P a g e | 1
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):
VUYYURU:
Present: SRI KANTIPUDI SRIHARI,
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vuyyuru.
Thursday, on this the 06th day of May, 2026
O.S.No.22/2020
Between:
Rajulapati Yedukondalu, S/o.Radha Krishna, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o.D.no.7-43, Tammineedu village, Pedapadu mandal, West Godavari District. …Plaintiff.
AND
(1) Syed Rahullah, S/o.Fareed, Muslim, aged about 61 years, R/o.D.No.8-275, Hanuman Junction village, Bapulapadu mandal, Krishna District.
(2) Syed Razia Begum, W/o.Syed Rahullah, Muslim, aged about 56 years, R/o.D.No.8-275, Hanuman Junction village, Bapulapadu mandal, Krishna District.
(3) Syed Hakeem, S/o.Syed Rahullah, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o.D.No.8-275, Hanuman Junction village, Bapulapadu mandal, Krishna District.
…Defendants. (4) Syed Hakeem, S/o.Mahaboob Ali, Muslim, aged about 40 years, R/o.D.No.3-104, Gudivada Town, Gudivada, Krishna District.
This Suit has come up before me on 16.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Suresh, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri T.Chanti Babu, Advocate for defendant No.4 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 set exparte, and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
P a g e | 2
SUIT PRAYER
(1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to cancel the registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.4.
2. PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY:
2.1) An extent of Ac.0-40 ½ cents of land situated in R.S.No.4/12, situated at Fathelanka Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal (hereinafter called as ‘plaint schedule property’ for brevity)
3. PLAINTIFF’S CASE:
3.1) The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property of Ac.0.47 cents from defendant Nos.1 and 3, by way of registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011 under Document No. 4027/2011. From the date of the said sale, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff chosen to get financial loan and then he came to know that the plaint schedule property is in favour of the defendant No. 4. Later the plaintiff came to know that all the defendants colluded with each other, suppressed the civil litigation and executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
3.2) The plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed an unregistered sale agreement in favour of defendant No. 4 for an amount of ₹ 2,00,000. He also came to know that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed the agreement for sale without passing any consideration. Thereafter, all the defendants colluded with each other, got filed a Civil Suit in OS No. 259/2008 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Gudiwada. Defendant No. 4 obtained a fraudulent decree by suppressing the facts, filed an execution petition in EP
No. 67/2013 and obtained a registered sale deed for an extent of Ac.0.62 cents on 15.09.2018.
P a g e | 3 3.3) After knowing about the registered sale deed in favour of defendant
No.4, the plaintiff approached all the defendants and questioned them by claiming his rights by virtue of his registered sale deed. The plaintiff also sold away and extent of 121 square yards in favour of Abdul Shama Begum on 07.04.2017 and an extent of 193 square yards to one Saka Krishna Murthy on 27.7.2018. All the defendants threatened the plaintiff, they demanded the plaintiff to alienate the plaint schedule property to any third parties so as to cause multiple litigation. The defendant No. 4, with an evil intention, suppressed and managed the encumbrance certificate by deleting the name of the plaintiff and got obtained the registered sale deed in his favour through the court.
Hence, the suit for declaration and also to cancel the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 4.
4. DEFENDANT’S CASE:
4.1) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were set ex parte and defendant No. 4 filed his written statement.
4.2) All the allegations made in the plaint are absolutely false. The fourth defendant filed a civil suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in OS No. 259/2008 on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada based on the agreement for sale dated 04.05.2007. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, clandestinely, with a deceitful intention, in collusion with the plaintiff, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff so as to avoid defendant No. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 strongly contested in the suit filed by the defendant No. 4 and Hon'ble Court decided the suit on merits. The registered sale deed executed through court of law is valid and binding on the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The alleged Registered sale deed
dated 15.09.2011 in the name of the plaintiff is subsequent to the agreement
for sale dated 04.05.2007. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold away the disputed property in the name of defendant No. 4 and thereafter the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is not valid and binding on defendant No.
4. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 brought the registered sale deed dated
P a g e | 4 15.09.2011 and filed the present suit to defeat the rights of defendant No.4 and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. ISSUES:
5.1) Based on the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of sale deed as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
6. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
6.1) The plaintiff-Rajulapati Yedukondalu is examined as P.W1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the bunch of land revenue receipts for the faslis 1421 to 1426 for the survey No.4/12. Ex.A2 is the registered sale deed dated 28.03.2018. Ex.A3 is the registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011.
6.2) After completion of plaintiff’s side evidence, the 4th defendant-Syed
Hakim is examined as D.W1 and marked Ex.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed dated 28.03.2018. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of order in
E.P.67/2013. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of affidavit, petition and docket orders
in E.A.No.16/2023 in E.P.No.67/2013 in O.S.No.259/2008. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of decree dated 18.07.2012 in O.S.No.259/2008 on the file of
Honourable Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudiwada. Ex.B5 is the certified copy
of delivery receipt in E.A.No.16/2023 in E.P.No.67/2013 in O.S.No.259/2008.
Ex.B6 is the certified copy of delivery warrant in E.A.No.16/2023 in
E.P.No.67/2013 in O.S.No.259/2008.
P a g e | 5 6.3) Basing on the pleadings supported by the evidence adduced on both sides, learned counsel for both sides advanced their respective contentions.
Learned counsel for both sides also submitted written arguments.
7) ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
a) Defendants 1 to 3 firstly entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 09.04.2005 in respect of the plaint schedule property which reflected in Ex.A3 registered sale deed.
b) Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed a registered sale deed
Ex.A3 on 15.09.2011 in favour of the plaintiff. From the date of registered sale deed/Ex.A3 the plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property, has been paying land revenue under
Ex.A1. Therefore, the plaintiff clearly established his title and possession over the property.
c) After obtaining valid title through the registered sale deed, the plaintiff sold away certain portions of the property to third parties through registered sale deeds in the years 2017 and 2018. The said transactions clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff has been exercising absolute ownership rights over the property.
d) The plaintiff retained Ac.0.40 ½ cents and the same is the plaint schedule property. The remaining land of Ac.0.21 ½ cents is in possession of third parties. The 4th defendant never questioned or challenged the sale deeds executed in favour of those third parties. Therefore, the 4th defendant has no genuine claim over the plaint schedule property.
e) The claim of the 4th defendant is based on the alleged agreement for sale deed dated 04.07.2007 said to have been executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. Based on the said agreement, defendant No.4 filed
O.S.No.259/2008 for specific performance of contract and subsequently
a decree was passed. Thereafter E.P.No.67/2013 was filed, a registered sale deed was executed. However, the said sale deed is not binding on
P a g e | 6 the plaintiff as he is not at all party to the said suit and execution proceedings.
f) The defendant No.4 as D.W1 admitted that he has no receipt for the payment of Rs.1,90,000/-, no bank statement or document is filed to prove payment of consideration. He further admitted that he do not verify properly about earlier transactions and he do not know about the sale in the year 2011. He further admitted that he never issued any third parties who purchased the lands in the year 2017 and 2018. The defendant No.4 never filed any suit against third party purchasers, he filed the execution petition in the year 2023 and never paid any property tax. The said admissions clearly go to show that the claim of the 4th defendant is baseless and unsupported by his evidence.
g) The sale to the plaintiff is prior to the sale to defendant No.4 and the right of the plaintiff originates from 09.04.2005 the agreement for sale and the registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011 (Ex.A3). Therefore, the prior registered title prevails over subsequent claims and hence the sale deed of defendant No.4 through Court in the year 2018 cannot override the title of the plaintiff.
h) The 4th defendant filed the suit in the year 2008 and not made the plaintiff as party to the suit despite the fact that he plaintiff was in possession and had an earlier agreement. The registered sale deed of the plaintiff was reflected in the encumbrance certificate and therefore, the defendant
No.4 suppressed the material facts and obtained collusive decree.
i)The defendant Nos.1 to 3 not contested the suit filed by 4th defendant which clearly indicates that they both are colluded together. Therefore, the decree obtained by defendant No.4 cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff.
j)The defendant No.4 remains silent from 2011 to 2018 despite the plaintiff’s registered sale deed, he never challenged the plaintiff’s sale deed and never questioned. This conduct itself proves that the 4th defendant is attempting to create false claims over the property.
P a g e | 7
k) The defendant NO.4 fraudulently obtained the decree and hence fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings and prayed to allow the suit.
8) ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT No.4:
a) Pursuant to the decree obtained by 4th defendant, the sale deed dated 15.09.2018 was executed through Court and subsequently the defendant
No.4 came into possession by virtue of E.A.No.16/2023 on 06.07.2024.
Thus, defendant No.4 became the lawful owner of the plaint schedule property.
b) The sale deed dated 15.09.2011 stood in the name of the plaintiff is subsequent to the sale agreement and subsequent to filing of
O.S.No.259/2008 and hence the said sale deed is not binding.
c) The plaint schedule property of Ac.0.47 cents is different from his pleadings and the plaintiff failed to file the alleged subsequent sale deeds and the plaintiff failed to bring those subsequent purchasers and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
d) The plaintiff failed to plead about the alleged agreement for sale dated 09.04.2005 and hence the contention without pleading is not tenable.
e) The plaintiff also failed to file the alleged agreement for sale dated 09.04.2005 and even P.W1 do not speak about the alleged agreement of sale.
f) The defendant Nos.1 to 3 not supported the case of the plaintiff as they are colluded with the plaintiff and created second round of litigation by challenging the decree. The decree is binding on defendants 1 to 3 and hence they intentionally not attended the Court.
g) The presumption under Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act supports the plea of the defendant No.4.
h) The plaintiff failed to establish his lawful title and possession over the plaint schedule property, on the other hand, defendant No.4 proved his title.
P a g e | 8
i)The revenue authorities also not identified the possession of the plaintiff, clearly goes to show that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 collusively created Ex.A3 sale deed.
j)The alleged admissions of D.W1 are not at all supported the case of the plaintiff and not at all relevant to decide the present issues.
k) The decree obtained by the defendant No.4 is genuine and the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant No.4 is obtained by playing fraud on the plaintiff and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
9) ISSUE No.1:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property?
10) POINTS TO BE DECIDED:
10.1) On perusal of the pleadings, on scrutiny of the oral evidence adduced by both the parties, on careful perusal of the documents submitted by both the parties and after hearing arguments on both sides, the followings points are to be decided so as to conclude issue No.1.
A) Whether the agreement of sale dated 09.04.2005 alleged to be entered by defendant Nos.1 to 3 with the plaintiff is true, valid and supported by consideration? If so, whether the said agreement is binding on defendant No.4?
B) Whether the subsequent sales made by the plaintiff in the years 2017 and 2018 are true, valid and binding on defendant No.4?
C) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of agreement of sale dated 09.04.2005?
D) Whether the revenue authorities identified the possession of the plaintiff?
P a g e | 9
E) Whether the registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011(Ex.A3) is hit by any law?
11) POINT No.(A) 11.1) Learned counsel for the plaintiff, firstly, argued that he entered into an agreement for sale on dated 09.04.2005. He further contended that the said agreement of sale is mentioned in Ex.A3 registered sale deed. By raising such a plea the case of the plaintiff would disclose that his agreement is long prior to the agreement of sale than that of defendant No.4.
11.2) But, on perusal of the pleadings, the plaintiff never pleaded about the said agreement dated 09.04.2005. The plaintiff as P.W1 also never deposed about the alleged agreement. The plaintiff also failed to place such agreement dated 09.04.2005. The plaintiff as P.W1 deposed that he purchased the plaint schedule property by way of sale deed dated 15.09.2011 and got marked Ex.A3 the original registered sale deed. On perusal of the registered sale deed Ex.A3 speaks the agreement for sale dated 09.04.2005. Per contra, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for defendant No.4 is that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 colluded and brought the suit to gain wrongfully. In those circumstances, the burden is on the plaintiff to bring the alleged agreement. If really such agreement is in existence, he would have pleaded in the plaint. The plaintiff, if entered into such an agreement, he ought to have deposed and file such an agreement. Mere averment in the sale deed is not enough, but for pleading and evidence. The plaintiff cannot raise such plea belatedly and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff has no legs to stand.
In support of it, the plaintiff as P.W-1 in his cross-examination states that no such agreement is entered prior to the registered sale deed. Accordingly, the plea of entering into an agreement is not trustworthy.
11.3) In the cross-examination, P.W1, the plaintiff, states that he never resided in Fathelanka, where the plaint schedule property is situated. He further
P a g e | 10 speaks that he cannot say the date of consideration under the agreement. He further admits that he did not pay the consideration on the date of registration of the alleged sale deed. He further admits that there is no mention about the agreement in the registered sale deed. It is further surprised that P.W1 admitted that he did not enter any agreement for sale prior to the registered sale deed.
Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 clearly goes to show that he is a name lender and he do not know about the alleged agreement as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
11.4) With the above observations and reasons mentioned supra, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the agreement for sale dated 09.04.2005 allegedly executed by defendants 1 to 3 is not true and correct and the same is not binding on the defendant No.4.
12) POINT No.B:
12.1) It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.47 cents, then he sold away an extent of 121 square yards to one Abdul Shama
Begum on 07.04.2017 and also sold away an extent of 193 square yards on 27.07.2018 to Saka Krishna Murthy. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant No.4 that all the alleged sales are false and collusive in nature and vehemently contended that no such sales are made and if any such sales made behind the Civil Court proceedings, the same are not valid.
12.2) The plaintiff pleading shows that he sold away two pieces of land, for an extent of 121 square yards and 193 square yards out of Ac.47 cents, to two persons. But, the plaintiff failed to file such documents. Except the pleading and oral evidence, the plaintiff failed to place any documents. The alleged sales made by the plaintiff are subsequent to the filing of O.S.No.259/2008. Further, the defendant No.4 is also not party to the alleged sales made by the plaintiff.
The defendant No.4 as D.W-1 in his cross-examination admitted that he do not know when the said sales were made and to whom. Therefore, defendant No.4
P a g e | 11 has no knowledge about the alleged sale made by the plaintiff. As stated supra, the alleged sales are made pending the suit proceedings in O.S.No.259/2008 and hence the same is not valid and not binding on defendant No.4.
12.3) In all these circumstances, the sales, if any made by the plaintiff, in favour of Abdul Shama Begum on 07.04.2017 and in favour of Saka Krishna
Murthy on 27.07.2018 are not trustworthy, not binding on defendant No.4 and hence this point is answered against the plaintiff.
13) POINT No.C:
13.1) It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property after the sale deed
dated 15.09.2011. It is the case of the defendant No.4 is that the said sale deed
dated 15.09.2011 is not valid and the plaintiff never in possession over the plaint
schedule property. This point is restricted only in respect of possession of the plaintiff. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff as P.W1 deposed that he has been in possession since 15.09.2011 and relied on Ex.A3 registered sale deed.
As per Ex.A3 registered sale deed, defendant Nos.1 and 3 executed the sale deed and made certain declarations under sale deed. One of such declarations are that there are no pending Court proceedings. But, admittedly by the date of Ex.A3 sale deed O.S.No.259/2008 was pending and defendant Nos.1 to 3 got complete knowledge about the same.
13.2) In order to show his possession, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 the tax receipt. Ex.A1 is issued in the name of the plaintiff on 14.02.2017. By that date, the suit in O.S.No.259/2008 is pending. Further Ex.A1 issued for the payment of taxes for fasali years from 1421 to 1426 i.e., from 2011 to 2016. Ex.A1 document merely shows that the plaintiff paid land revenue on 14.02.2017 for the years from 2011 to 2016 for the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to
Ex.A1 revenue receipt, the plaintiff stated to be sold some of the extent out of
Ac.0.47 cents. However, payment of land revenue does not mean that he has
P a g e | 12 been in continuous possession from Ex.A3 to till date. In order to prove his possession, no other witnesses were also examined. The plaintiff as P.W-1 admitted, in his cross-examination, that he is not residing in Fathelanka, where the plaint schedule property is situated. If really the plaintiff has been enjoying an agricultural land, he ought to have plead what crop has been raising. At least he ought to have examine any neighbouring land owners to show that he has been enjoying the land continuously. No such effort has been made.
Exs.A1 and A3, admittedly, obtained pending the suit proceedings
O.S.No.259/2008 between defendants 1 to 3 and the defendant No.4.
Therefore, the said documents do not establish the possession of the plaintiff.
During the course of arguments, the plaintiff contends that he has been in possession from the date of agreement dated 09.04.2005. As discussed supra, without pleading and evidence, the argument cannot be considered. However, the plaintiff not placed any document to show his possession from 09.04.2005.
The plaintiff as P.W1 also does not know whether the possession of the plaint schedule property is handed over to the defendant No.4 through Court.
Accordingly, the contention of the plaintiff, that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, has no force.
13.3) With the above observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of alleged agreement of sale dated 09.04.2005. Accordingly, this point is answered against the plaintiff.
14) POINT No.D:
14.1) It is the case of the plaintiff that the revenue authorities identified his possession over the plaint schedule property. In order to show his case, the plaintiff relied on his own oral evidence and Ex.A1 land revenue receipt. If really the revenue authorities identified his possession, they ought to have issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the plaint schedule property is an agricultural land. If really his
P a g e | 13 possession is identified, the plaintiff ought to have file Form 1-B register showing his name corresponding to the plaint schedule property. The revenue people, if identified, they would have issued concerned revenue record. Mere issuance of a land revenue receipt by Village Revenue Officer does not mean that they identified the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff has no legs to stand and accordingly this point is answered against to the plaintiff.
15) POINT No.E:
15.1) It is the case of the defendant No.4 that the registered sale deed
Ex.A3 is not valid as per law. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011 executed by defendants 1 and 3. The plaintiff in his evidence as
P.W1 reiterated the same and got marked Ex.A3 the registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011 under sale deed document No.4027/2011. The registered sale deed shows that the plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.0.47 cents out of
Ac.0.62 cents in R.S.No.4/12 of Pathelanka of Pamidimukkala Mandal.
15.2) On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant No.4 that he purchased an extent of Ac.0.62 cents in R.S.No.4/12 of Pathelanka of
Pamidimukkala Mandal. The evidence of defendant No.4 as D.W1 shows by reiterating the pleading and got marked Ex.B1 the registered sale deed dated 28.03.2018 executed by the Court of Honourable Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Gudivada on behalf of the vendors of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of property of Ac.0.62 cents in R.S.No.4/12 under Ex.B1.
15.3) Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the document obtained by defendant No.4 is a collusive document and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendant No.4 is that defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed an agreement for sale dated 04.05.2007, when
P a g e | 14 defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to come forward to execute a regular sale deed he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.259/2008 and the same was decreed on 18.07.2012.
It is further contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 colluded together and filed the present suit and the same is a second round of litigation against the decree and judgment dated 18.07.2012.
15.4) Undisputedly, defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to contest the present suit. In order to prove his case, the defendant No.4 as D.W1 deposed that defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed an agreement for sale on 04.05.2007 but failed to execute a registered sale deed and hence he filed a suit in O.S.No.259/2008.
He further deposed that the said suit was decreed on 18.07.2012. To substantiate his case, he relied on the decree dated 18.07.2012 and the same is marked as Ex.B4. Ex.B4 decree clearly shows that defendant No.4 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 04.05.2007. Ex.B4 decree further reveals that defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein are directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.4 herein. Further, it is undisputed that no appeal is filed against the said decree and hence the same became final.
15.5) On perusal of Ex.A3 registered sale deed and the decree under
Ex.B4, it came to the light that the registered sale deed Ex.A3 in favour of the plaintiff is executed pending O.S.No.159/2008. Therefore, the sale made under
Ex.A3 is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 52 of the Act states that during pendency of any suit or proceeding, any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred. The vendors of the plaintiff are parties to the suit O.S.No.159/2008.
While the suit is pending, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein transferred part of the schedule property covered in O.S.No.159/2008. Defendants 1 to 3, while executing registered sale deed, declared that there is no Court litigation by the date of execution of sale deed. The said declaration shows that defendants 1 to 3 by suppressing the suit proceedings, executed Ex.A3 registered sale deed.
P a g e | 15
The plaintiff, who is purchaser be aware of the suit proceedings and hence the plaintiff is binding on the decision in O.S.No.159/2008.
15.6) The learned counsel for the defendant No.4 contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 colluded together, got registered a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pending O.S.No.259/2008.
15.7) It is further case of the defendant No.4 that on failure to execute a registered sale deed, he filed an E.P.No.67/2013 for execution of decree dated 18.07.2012 in O.S.No.259/2008. The registered sale deed Ex.B1 is the subsequent document with that of Ex.A3. On perusal of the Ex.B1 registered sale deed, the said registered sale deed is executed by virtue of decree dated 18.07.2012. Therefore, the registered sale deed under Ex.B1 is true, valid and binding on plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. After filing O.S.No.259/2008 against defendant Nos.1 to 3, they are not supposed to execute Ex.A1 registered sale deed. If any such sale is made pending O.S.No.259/2008, the same is subject to the result of the suit. The suit is decreed and directed defendants 1 to 3 herein to execute a regular sale deed confirming the sale made by them in favour of defendant No.4. Therefore, the registered sale deed
Ex.A3 is hit by lispendens.
15.8) Apart from that, the evidence of P.W1 goes to show that the plaintiff do not know about the defendants 1 to 3 and he do not know when he paid the consideration under the alleged sale deed. He also states that he did not pay the sale consideration on the date of alleged sale deed Ex.A3. In these circumstances also the execution of registered sale deed Ex.A3 creates suspicion and the same is doubtful.
15.9) With the above observations and reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011(Ex.A3) is hit by lis pendence.
P a g e | 16 15.10) On perusal of the pleadings, on scrutiny of the oral evidence adduced by both the parties, on careful perusal of the documents submitted by both the parties and after hearing arguments on both sides, all the point Nos.
(1) to (5) are decided against to the plaintiff. The agreement of sale dated 09.04.2005 alleged to be entered by defendant Nos.1 to 3 with the plaintiff is not true and not supported by consideration. The said agreement is not binding on defendant No.4. The subsequent sales made by the plaintiff in the years 2017 and 2018 are not valid and not binding on defendant No.4. The registered sale deed dated 15.09.2011(Ex.A3) is hit by lis pendens and the same is not binding on the defendant No.4. In all these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration as prayed for. Accordingly issue No.(i) is decided against to the plaintiff.
16) ISSUE No.2:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of sale deed as prayed for?
16.1) The plaintiff’s case is that the decree and judgment in
O.S.No.259/2008 and registered sale deed under Ex.B1 is obtained by playing
fraud and the same is collusive in nature and prayed for cancellation of the registered sale deed Ex.B1. The registered sale deed under Ex.B1 is obtained by virtue of decree and judgment in O.S.No.259/2008 (Ex.B4). Admittedly, the registered sale deed is an administrative act followed by the decree and judgment. Therefore, this Court has to see whether the decree and judgment
dated 18.07.2012 in O.S.No.259/2008 is collusive or fraudulent in nature.
16.2) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 3 and defendant
No.4 collusively obtained decree and judgment in O.S.No.259/2008. Whereas it is denied by defendant No.4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff as P.W1 deposed that the defendants 1 to 3 colluded with defendant No.4 and filed a civil suit in O.S.No.259/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
P a g e | 17
Gudivada and obtained a decree in favour of defendant No.4 fraudulently. He also deposed that they also obtained a registered sale deed through Court by filing E.P.No.67/2013. P.W1 deposed that after obtaining the decree and execution of sale deed, he approached all the defendants and questioned them, but all the defendants highhandedly threatened him and demanded huge money.
16.3) The defendants 1 to 3, as stated supra, were set exparte. The defendant No.4 as D.W1 denied the case of the plaintiff and relied on Ex.B4 the decree and judgment in O.S.No.259/2008. As per the decree under Ex.B4, the defendants 1 to 3 herein contested the suit and accordingly decreed the suit.
16.4) Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant No.4 contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 planted plaintiff and created this litigation only to defeat the rights of this defendant. On perusal of cross-examination of P.W-1, who states that he cannot say when the consideration paid under Ex.A3 registered sale deed and he do not pay the consideration on the date of Ex.A3 registered sale deed. He also states that there is no mention about the alleged agreement as contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff. The cross-examination of
P.W1 further reveals that he do not know the transaction between the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.4. Therefore, the pleading of the plaintiff that he went to the defendants 1 to 4, they threatened him etc., facts are all baseless and created for the purpose of filing of the suit. The defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit O.S.No.259/2008, defendant No.4 is successful and secured the decree on 18.07.2012. No appeal also filed against the said decree and hence the judgment and decree in O.S.No.259/2008 became final. Thereafter, the defendant No.4 filed E.P.No.67/2013 for execution of the decree and got the
Ex.B1 registered sale deed through Court. After obtaining Ex.B1 registered sale deed, the defendant No.4 filed E.A.No.16/2023 for possession. Thereafter, by way of warrant of delivery under Ex.B6 the plaint schedule property was delivered on 06.07.2024. If really O.S.No.259/2008 is a collusive suit, the
P a g e | 18 defendant No.4 need not wait for possession of the plaint schedule property till 06.07.2024.
16.5) The other contention of the plaintiff is that defendant No.4 obtained the decree fraudulently. The word ‘Fraud’ is defined in Section 17 of Indian
Contract Act. Fraud means any act committed by a party to a contract or with his connivance or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent or to induce him to enter into the contract. The act of active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact. A promise made without any intention of performing it. Any other act fitted to deceive. Any such act or omission as the law specifically declares to be fraudulent.
16.6) But, the plaintiff failed to establish how he contends the decree is fraudulent nature. As stated supra, in order to prove the fraud, the plaintiff has to establish the intentional deception, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. Whether defendant No.4 designed to play trick on another party or on Court for unfair gain or to cause the plaintiff loss. No such pleading or evidence is placed to prove that the decree obtained by playing fraud.
16.7) In all these circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff, that the decree and judgment in O.S.No.259/2008 is collusive in nature, is baseless and has no merits. The contention of the plaintiff has no legs to stand.Except the pleadings, nothing is placed to establish that defendant No.4 colluded with defendants 1 to 3, filed O.S.No.259/2008. The decree and judgment in
O.S.No.259/2008 is neither collusive nor fraudulent and the defendant No.4
obtained the same as per law. After obtaining decree under Ex.B4, the defendant No.4 filed E.P.No.67/2013 and through Honourable Court the registered sale deed Ex.B1 was obtained. Therefore, this Court do not find any ground to cancel the registered sale deed Ex.B1. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff.
17) ISSUE No.3: To what relief?
P a g e | 19
To what relief?
18) CONCLUSION:
With the above observations and for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration as prayed for and also not entitled for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.03.2018.
In view of the answers for issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit is liable to dismissed.
19. RESULT:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed by me in my personal Laptop, corrected by me and
pronounced by me in the open Court on 07 th day of May, 2026.
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
VUYYURU.
P a g e | 20
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:
PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT:-
P.W.1 : R.YedukondaluD.W.1 : Syed Hakim
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:
PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.A.1 : Dated 14-02-2017 land revenue receipt for the Faslis 1421 to 1426 for the Survey No.4/12.
Ex.A.2 : Dated 28-03-2018 certified copy of Registered Sale Deed
Ex.A.3 : Dated 15.09.2011, original Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.4027/2011
DEFENDANT:-
Ex.B.1 : Dated 28-03-2018, original registered sale deed executed in favor of Hakim.
Ex.B.2 : Dated 31-03-2018 certified copy of order and execution endorsement for registration of a document in EP.67/2013.
Ex.B.3 : Certified copy of affidavit, petition and docket orders in EA.No.16/2023 in EP.No.67/2013 in OS.259/2008.
Ex.B.4 : Dated 18-07-2012 certified copy of decree in OS.259/2008 on the file of Hon’ble Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.
Ex.B.5 : Dated 06-07-2024 certified copy of delivery receipt in EA.No.16/2023 in EP.67/2013 in OS.259/2008.
Ex.B.6 : Dated 28-06-2024 certified copy of delivery warrant in EA.No.16/2023 in EP.No.67/2013 in OS.259/2008.
Sd/-KANTIPUDI SRIHARI,
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
VUYYURU.