and the sale deeds that would be registered in future by the second defendant in pursuance of registered GPA. The contents of said receipt do not confer any new rights and so it doesn’t require registration.

38.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipts cannot be considered because the plaintiffs denied the signatures of their mother on the said receipts. In the cross-examination the PW.1 denied the signatures of her mother on the said receipts. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed the said receipts. The plaintiffs admitted that their mother executed agreement of sale, general power of attorney and cancellation of said general power of attorney. The certified copies of the said documents are before this court. The signatures of the mother of the plaintiffs on those documents and receipts look alike. The plaintiffs did not place any material to show that the signatures on receipts do not belong to their mother. Therefore I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs executed receipts. The contents of receipt dated 11.11.1991 show that mother of the plaintiff acknowledged previous payments and present payment and she undertook not to make any objection for the sale deeds executed and sale deeds that would be executed by the defendant No.2. So, it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2. When the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge of sale deeds executed by the 2nd defendant, there is no question of fraud played by the defendant No.2. Therefore the act of the defendant No.2 does not come within the ambit of fraud played upon either plaintiffs or mother of the plaintiffs.

39.The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.2 colluded with purchasers and therefore the sale is void. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 sold Ac.38- 12 gts., in the shape of plots though his principal was eligible Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area as per exemption given in G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988. He further submitted that defendant No.2 sold the plots in contravention of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. No doubt Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were pending at the time of suit sale transaction and as per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 there is exemption of Ac.5-00 gts., only. Mere mentioning these two aspects in the suit sale transaction does not prove collusion between 2nd defendant and purchaser, because the purchaser paid sale consideration. If anything goes against Urban Land Ceiling proceedings and

G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988, the purchaser would be put to loss but not the plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of considered opinion that there is no collusion between 2nd defendant and purchaser.

40.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.1 is not bonafide purchaser, because of collusion between him and defendant No.2. He relied on AIR 2004 P&H 315 (Para 19) in the case of Hans Raj V. Karmi and AIR 1989 Patna 50 (Para 11) in the case of Ram Chandra Singh V. Sub-Divisional officer, Hajipur. In the first citation it is observed that transferee cannot be treated to be bonafide transferee for consideration without notice when no amount is shown to be paid. In the present case the defendant No.1 paid sale consideration and so he is considered as bonafide purchaser. In the second citation it is observed that the conduct of parties to the transaction is relevant for the purpose of determination of question as to whether the intention of the parties to the said transaction was that no title will pass to the vendee irrespective of payment of consideration. In the present case this court has come to conclusion that there is no collusion between the vendee and defendant No.2. In view of the above detailed discussion I am of considered opinion that the suit sale deed was not brought into existence by the defendants by playing fraud on the plaintiffs or their mother. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

41. Issue No.3: Whether the registered cancellation deed

dated 16/11/1992 cancelling the GPA of the defendant No.2

dated 21.01.1988 will have any bearing on the sale deed vide

document No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992 of the defendant

No.1 ?

42. In this case the plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed bearing No.10399/1992 dated 21.10.1992 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. The contention of the plaintiffs is that their mother executed registered GPA in favour of the defendant

No.2 and their mother cancelled the said GPA under registered cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992. The sale deed bearing No.10399/1992 dated 21.10.1992 which is in question was executed prior to the execution of cancellation deed bearing

No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992. Therefore the cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992 is nothing to do with the suit sale deed. Therefore I hold that the cancellation deed bearing

No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 has no effect on sale deed bearing

No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

43. Issue No.4: Whether the suit is filed within limitation ?

44.The plaintiffs in their plaint pleaded that after receipt of legal notice dated 06.06.2006 issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions

Limited which is marked as Ex.A20, they came to know about the execution of sale deeds by the 2nd defendant in favour of third parties in respect of their land. They made discreet enquiries in the locality and they secured certified copies of said documents from the offices concerned and filed the present suit for cancellation of sale deed. The

PW.1 in her chief examination affidavit stated the same. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that the plaintiffs created legal notice dated 06.06.2006 with a malafide intention to bring the present suit within limitation. The suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by limitation, since the mother of the plaintiffs had not taken any action during her lifetime. The plaintiffs have knowledge about agreement of sale and registered GPA executed by their mother and selling of plots by 2nd defendant to different persons.

45.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the sale deed in question is void because it was executed during the pendency of

Urban Land Ceiling proceedings contrary to Section 5 (3), 10 (4) and 42 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The suit is not barred by limitation and the plaintiffs filed the present suit as they have reasonable apprehension that there is possibility of making claim over the property by the purchasers. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since the sale deed is void there is no question of limitation. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sunderlal Bhanabhai

Bhagat and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in AIR 2012

Gujarat 71 sale deed even if void, its validity has to be challenged within reasonable time. Therefore I am of considered opinion that even in case of suit for cancellation of sale deed on void ground, the law of limitation is certainly apply. A party is not allowed to initiate proceedings as and when he wishes even in case of void transactions.

46.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submitted that the suit sale transaction is voidable since the transaction was brought into existence by collusion and fraud of the defendants. The plaintiffs received legal notice on 14.06.2006 and obtained sale deed and encumbrance certificate and filed the present suit. The defendants did not plead the prior knowledge of plaintiffs about the suit sale deed. The mother of plaintiffs did not know about the suit sale deed. The plaintiffs also did not know about the suit sale deed prior to receipt of notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. As per Article 59 of

Limitation Act, the limitation for cancellation of sale deed begins to run from the date of knowledge about the fraud. In the present case the plaintiffs came to know about the suit sale deed after receipt of notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following judgments: AIR 1959 Mad.26 (Para 5) in the case of In re Mareppa Gounder; AIR 1968 SC 956 (Para 6) in the case of Ningawwa V Byrappa Siddappa Hireknrabar and AIR1971

SC 2184 (Para 20) in the case of Syed Shah Gulam Ghouse Mohiuddin V

Syed Shah Ahmad Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri. The gist of these judgments is that the limitation runs from the date when the fraud came to the notice of person. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the 2nd defendant and purchasers played fraud and the plaintiffs came to know about the said fraud only after receipt of legal notice issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited.

47.The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that there is no fraud played by the 2nd defendant and he sold the plots to purchasers in the capacity of GPA holder under registered sale deeds.

The learned counsel for the 2nd defendant submitted that there is no reference about all the sale deeds executed by 2nd defendant in the legal notice. The plaintiffs and their mother had knowledge about the execution of sale deeds by the defendant No.2. He relied on decisions reported in 2009-JT-3-569 in the case of Abdul Rahim Vs.SK.Abdul Zabar and 2006-AIRKarR-5-271 in the case of Prem Singh Vs. Birbal. In these decisions it is observed that the limitation for cancellation of sale deed is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that as per Section 3 of Limitation Act suit is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond limitation, even in the absence of defense.

48.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 has not led any evidence to show that the plaintiffs have knowledge prior to legal notice dated 06.06.2006 and so he waived his initial objection as to limitation. He relied on the following decisions: AIR 1925 Nag 398 in the case of Guna Bai Vs. Motilal and 2003 (4) SCC 161 in the case of Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh. In the first citation it is held that if the suit is prima facie within time, but the defendants take the plea that the plaintiff was aware of the necessary facts to file the suit prior to the date when he admits in the plaint, it is for the defendants to allege and prove. In the second citation it is held that in the absence of plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into.

When the issue of limitation is question of fact, the defendant is at liberty to disprove the case of the plaintiffs in the cross examination.

The defendant No.2 need not take the stand of limitation in his chief examination. The defendant No.2 in his written statement has taken the stand of limitation. He is at liberty to disprove that the plaintiffs have knowledge only after receipt of legal notice dated 06.06.2006.

49.I have perused the evidence on record. According to PW.1 they came to know about the suit sale deed after receipt of notice dated 06.06.2006 issued by M/s Shalivahana Constructions Limited. In the cross-examination the PW.1 categorically admitted that their mother informed her about the reason for cancelling the GPA and the reason is non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.2 to her and execution of sale deed by him without her knowledge. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the admission alone cannot be considered and the whole evidence should be read together and the

P.W.1 denied their knowledge about suit sale transaction. The P.W.1 categorically stated that their mother informed them about execution of sale deed. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the

P.W.1 gave answers for two questions and it is not properly recorded. On the face of it there is no error in recording two answers in one sentence.

The P.W.1 categorically stated that their mother informed them about execution of sale deed. So it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs informed them (plaintiffs) about the execution of sale deed by the defendant No.2. Further the PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that they filed O.S.No.78/1999 against four defendants on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for perpetual injunction

in respect of land in Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101, 102 and 103. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 filed certified copy of said plaint and the

PW.1 admitted her signature on the said copy of plaint and it is marked as Ex.B2. The contents of Ex.B2 show that A.Anasuya, P.Vijaya Laxmi,

A.Sandhya, A.Anuradha, A.Sreenivasa Rao, P.Nageswara Rao, M.Krishna and M.Satyanarayana filed suit for perpetual injunction against

K.S.V.Prasad Rao and three others in respect of land in Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 of Kondapur village. In the said plaint the present plaintiffs are shown as plaintiffs No.2 to 5 and the mother of the present plaintiff is shown as plaintiff No.1. The averments of the said plaint show that there was a family settlement and after the said settlement the plaintiff No.1 along with her family members made certain alienations and after the said alienations the plaintiff No.1 and her family members i.e., plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were left with land of Ac.6-13 gts., in Sy.No.99, Ac.5-29 gts., in Sy.No.100, Ac.0-27 gts., in Sy.No.101,

Ac.2-03 gts., in Sy.No.102 and Ac.0-19 gts., in Sy.No.103 of Kondapur village. The OS No.78/1999 was filed in the year 1999. The present plaintiffs are the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 in the said suit. According to them, in 1999 they have Ac.15-11 gts., in Sy.Nos.99 to 103 of Kondapur village. In the present plaint the plaintiffs pleaded that after death of their mother they became owners of Ac.92-21 gts., in Sy.Nos.98 to 103.

As per the plaint pleadings in OS No.78/1999, the plaintiffs and their mother made certain alienations. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaint in OS 78/99 is not relevant and it cannot be looked into and it is extraneous material. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following citations : 2001 (9) SCC 471 (Para 18) in the case of Ram Bharose Sharma V. Mahant Ram Swaroop; AIR 1959 SC 504 (Para 14) Kishorilal V. Chaltibai; AIR 1971 S.C 1542 in the case of

Chikkam Koteswara Rao V. Chikkam Subba Rao; AIR 1974 SC 1121 in the case of M/s Prem Ex-serviceman co operative tenant Farming society

V. State of Haryana and AIR 1979 SC 861 (Para 23) in the case of Avadh

Kishore Dass V.Ram Gopal. In the first citation it is observed that admission is primarily a mixed question of fact and law and has to be determined on the facts of each case. In the second and fifth citations it is held that admissions are not conclusive and the maker is at liberty to prove that they are mistaken or untrue. In the third citation it is observed that the admission must be clear and there should not be any doubt or ambiguity. In the forth citation it is observed that admission depends upon the circumstances in which it was made. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the contents in previous pleadings are relevant and they are treated as admissions. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 341 in the case of Basant Singh V.

Janki Singh, Kishundhari Singh, in which it is held that an admission by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him in a prior suit is an admission within the meaning of Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act and may be proved against him in other litigations. In the present case the P.W.1 admitted her signature on copy of plaint in OS 78/99 and filing of the said suit. Further she did not give any explanation for the contents of plaint in OS 78/99. Since there is no rebuttal evidence, the contents in the previous pleadings are relevant. In the cross-examination the PW.1 admitted that their mother informed her about the reason for cancellation of GPA and the reason is non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant No.2 to her and execution of sale deed by him without her knowledge. The evidence elicited in the cross-examination coupled with Ex.B2 categorically shows that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale transactions during the lifetime of their mother. In view of these reasons I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the suit sale transaction and other sale transactions made by the defendant No.2 in favour of purchasers much prior to legal notice dated 06.06.2006. When the plaintiffs have knowledge about the sale transaction even prior to 1999, the present suit is said to be filed beyond limitation.

50.Further the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that as per explanation I of section 3 of Transfer of Property

Act in case of registered instruments a person shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument. As per explanation III, a person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that as per the proviso appended to explanation III, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice. In the present case this court has come to conclusion that defendant No.2 has not committed fraud in the capacity of agent upon the mother of plaintiffs. Even according to the plaintiffs their mother cancelled the GPA of the defendant No.2 under registered cancellation deed bearing

No.1079/1992 dated 16.11.1992. When the mother of the plaintiffs cancelled the GPA of the defendant No.2 in the year 1992, she should have verified whether her agent executed any sale deeds. She would have known about sale deed if she had made proper enquiry. As per section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, she is said to have notice of sale deed. The mother of the plaintiff should have challenged the suit sale deed much earlier. Even according to the P.W.1, their mother informed about sale deed during her lifetime. After sifting entire material on record from all facets, I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the suit sale deed during the lifetime of their mother who died in 2000. The present suit is filed in 2007 and so it is barred by limitation. The issue No.4 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

51. Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

cancellation of the sale deed vide document No.10399/1992,

dated 21.10.1992 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of

the defendant No.1?

52.The contention of the plaintiffs is that their mother entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village subject to clearance and permission by the competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The said agreement became unenforceable as the subject land is declared as excess vacant land. The plaintiffs filed copies of Form III, draft statement, Form III, Order dt.5.3.1983, letter dt.5.5.1983, Notice, Notifications, Letter, Declaration dt.15.4.1998, Notice, Oder dt.2.2.2008, Panchanama dt.11.2.2008,

G.O.Ms.No.978 and Order in W.P.10813 and 18342 of 2008 and they are marked as Ex.A3 to A17. The 2nd defendant managed their mother and obtained registered GPA and executed number of sale deeds in favour of several persons and the said sale transaction are void, because they were made without obtaining Urban Land Ceiling exemption / permission from the government and contrary to the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. As per G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 the mother of the plaintiffs was entitled to sell the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts., of plotted area but the 2nd defendant executed several sale deeds in respect of land more than Ac.5-00 gts. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit sale transaction is void because it was made in contravention of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976. On the other hand the contention of the 2nd defendant is that there is no stipulation under agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 with regard to clearance and permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The society obtained sanction of layout on 04.02.1982 from Bhagyanagar

Urban Development Authority in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 and 104/1 part along with other lands in

Sy.Nos.110/2 and 111. The society paid entire agreed sale consideration to the landlady i.e., mother of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 authorizing the defendant No.2 to act on behalf of principal. By virtue of the said GPA the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds. When the suit land is vacant land as defined under Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976 and which cannot be sold without obtaining exemption, how the mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to sell the land. The plaintiffs have no right to say that the sale is contrary to the provisions of Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. It is for the Urban Land Ceiling authority or for the government to say but not for the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the special officer and competent authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 issued notification under Section 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976 for acquisition of land by the government and so the land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances with effect from 15.05.1998 and the mother of the plaintiffs preferred appeal in Appeal No.62/1999 and they appellate authority passed status-quo order on 27.08.1999 and after death of plaintiffs mother, plaintiffs made an application to implead them as legal representatives. The appellate authority vacated the status-quo order without notice to the plaintiffs. The special officer issued an order dated 10.01.2007 under Section 5 of the Act against dead person i.e., mother of the plaintiffs proposing to take possession of the land. The possession of the land of 4,24,834.97 Sq.metres was taken by government under panchanama dated 11.02.2008. After repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 the appellate authority passed an order dated 08.05.2008 closing the appeal as abated. The government issued G.O.Ms.No.978 dated 02.08.2008 allotting the entire surplus land to Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority. The plaintiffs filed writ petition No.18342/2008 and it was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court, dated 02.03.2009. The suit sale transaction is null and void as per the Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) R/W

Section 42 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decision reported in 2006 (6) ALT 671 (D.B) (Paras 42 & 43) in the case of

Parchuri Rathankar Rao V. State of A.P. In this case it is held that sale of surplus land is null and void as per Sections 5 (3) and 10 (4) R/W Section 42 of the Act. No doubt Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated in respect of land of mother of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 in his cross-examination admitted the same. According to the plaintiffs the competent authority issued draft statement dated 17.01.1983 under

Section 8 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 declaring the mother of the plaintiffs as holder of excess vacant land of Ac.105-07 gts. So mother of the plaintiffs was aware of Urban Land Ceiling proceedings in the year 1983. The mother of the plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 and corrected agreement of sale

dated 17.08.1991 with the Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Society to sell Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. In the said corrected agreement of sale there is no mention about Urban Land Ceiling exemption or permission.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society did not give effect because of ULC permission and the said agreement of sale became frustrated. On the other hand the learned counsel for defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981 and corrected agreement of sale dated 17.08.1991 and registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988. Further the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts under Exs.B6 to B31 acknowledging the payments made on behalf of the Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Society. I have perused the receipts and they show that Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society made payments to the mother of the plaintiffs in the years 1981, 1982, 1988, 1989 & 1991. As per Ex.B31 the mother of the plaintiffs issued final receipt acknowledging previous payments and the present payment and she mentioned that she has no objection for the sale deeds executed and the sale deeds to be executed by the defendant

No.2. In view of these facts I am of considered opinion that there is no justification in the contention of plaintiffs that the agreement of sale

dated 11.11.1981 became frustrated.

53.The mother of the plaintiffs executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant No.2 sold the land without obtaining ULC permission which is requirement under the said GPA. In the GPA at clause 11, the principal authorized the agent i.e., defendant No.2 to obtain copies of pahanies other documents of title etc., clearance like tax clearance, revenue nil encumbrances, U.L.C. etc., on the said property. In the said GPA the particulars of pendency of ULC proceedings are not noted. Obtaining ULC exemption is not a condition precedent to sell the land. The mother of the plaintiffs having knowledge about the ULC proceedings and G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988, executed registered GPA in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Ac.38-12 gts. The defendant No.2 had also knowledge about

ULC proceedings and the said G.O.Ms.No.733. Both the principal and agent had knowledge about ULC proceedings and G.O.Ms.No.733. Even then the 2nd defendant in the capacity of agent sold the entire land. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 relied on the following judgments reported in 1990 (3) ALT 262 in the case of J.Pitchaiah V. Special officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and others; 1999 (1) ALD 135 in the case of Shak Azeem and others V. Special officer and competent authority, Hyderabad Land Ceiling Office,

Hyderabad and others; 1992 (1) APLJ 411 in the case of N.Yakoob V. The

Government of A.P.; 1998 (4) ALT 603 in the case of P.S.Rao V. Special officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and another and AIR 2012 Gujrat 71 in the case of Sunder Lal Bhanabhai

Bhagat and others V. State of Gujrat and others. In the first citation it is held that the land owner is liable to deliver excess land out of the land retained by him and not the land sold by him. In the second citation it is observed that the authorities are at liberty to order surrender of lands retained by the declarant excluding the lands sold to bonafide purchasers. In the third and forth citations, G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988 is discussed. In the fifth citation it is held that sale deed even if void, its validity has to be challenged within reasonable time and the person who had misrepresented other person and had persuaded him to purchase land for consideration and sold the land to him cannot challenge sale deed executed by him to be void. It is the duty of seller of the property to see that the lawful rights are conveyed in favour of the purchaser. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 had knowledge about ULC proceedings and

G.O.Ms.No.733, dated 31.10.1988. The plaintiffs had also knowledge about the suit sale transaction. The present suit is filed very long time after execution of suit sale deed. The purchaser under suit sale deed is bonafide purchaser. Therefore, though the sale deed is void under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), there is no any affect to its validity because the mother of the plaintiffs or plaintiffs failed to take action within time.

54.The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit sale deed is not valid for want of consideration, authority and competency. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that no consideration was passed and the defendant No.2 has no authority and capacity to execute the sale deed. According to the recitals of sale deed consideration was received by the vendors. The defendant No.2 in his cross-examination stated that the vendee did not pay the sale consideration directly to the vendors. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since consideration has not passed, the suit sale deed is not valid as per

Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Sri Venkateswara HAL

Employees Cooperative Housing Society in 1981 and she also executed registered GPA in his favour and the society paid the entire consideration. The 2nd defendant filed some receipts issued by the mother of the plaintiffs and bank counter foils and they are marked as

Exs.B6 to B31. These documents show that the mother of the plaintiffs received certain amounts from Venkateswara HAL Employees

Cooperative Housing Limited represented by its president, Y.B.K.Rao i.e., defendant No.2, in pursuance of agreement dated 11.11.1981. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the receipts and counter foils are nothing to do with the present suit, because the transaction with Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society is strange to the suit sale deed and there is no reference of said society and so called agreement of sale in the suit sale deed. The contents of a document shall only be considered to understand the intention of the parties and the transaction therein. As per Section 91 and 92 of

Evidence Act no evidence of oral agreement or statement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add or subtract the terms of agreement.

The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decisions:

AIR 1959 SC 1362 (Para 6) in the case of The Union of India V.Kishorilal

Guptha; (2006) 6 SCC 293 (Paras 22, 23 and 28) in the case of State

Bank of India V.Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd; AIR 1996 SC 2025 (Para 7) in the case of T.N.Electricity Board V. N Raju Reddiar; (2003) 6

SCC 595 (Paras 19, 20 and 22) in the case of Roop Kumar V. Mohan

Thedani and (2004) 2 SCC 283 (Para 7) in the case of Krishi utpadan

Mandi Samiti V. Bipin Kumar. In the first citation it is observed that when the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no scope for drawing upon hypothetical considerations or supposed intentions of the parties. In the second citation it is observed that the surrounding circumstances are relevant only in case of ambiguity in the document.

In the third citation it is observed that once a contract is reduced to writing, it is not open to any party to seek to prove the terms of contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. In the forth citation it is observed that oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. In the fifth citation it is observed that no party is allowed to lead evidence to the terms of written document. No doubt the contents of document shall only be considered to understand the nature of the document and the intention of the parties. In the present case mother of the plaintiffs executed an agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society on 11.11.1981 and she executed registered GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988 in favour of defendant No.2 and she cancelled the said GPA under cancellation deed bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992 and the defendant No.2 executed several sale deeds in favour of purchasers in the capacity of agent of mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought for cancellation of sale deed under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act. The remedies under Specific Relief Act are equitable remedies. The person who seeks equity must do equity. The law of Civil Procedure and the law of evidence are aimed for dispensation of justice. The duty of the court is to find out the truth. No doubt the contents of the document alone shall be looked into to understand the terms of the document. In the present case the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society and registered GPA in favour of 2nd defendant and cancellation deed and issued receipts in favour of Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative

Housing Society. So the contents of all documents are very much useful and helpful to understand the ground realities.

55.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed agreement of sale in favour of

Venkateswara HAL Employees Cooperative Housing Society to sell the land of Ac.38-12 gts., in Sy.Nos.101 part, 102 part, 103 part and 104/1 part of Kondapur village and the 2nd defendant was the president of the said society and the mother of the plaintiffs issued receipts acknowledging the amounts. The receipts and counter foils are marked as Exs.B6 to B31. Ex.B31 is receipt dated 11.11.1991 issued by mother of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered as it is not registered one, as it creates interest. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1980 All 180 in the case of Ratan lal Vs. V.Harishanker in which is held that if a document is compulsorily registrable and has not been registered, it will be admissible in evidence only for collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the said receipt doesn’t create any right and so it doesn’t require registration under Section 17 of Registration Act. I have carefully gone through the receipt dated 11.11.1991. The contents show that mother of the plaintiffs acknowledged the previous payments of Rs.1,35,000/- and present payment of Rs.1,15,000/-. She further stated that she did not have any objection for the sale deeds registered by the defendant No.2 and the sale deeds that would be registered in future by the second defendant in pursuance of registered GPA. The contents of said receipt do not confer any new rights and so it doesn’t require registration.

56.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said receipt cannot be considered because the plaintiffs denied the signature of their mother on the said receipt. In the cross-examination the PW.1 denied the signatures of her mother and father on the said receipt. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the mother of the plaintiffs executed the said receipt and father of the PW.1 and husband of the PW.1 are the witnesses. The plaintiffs admitted that their mother executed agreement of sale, general power of attorney and cancellation of said general power of attorney. The certified copies of the said documents are before this court. The signatures of the mother of the plaintiffs on those documents and receipt dt.11.11.91 look alike. The plaintiffs did not place any material to show that the signatures on receipt dt.11.11.91 do not belong to their mother. Therefore I am of considered opinion that the mother of the plaintiffs executed receipt dt.11.11.91. The contents of receipt dt.11.11.91 show that mother of the plaintiff acknowledged previous payments and present payment and she undertook not to make any objection for the sale deeds executed and sale deeds that would be executed by the defendant No.2. So, it is clear that the mother of the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that sale deed is not valid for want of consideration. If at all, the mother of the plaintiffs should have challenged during her lifetime.

Therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs have no right to question the validity of sale deed for want of consideration.

57.Another contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant

No.2 has no competency and authority to execute the sale deed. As per the contents of sale deed the defendant No.2 executed the sale deed in the capacity of agent. As per Ex.31, receipt dated 11.11.1991 the mother of the plaintiff authorized the defendant No.2 to execute sale deeds and so the plaintiffs are not allowed to question the validity of execution of sale deed executed by the defendant No.2. The sale deed was executed very long back and plaintiffs and their mother had knowledge about the sale deed and so they cannot question the validity.

After examining the entire material on record from all facets, I am of considered opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation suit sale deed. Issue No.5 is answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.

58. Issue No.6: To what relief?

59.In view of my findings recorded above I hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief much less as prayed for. Issue

No.6 is answered accordingly.

60.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.

Typed by Personal Assistant to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 1 st day of April, 2013.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

PW.1: Smt.Potluri Vijayalakshmi

On behalf of the Defendants:

DW.1: Y.B.K.Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.10399/1992, dated 21.10.1992.

Ex.A2: Encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Form No.III, dated 12.01.1983.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of draft statement dated 17.01.1983.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of Form No.III, dated 25.02.1983.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of order of Special Officer and competent

Authority, dated 05.03.1983.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of letter of Special Officer and competent authority, dated 05.05.1983.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of notification, dated 05.05.1983.

Ex.A9: Certified copy of notification, dated 17.05.1983.

Ex.A10: Certified copy of letter, dated 15.04.1998.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of declaration, dated 15.04.1998.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of notification, dated 07.05.1998.

Ex.A13: Certified copy of notice, dated 10.01.2007.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of proceedings of Special Officer and competent authority, dated 02.02.2008.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of panchanama, dated 11.02.2008.

Ex.A16: Certified copy of G.O.Ms.No.978, dated 02.08.2008.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of Order in W.P.No.10813/2008 and 18342/2008,

dated 02.03.2009.

Ex.A18: Certified copy of GPA bearing No.31/1988, dated 21.01.1988.

Ex.A19: Certified copy of cancellation of General Power of Attorney bearing No.1079/1992, dated 16.11.1992.

Ex.A20: Certified copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2006.

Ex.A21: Certified copy of reply notice dated 26.06.2006.

Ex.A22: Certified copy of memo, dated 25.08.2009.

On behalf of the Defendants:

Ex.B1: Xerox copy of agreement of sale dated 11.11.1981.

Ex.B2: Xerox copy of plaint in O.S.No.78/1999 on the file of the Hon’ble

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.B3: Xerox copy of petition in O.P.No.141/1999 on the file of the

Hon’ble District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.B4: Xerox copy of judgment and decree in L.G.C.No.13/2002, dated 12.10.2006, on the file of the Hon’ble Special Court under AP

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

Ex.B5: Xerox copy of corrected agreement of sale, dated 17.08.1991.

Ex.B6: Xerox copy of voucher dated 11.11.1981.

Ex.B7: Xerox copy of voucher dated 29.11.1981.

Ex.B8: Xerox copy of voucher dated 23.01.1982.

Ex.B9: Xerox copy of receipt dated 21.09.1987.

Ex.B10: Xerox copy of receipt dated 22.02.1988.

Ex.B11: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 24.02.1988.

Ex.B12: Xerox copy of receipt dated 24.02.1988.

Ex.B13: Xerox copy of receipt dated 04.05.1988.

Ex.B14: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 19.12.1988.

Ex.B15: Xerox copy of receipt dated 19.12.1988.

Ex.B16: Xerox copy of receipt dated 20.07.1989.

Ex.B17: Xerox copy of receipt dated 17.08.1991.

Ex.B18: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 14.10.1991.

Ex.B19: Xerox copy of receipt dated 15.10.1991.

Ex.B20: Xerox copy of receipt dated 28.10.1991.

Ex.B21: Xerox copy of receipt dated 29.10.1991.

Ex.B22: Xerox copy of receipt dated 30.10.1991.

Ex.B23: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 04.11.1991.

Ex.B24: Xerox copy of receipt dated 04.11.1991.

Ex.B25: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 06.11.1991.

Ex.B26: Xerox copy of receipt dated 06.11.1991.

Ex.B27: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 08.11.1991.

Ex.B28: Xerox copy of receipt dated 08.11.1991.

Ex.B29: Xerox copy of counter foil dated 09.11.1991.

Ex.B30: Xerox copy of receipt dated 09.11.1991.

Ex.B31: Xerox copy of receipt dated 11.11.1991.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT : SRI K.S.RAMA KRISHNA RAO, B.Com. LL.M.,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2013

O.S.No.506 of 1996

Between:

M/s.Kedarnath Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (Regd. No.TBC 451), Plot No.31, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad – 500 073, Represented by its Secretary Sri V.Venkaiah, S/o.Sambasivaiah, aged 60 years, Occ: Government (Retd.) servant, Resident of 12-1-33, Sitarambagh, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. … Plaintiff

AND

1.Smt.U.Lakshmi Mani, D/o.Sri V.V.K.Prasad, Major, 2-26, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad.

2.U.Seshanjali, D/o.Sri V.V.K.Prasad, Major, 2-26, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad. … Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.V.Krishna Rao, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

P.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for direction to the defendants to execute registered sale deed in pursuance of suit agreement or in alternative direction to the defendants to pay

Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.03.1982.

2.The plaintiff-society filed the suit in 1996 and the court granted ex parte decree for return of advance amount of Rs.5,000/- by 2 denying specific performance. Aggrieved the said judgment, the plaintiff-society preferred A.S.No.33/2004 and the Hon'ble Principal

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District passed ex parte judgment by

granting specific performance. The present defendant got set aside the said ex parte judgment. After hearing both parties the Hon'ble Principal

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, remanded the case directing this

court to conduct fresh trial and to dispose the case on or before 30.04.2013.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964 with registration No.TCB 451. The plaintiff society has been established to provide house sites to its members. The plaintiff society entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants on 24.03.1982 in respect of Ac.2-10 gts., in Sy.No.11 of Guttala Begumpet village,

Rajendranagar Taluq. The sale consideration in Rs.42,000/- and the defendants received Rs.5,000/- as advance. As per clause No.7 of the said agreement of sale, both plaintiff and the defendants have to take necessary steps for obtaining permissions and clearance from the state government within six months from the date of agreement of sale. As per clause No.9 in the event of delay in granting permission by the government, the defendants are entitled to interest on the balance sale consideration at 20% per annum. After execution of the agreement of sale, both parties made application to the Special Officer and Competent

Authority, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 to enable alienation of land to the plaintiff society by the defendants. The defendants have filed a declaration under Section 6 declaring the extent of vacant land. The Special Officer conducted an enquiry and issued 3 proceedings dated 31.12.1982 and recommended that the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.136, Revenue (U.C.II) Department dated 28.01.1981 were fulfilled and also recommended to accord permission for exemption from applying the provisions of the Act to the

Commissioner, Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling, A.P. Hyderabad.

As per Section 20(1)(b) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the state government has to grant exemption from the application of the Act to the land agreed to be alienated by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff society. The plaintiff society was also delivered peaceful and vacant possession of plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff society has been continuously in peaceful possession of plaint A schedule property. The plaintiff society appointed watchman to guard the property. The plaintiff society and the defendants were waiting for grant of exemption from the state government. In January, 1994 the

State government issued notices under Section 10 to the defendants directing acquisition of plaint A schedule land. The defendants filed

W.P.No.20588/1994 challenging the acquisition by suppressing the agreement of sale and proceedings of the special officer, ULC. The plaintiff society filed W.P.No.21113/1994 challenging acquisition of land and for direction to the State government to grant exemption under

Urban Land Ceiling Act. The defendants did not chose to inform the plaintiff society regarding notice of acquisition issued by the State government. In view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in

W.P.No.21113/1994 filed by the plaintiff society calling for direction to the State government to grant permission of alienation by the defendants in favour of plaintiff society holding that the provisions of

ULC Act is not applicable to the land which was not a part of master plan 4 at the time of commencement of the Act. In view of the judgment of

Hon'ble High Court the finality has been achieved with regard to the

implementation of clause No.7 of suit agreement and both the parties have become free from hurdle imposed clause No.7 of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff society is always ready and willing to obtain registered sale deed from the defendants. The plaintiff society has been keeping watch over A schedule property and on 01.08.1996 the

Secretary has visited the property and found a board showing that one

M/s Prasad Properties and Investments (P) Limited are offering the land in plots. Immediately the plaintiff society issued public notice on 04.08.1996 in newspaper warning to the public that A schedule property has already alienated to the plaintiff society under the agreement of sale. On the same day the plaintiff society got issued legal notice to the defendants. The government has not taken any decision till it is issued notice of acquisition in January 1994. The plaintiff society was not in a position to demand for registration. The defendants approached the

Hon'ble High Court by suppressing the facts. The defendants are not

allowed to take advantage of change in the legal position as pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court on 01.11.1995 following the decision in AIR 1993 SC 2465. The action of the party should be in accordance with law of the land till it is changed either by way of amendment to the statute or by way of judicial interpretation. The subsequent changes in the legal position cannot be construed so as to give any undue advantage to any party. Both the parties and the government were under bonafide impression that the ULC Act is applicable to A schedule property. The defendants are liable to execute registered sale deed. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit.

5

4.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are that the plaintiff society has not obtained authorization to represent the society. The plaintiff society failed to furnish the list of members. As per rules and regulations of ULC Act, the members only are competent to claim plots. As per clause-4 of the agreement of sale, both parties agreed that the registration of sale shall be done within six months. The present suit is filed after long lapse of 14 years and so the suit is barred by limitation. As on this date there is no exemption granted by the authority. The vendors of the defendants are the declarants who filed declaration. The plaintiff is never in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit is not maintainable as there is no exemption and the property is vested in the government as on 25.05.1990 as per Gazette Publication No.123 vide Notification

No.C1/307/82 under Section 10 (3) and notice under Section 10 (5). The

Writ petition No.21113/1994 filed by the plaintiff society was dismissed on 01.11.1995 by observing that the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in competent Civil Court and not given any liberty to file civil suit for enforcing agreement of sale dated 24.03.1982. Later a

Review petition in WPMP No.1083/1996 was filed on the ground of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1993 SC 2465 in the

case of Atia Mohammad Bagum Vs. State of U.P., and the said review petition was also dismissed on 08.04.1996 by upholding the order dated 01.11.1995. The plaintiff is aware of Writ petition filed by the defendants questioning the notice issued under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of ULC Act. The Hon’ble High Court has not given any direction to the government for exemption of the lands from the purview of the ULC Act.

The agreement of sale cannot be enforced for want of ULC exemption.

6 There is no signboard at the suit schedule property. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 2465 was overruled and reported in (2002) 1 SCC 227. There is no cause of action. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties as the consenting party in the agreement is not made as party. The government issued G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002 wherein the third parties in occupation are entitled to file an application in respect of surplus land as the property vests with the government under Section 10(3) and free from all encumbrances. In accordance with the said GO, the 2nd defendant has withdrawn Writ petition and filed application and the government allotted the land by collecting fee as mentioned in

G.O.Ms.No.455 and issued G.O.Ms.No.1256. After purchasing the land from the government, these defendants have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of third parties namely Sri C.V.Sandeep

Reddy, S/o.C.V.Subba Reddy, Sri I.B.Kumar, S/o.Late I.S.N.Rao, Sri

M.Rahul S/o.M.V.V.A.Naidu and Sri Y.Nagendernath S/o.Sri Venkat

Nageshwar Rao under registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing

Nos.13959/2007 dated 01.12.2007, 13960/2007 dated 01.12.2007 and 14465/2007 dated 14.12.2007. The plaintiff society is trying to mislead this court. Since 1982 several developments have taken place and the value of the property has cropped up and the rights of third parties are also involved. The defendants denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Basing on the rival contentions this court framed the following issues :

7

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement as prayed for or for alternative relief of damages as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

6.At the event of trial the treasurer of the plaintiff society is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On the other hand the 2nd defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.

7.Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants. Both parties filed written arguments.

8. Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific

performance of agreement as prayed for or for alternative relief

of damages as prayed for ?

9.In this case the plaintiff society sought for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.03.1982 or in alternative for return of Rs.5,000/- together with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.03.1982.

10.The treasurer of the plaintiff society is examined as PW.1.

He reiterated the main contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. He filed certified extract minutes of the managing committee dated 16.10.1996, agreement for sale, dated 24.03.1982, declaration dated 31.12.1982, copy of notice dated 22.01.1994, certified copy of order in

W.P.No.21113/1994, certified copy of order in WPMP. No.1083/1996, copy of legal notice dated 10.12.1994, copy of legal notice dated 04.08.1996, two unserved postal covers, certified copy of decree in OS 8 No.115/1982 and certified copy of order in W.P.NO.1645/1995 and 20090/1994 and they are marked as Exs.A1 to A12.

11.The 2nd defendant is examined as DW.1. She reiterated the main contents of written statement in her chief affidavit. She filed

G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002, certified copy of G.O.Ms.No.1256

dated 04.10.2007, certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable

GPA bearing No.13959/2007 dated 01.12.2007, certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable GPA bearing No.13960/2007 dated 01.12.2007 and certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing

No.14465/2007 dated 14.12.2007 and they are marked as Exs.B1 to B7.

12.The evidence of PW.1 is that the plaintiff-society entered into an agreement of sale with defendants on 24.03.1982 in respect of agricultural land of Ac.2-10 gts., in Sy.No.11 of Guttala Begumpet

Vifllage, Rajendranagar Taluk, R.R.District and paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance sale consideration out of total sale consideration of Rs.42,000/-.

The defendants in their written statement admitted the execution said agreement of sale dated 24.03.1982. The plaintiff filed the said agreement of sale and it is marked as Ex.A2. So there is no dispute between the parties with regard to Ex.A2.

13.The evidence of PW.1 shows that as per clause-7 of agreement of sale, both parties have to take necessary steps for obtaining permissions and clearance from the State government. Upon the applications of both parties, the Special Officer and Competent

Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 recommended to accord permission for exemption from applying the provisions of the Act. The defendants delivered possession to the 9 plaintiff society and it is evident from clause No.6 of agreement of sale.

In January, 1994 the State government issued notice under Section 10 of

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 to the defendants to acquire the suit schedule property. The defendants filed W.P.No.20588 of 1994 challenging the acquisitions by suppressing the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff-society and subsequent proceedings of

Special Officer. The plaintiff-society filed W.P.No.21113/1994 challenging the acquisition of land by the State government and for a direction to grant exemption. The Hob’ble High Court in

W.P.No.21113/1994 held that the provisions of ULC Act is not applicable to the land which was not a part of master plan at the time of commencement of the Act. By this judgment both parties became free from hurdle imposed in clause No.7 of agreement of sale. The plaintiff- society is ready and willing to obtain registered sale deed from the defendants. The evidence of DW.1 shows that the Special Officer recommended for exemption, but the State government has not granted any permission and it is known to the plaintiff-society. The government issued notice under Section 10 (5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and

Regulation) Act 1976. They (defendants) preferred W.P.No.20588/1994 challenging the said notice. The State government issued

G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 and they (defendants) have withdrawn the said Writ petition. Upon their (defendants) application, the State government collected fee and issued G.O.Ms.No.1256 dated 04.10.2007 and allotted the land. They filed G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29.07.2002 and certified copy of G.O.Ms.No.1256 dated 04.10.2007 and they are marked as Exs.B1 & B2. After purchasing the land from the government they (defendants) have alienated the suit property to Sri C.V.Sandeep Reddy, 10 Sri I.B.Kumar, Sri M.Rahul and Sri Y.Nagendranath under registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA documents bearing Nos.13959/2007 dated 01.12.2007, 13960/2007 dated 01.12.2007 and 14465/2007 dated 14.12.2007. They filed certified copies of the said documents and they are marked as Exs.B5 to B7. These documents show that the defendants alienated the suit property to third parties in the year 2007.

The Hon’ble of A.P. in W.P.No.21113/1994 observed that the plaintiff is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy. The plaintiff society filed review petition and it was also dismissed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Hon’ble High Court directed the plaintiff to file civil suit by its order in W.P.No.21113/1994, dated 01.11.1995 and so the plaintiff society filed the present suit after giving notice to the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the observation of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., does not give cause of action and does not cover the limitation. As per the agreement of sale clause No.7 permission from the government shall be obtained within 6 months from the date of agreement of sale. The agreement of sale was executed on 24.03.1982. The present suit is filed in the year 1996 after lapse of 14 years. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants are not allowed to take advantage of change in the legal position as pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., on 01.11.1995 following the decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 2465. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2002 (1) SCC 217 in the case of State of A.P., and others Vs. N.Adikesava Reddy, observed that the case reported in

AIR 1993 SC 2465 is not a good law. The government took over the possession of suit property from the defendants. The defendants paid 11 requisite fees and got allotted the land in their favour. In 2007 the defendants alienated the suit schedule property in favour of third parties under Exs.B5 to B7. Therefore the defendants were parted with the suit schedule property in the year 2007. Since 1982 the land cost has been increased considerably and many changes have been taken place and the defendants purchased property from the government by paying

Rs.7,14,000/- and the defendants alienated the property to third parties.

In view of these facts and circumstances, I am of considered opinion that granting specific performance would become hardship to the defendants and third parties who purchased the property by investing huge amount.

The defendants admitted that they have received Rs.5,000/- under

Ex.A2. The plaintiffs have claimed in alternative, return of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.03.1982. The plaintiff-society is entitled for return of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.03.1982 from the defendants till the date of payment. In view of my detailed discussion, I hold that the plaintiff-society is not entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.03.1982, but is entitled for return of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.03.1982 from the defendants till the date of payment. The issue

No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Issue No.2: To what relief ?

15.In view of my finding on issue No.1, I hold that the plaintiff- society is not entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 24.03.1982, but is entitled for return of Rs.5,000/- with interest @

20% per annum from 24.03.1982 from the defendants till the date of payment. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

12

16.In the result, suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly. The claim of the plaintiff-society in respect of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.03.1982 is hereby dismissed. The defendants are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff-society with interest @ 20% per annum from 24.03.1982 till the date of payment.

Typed by Personal Assistant to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 25 th day of April, 2013.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff:

PW.1: V.Venkaiah

Defendants:

DW.1: Smt. Seshanjali

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:

ExA1: Certified extract the minutes of the managing committee meeting

dated 16.10.1996.

Ex.A2: Agreement of sale, dated 24.03.1982.

Ex.A3: Copy of declaration, dated 31.12.1982.

Ex.A4: Copy of notice, dated 22.01.1994.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of order in W.P.No.21113/1994 of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of order in WPMP. No.1083/1996 of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

Ex.A7: Copy of legal notice, dated 10.12.1994.

Ex.A8: Copy of legal notice, dated 04.08.1996.

Ex.A9 & P10: Two unserved postal covers.

Ex.A11: Certified copy of decree in OS No.115/1982.

Ex.A12: Certified copy of order in W.P.NO.1645/1995 and 20090/1994 of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

13 Defendants:

Ex.B1: G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002.

Ex.B2: Attested copy of G.O.Ms.No.1256, dated 04.10.2007.

Ex.B3: Attested copy of endorsement, dated 06.10.2007.

Ex.B4:Xerox copy of order in Writ petition No.20588/1994,

dated 22.12.2005.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable GPA bearing No.13959/2007 dated 01.12.2007.

Ex.B6: Certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable GPA bearing No.13960/2007 dated 01.12.2007.

Ex.B7:Certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-GPA bearing No.14465/2007 dated 14.12.2007.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : SRI K.S.RAMA KRISHNA RAO, B.Com. B.L.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

WEDNESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

O.S. No.2000 of 2003

Between:

1. S.Balaiah @ Kummari Balaiah, S/o.Late Mankaiah, Aged 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. S.Pochaiah @ Kummari Pochaiah, S/o.Late Mankaiah, Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. S.Ramulu @ Kummari Ramulu, S/o.Late Mankaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o.Mutvelligudem village, H/o.Kashivani Singaram Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Plaintiffs

And

1.Gaddam Sathaiah (died), S/o.Ramulu, Aged 80 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Gaddam Sathemma, W/o.Late G.Sathaiah, Aged 75 years, Occ: Household,

3.Gaddam Narsimha, S/o. Late G.Sathaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.Gaddam Kistayya (died), S/o. Late G.Sathaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5.G.Manemma, W/o. Late Narayana, Aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife,

6.G.Paramesh, S/o. Late Narayana, Aged 23 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

7.G.Vijay, S/o. Late Narayana, Aged 20 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

8.G.Rajitha, D/o. Late Narayana, Aged 18 years, Occ: Housewife,

All are R/o.Mutvelligudem village, H/o.Kashivani Singaram Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

... Defendants

2

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.N.Jagan Reddy, advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri K.Janardhan Reddy, advocate for defendants and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

1. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs are brothers and sons of S.Mankaiah alias Kummari Mankaiah. The plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of agriculture land of Ac.2-36 gts each admeasuring Ac.8-28 gts in Sy.No.1 of Muthvelli gudem village,

Ghatkesar Mandal. It is described as suit schedule property. During the lifetime, their father cultivated the suit property and his name was shown in revenue records. The plaintiffs got divided the suit property and acquired

Ac.2-36 gts each and got mutated their names and obtained pattedar pass book and title deeds. The defendant was co-owner of said survey number and he sold his entire share to various persons. In the month of July 2003, the defendant and his three sons tried to trespass the suit property alleging that they had 20 guntas and tried to dig pits to separate the piece of land.

The defendant filed a petition before RDO and the plaintiffs appeared before

RDO and filed their counter. On 26.11.2003 and 29.11.2003, the defendant tried to occupy the suit property but the plaintiffs resisted him. The defendant threatened the plaintiffs and so the plaintiffs filed this suit.

2. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 are that the plaintiffs are not absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule 3 property. It is not their ancestral property. The defendant sold some extent in Sy.No.1 to third parties and he never sold any piece of land to plaintiffs or A.Pentaiah and others. The defendant denied interference as alleged by the plaintiffs. Originally, Syed Ali Hyder, S/o.Abdul Quader

Sahab was pattedar of land in Sy.No.1 of Muthvalliguda village to an extent of Ac.21-05 gts. About 70 years ago the defendant had taken the agriculture land for cultivation on Batai basis from the original pattedar.

His name was recorded as tenant. The revenue authorities mutated his name as protected tenant and issued 38E protected tenancy certificate vide certificate No.H/2337/65 dated 3.5.1966. The said certificate was mutated in proceedings No.A8/534/69 dated 16.4.1971. The name of this defendant was reflected in P.T.Register, Khasra pahani and chowpasla and also pahanies upto 1999. The MRO surprisingly issued proceedings

NO.B2/4038/2003 dated 16.6.2003. The defendant is absolute owner and possessor of property covered under tenancy certificate. The plaintiffs got entered their names in pattedar pass books and title deeds illegally. The defendant approached RDO and the plaintiffs appeared in the said appeal.

Without filing counter in the said appeal the plaintiffs filed the present suit.

The defendant denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. Basing on rival contentions, this court framed following issues.

1) Whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

4) During the course of trial, the defendant died and consequently the defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 8 were brought on record. They filed additional 4 written statement stating that the defendant No.4 died on 4.10.2009 and hence the suit against dead person is nullity. The plaintiffs are no way concerned with suit schedule property and there is no cause of action against these defendants. The defendants being successors of deceased defendant have been enjoying the suit schedule property. The defendants denied other allegations and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5) No additional issues are framed as already framed issues are sufficient.

6) At the event of trial, PW.1 to 4 are examined and Ex.A1 to A25 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, DW.1 is examined and

Ex.B1 to B24 are marked on behalf of the defendants.

7) Heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiffs. The defendants failed to address their arguments and hence their arguments are treated to be heard.

8) Since the issue Nos.1 & 2 are interrelated, they are clubbed together.

9) Issue Nos.1 & 2: Whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of suit schedule property and whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

10) In this case, the plaintiffs sought for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of Ac.8-28 gts in Sy.No.1 of Muthvelligudem village.

Originally, the suit was filed against sole defendant. In the course of trial, the sole defendant died and consequently the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 8 were brought on record as legal representatives.

11)The plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the main contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. He filed copy of Hon'ble High Court order dated 12.04.2005 in W.P.No.8117/2005, notice dated 7.4.2005, copy of petition, office copy of appeal, certified copy of sale deed dated 5 29.1.1991, copies of pahanies and photographs with negatives and they are marked as Ex.A1 to A15.

12) The plaintiff No.3 is examined as PW.2 and he reiterated the main contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. The evidence of PW.3 shows that the defendant and plaintiffs' father used to cultivate Sy.No.1 and the defendant sold his share of land to various people. The plaintiffs got partitioned the land and acquired Ac.2-36 gts each. About six years ago there was a small galata in which the defendant claimed 20 guntas.

13)The plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW.4 and he reiterated the main contents of plaint in his chief affidavit. He filed electricity pass book, rythuvari pass books, letter dated 12.4.2004, khasra pahani, part one tenancy and pahanies and they are marked as Ex.A16 to A25.

14)The defendant No.3 is examined as DW.1. He reiterated the main contents of written statement in his chief affidavit. He filed final agriculture tenancy record, pahanies, certified copy of order dated 12.1.2005, two memos issued by Dy.Tahasildar, true copy of certificate, two memos issued by MRO and copy of letter and they are marked as Ex.B1 to B24. After marking these exhibits, the DW.1 failed to turn up for cross examination.

Hence, his evidence remained untested by cross examination due to the non appearance of DW.1.

15) The plaintiffs claimed perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of Ac.8-28 gts in Sy.No.1 of Muthvelligudem village. According to them each plaintiff has Ac.2-36 gts total admeasuring Ac.8-28 gts.

Therefore it is for the plaintiffs to prove their possession over suit schedule property. Originally, the suit was filed against sole defendant and he filed written statement stating that he was protected tenant of Ac.21-05 gts in

Sy.No.1 and he obtained tenancy certificate under Section 38 E from Sub 6 Collector, Hyderabad and the plaintiffs illegally obtained pattedar pass books and title deeds in respect of suit schedule property and he (defendant) preferred appeal before the RDO and the plaintiffs without filing their counter in the said appeal filed the present suit to grab his (defendant) land. After closure of plaintiffs evidence, the sole defendant died and consequently the defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 8 were brought on record.

They also filed written statement stating that they have been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owners as they are successors of defendant No.1.

16) The evidence of PW.1, PW.2 & PW.4 shows that they are real brothers and sons of Shetty Pally Mankaiah alias Kummari Mankaiah. The suit schedule property is their ancestral property. During the lifetime of their father he cultivated the land along with the defendant for their respective shares.

After death of their father they succeeded the suit schedule property and divided and each got Ac.2-36 gts. They got mutated their names in revenue records and got pattedar pass books and title deeds for their respective shares. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant and his sons tried to interfere with their possession over the suit schedule property. So, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of cause of action and as on the date of filing of the suit. This suit is filed in 2003. The PW.1, 2 & 4 filed pahani for the year 2002-03 and it is marked as Ex.A14. It shows that PW.1, 2 & 4 are pattedars and enjoyers for their respective share of Ac.2-36 gts. This pahani categorically show that PW.1, 2 & 4 are in possession for the year 2002-03 in respect of suit schedule property. They also filed pahanies for the year 1978-79 and 1982-83 and they are marked as Ex.A12 & A13. They show that PW.1, 2 & 4 were in possession of their respective shares of Ac.2- 7 36 gts each for the years 1978-79 & 1982-83. They also filed three rythu pass books and they are marked as Ex.A17 to A19 and they show that

PW.1, 2 & 4 were occupiers of Ac.2-36 gts in Sy.No.1. The PW.1, 2 & 4 filed copies of pahanies for the years and they show that their father cultivated the land along with defendant No.1. The contention of plaintiffs is that the revenue official deleted the name of defendant. They filed Part I tenancy and it is marked as Ex.A22. It shows that the protected tenant surrendered

P.T.rights in favour of present pattedars, hence the name of P.T is deleted in the P.T register. The Ex.A12 to A14 categorically show that plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property. The deceased defendant No.1 and the present defendants No.2, 3, 5 to 8 filed their written statement claiming their right and possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant

No.3 filed his chief affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B24. However, he did not turn up to face cross examination. Therefore, his chief evidence remained untested by cross examination. By own fault of DW.1, his chief evidence was not tested by cross examination. The DW.1 failed to turn up for cross examination despite sufficient time. The chief evidence untested by cross examination is no evidence in the eyes of law and therefore it is not considered. The learned counsel for the defendants cross examined

PW.1 to 4 at length and in depth touching various aspects connecting to the defense of the defendants but it has not been disturbed with regard to possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Strictly speaking there is no evidence either oral or documentary introduced by the defendants. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.A12 to A14,

A17 to A19 categorically show that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit schedule property. Further the evidence of PW.1, 2 & 4 shows that the defendant and his sons interfered with the suit schedule property in 8 the month of July 2003 and November 2003. The defendants are also claiming their right and possession over the suit schedule property.

However, they failed to adduce their evidence though their counsel cross examined PW.1 to 4. After examining the evidence on record, I am of considered opinion that defendant No.1 and his sons interfered with the suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs proved their possession and interference by the defendants, they are entitled for perpetual injunction.

The issue No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs.

17)Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 & 2, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. The issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

18)In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed without costs and the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 to 8, their family members, agents, servants are hereby restrained permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

The case against defendant No.4 is dismissed as abated.

Typed by P.A., to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of January, 2012.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs. Defendant. PW.1: S.BalaiahDW.1: G.Narsimha PW.2: S.Ramulu PW.3: A.Chinnapentaiah PW.4: S.Pochaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1Order in W.P.No.8117/2005Ex.B1Final agriculture tenancy record Ex.A2Notice dt.7.4.2005 issued by Ex.B2Pahani for the year 1950-51 & 1953 Tahasildar Ex.A3Copy of petition in Case Ex.3Pahani for the year 1954-55 No.A2/2809/2003 Ex.A4Copy of revision in Ex.B4Pahani for the year 1974-75 Revision/appeal NO.D5/2175/2005 Ex.A5Certified copy of sale deed Ex.B5Pahani for the year 1984-85 bearing No.579/1991 dt.29.1.1991 Ex.A6Pahani Ex.B6Pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.A7Pahani for year 1961-962Ex.B7Pahani for the year 1991-92 Ex.A8Pahani for year 1959-60Ex.B8Pahani for the year 1992-93 Ex.A9Pahani for year 1967-68Ex.B9Pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex.A10Pahani for year 1971-72Ex.B10Pahani for the year 1994-95 Ex.A11Pahani for year 1975-76Ex.B11Pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.A12Pahani for year 1978-79Ex.B12Pahani for the year 1996-97 Ex.A13Pahani for year 1982-83Ex.B13Pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.A14Pahani for year 2002-03Ex.B14Pahani for the year 1998-99 Ex.A15Bunch of photographs with Ex.B15Pahani for the year 1999-2000 negatives Ex.A16Electricity pass bookEx.B16Pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A17Rythu pass bookEx.B17Pahani for the year 2003-04 10 Ex.A18Rythu pass bookEx.B18Certified copy of order dt.12.1.2005 Ex.A19Rythu pass bookEx.B19Memo issued by Dy.Tahasildar dt.1.10.2004 Ex.A20Letter issued by Ghatkesar Ex.B20Memo issued by Dy.Tahasildar Farmers Service Co-op Society dt.1.10.2004 Ltd., dt.12.4.2004 Ex.A21Khasra pahani for the year Ex.B21True copy of certificate 1954-55 Ex.A22Part I tenancy certificateEx.B22Memo issued by MRO dt.14.3.2005 Ex.A23Pahani for the years 1955-56 to Ex.B23Memo dt.16.4.1971 issued by 1957-58Tahasildar Ex.A24Pahani for the year 1958-59Ex.B24True copy of letter dt.19.10.2005 Ex.A25Pahani for the year 1960-61

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.