O.S.NO. 102/2018 1 Dated : 23-04-2024
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BOBBILI
Present: - Smt. M.Sarojanamma,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili.
Tuesday , this the 23rd day of April, 2024
O.S.NO. 102/2018
Between:
Medisetti Parvathamma, aged 70 years, W/o Late Krishna Rao, resident of Surampeta
Village of Seethanagara Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
.... Plaintiff.
And :
1). Debbeeru Siva Kumar, aged 41 years, S/o Durgaprasad rao, residing in D.No.38- 34-50/1. F.C.I. Colony, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District.
2). Kondabattula Manamadharao, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Sanyasayya, native of Surampeta Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, Presently residing in near Saisaudha
Function Hall, Sakthinagar, YKM Colony, Parvathipuram Municipality. Vizianagaram
District.
3). Palaparthi Sudharshana Rao, aged about 79 years, S/o Late Suryanarayana, presently residing in MIG-1, Plot No.47, Near Fish Market, Pothina Mallayya palem,
Visakhapatnam.
4). Vallanki Roopa, aged 47 years, W/o late Gowrisankara durga varaprasad venkata thavitiraju, native of Chinamerangi, Jiayyamma Valasa Mandal, Presently residing in near District Collector Office, Vizianagaram.
5). Medisetti Venkateswara Rao, aged 53 years, 8/o Late Krishna Rao, working as
Teacher, resident of Surammapeta, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
6). Adapa Vanajakshi, aged 57 years, W/o Nageswara rao, resident of Madhruwada,
Visakhapatnam.
7). Adapa Aruna, aged 55 years, W/o. Manmadharao resident of Aditya Enclave,
VUDA Layout, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.
…. Defendants.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 2 Dated : 23-04-2024
This suit coming on 16-04-2024 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of M.Benarji, Advocate for Plaintiff and of T.Panigrahi, Advocate for
Defendants no. 1 to 3 and of J.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendants no.5 to 7
Defendant no.4 is set exparte and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :
JUDGMENT
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 3: a) Declare that the plaint schedule dry land together with tope standing thereon is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 and the sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by D1 to D2 from plaintiff and from D4 by playing fraud and undue influence and it is not binding on them.b). Consequentially restrain the defendants 1 to 3, their henchmen, their successors in interest and their labour from ever interfering with the er possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property by granting permanent injunction in her favour and against defendants 1 to 3. C).If in any reason, if it is not possible to grant permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 in view of the fraudulent entries in revenue records, alternatively direct the defendants 1 to 3 to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting themselves there from. d) To cancel the sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by D1 and dD2 from plaintiff and D4 to the suit schedule property as it is vitiated by fraud and undue influence. e) To cancel the sale deed dated 21-06-2017 as it is a sham and nominal document and it is created in the name of D3 by D1 and D2 to the suit schedule property collusively. f) For cost of the suit and g) For such other reliefs which the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are –-
That the plaintiff's husband purchased the land an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in
S.No.23/19 together with 22 mango tope with various trees like 22 mango trees, 17 teak trees and Mohwa trees 3 and other countrywood trees 6 Nos. etc., which are more than 30 years aged and which are standing thereon, which is situated within the revenue area of Surampeta Village which is more fully described in the schedule attached to the plaint and it may be read as part of this plaint. The husband of the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule land together with standing trees thereon for the benefit of the joint family with his self earnings who worked as a Railway employee.
The plaintiff’s joint family consisting of her husband, her son by name Medisetti
O.S.NO. 102/2018 3 Dated : 23-04-2024
Venkateswara Rao S/o late Krishna Rao and three daughters by name 1) Adapa
Vanajakshi W/o Nageswara Rao, resident of Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam 2) Adapa
Aruna W/o Manmadha Rao and 3) Vellanki Roopavathi W/o late G.S.D.V.Thaviti Raju of China Merangi who are the children of the said Krishna Rao through the plaintiff who are shown as defendants 4 to 7 and all are jointly enjoying the schedule mentioned property during and after the life time of the said Krishna Rao together with the Mango tope and Teak trees etc., on its hedges and enjoying the fruits of the tope and the plaintiff joint family invested an amount Rs.1,00,000/- for trimming the mango trees for improve its crop. The plaintiff’s husband Krishna Rao died. Intestate by leaving the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 as his class I legal heirs and his entire properties including the schedule mentioned property devolved on them and the plaintiff, the defendants 4 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
While so, the plaintiff who converted into Christian religion along with her daughter Vellanki Roopa i.e., Defendant No.4 and on that ground some bickering taken place in between the joint family members of plaintiff. So the plaintiff had been left from Surammapeta village and went to China Merangi and Parvathipuram to her daughter Roopa’s i.e., 4th defendant’s house and she often came to the joint family house at Surammapeta when the 5th defendant went to Vizag and when he was absent in the house. The defendant No.2 who is resident of Surammapeta village who is the nephew of 3rd defendant and his wife Venkataratnam who are neighbouring owners of the land situated by the side of the lands and tope of the plaintiff’s son Le., 5th defendant which is situated on the Eastern side to the suit Schedule joint family land and tope thereon and having boundary dispute with the 5th defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 having knowledge that the plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs husband for the benefit of the joint family arid the joint family members of the plaintiff, defendant 4 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff schedule land and tope thereon and the entire village including the defendants 1 to 3 having knowledge that the plaintiff schedule tope is joint family property of the plaintiff and her children D4 to D7.
Further submitted that taking the situation that the plaintiff’s old age and her innocence and illiteracy and the family bickering in between the 5th defendant, herself and her daughter ie., 4th defendant as an advantage, the defendants 1 and 2 misrepresented by saying that they wants to construct a church and requested to sell the land covered by S.No. 107/7 an extent of Ac.0-84 cents within the Surammapeta revenue area for the devotional purpose which is near to the college for Rs.2,96,000/-.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 4 Dated : 23-04-2024
The plaintiff and her daughter 4th defendant who are devotees of Jesus Christ not noticed the malafide intention on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 and believed their misrepresentation innocently as genuine and the plaintiff and 4th defendant were put in trance by the defendants 1 and 2 and got them to agree to sell the said land which was bequeathed by the plaintiff’s mother under a registered Will. Under the trance of
Jesus Christ the plaintiff and her daughter 4th defendant not noticed the evil and malafide intention of defendants 1 and 2 and completely they were put in trance at that time, and defendants 1 and 2 obtained the sale deed Dated 27-07-2016 from the plaintiff, and 4th defendant and obtained plaintiff’s thumb impression and signature of 4th defendant without reading and explaining the contents thereon on its schedule and fraudulently and by playing undue influence and cheated the plaintiff and D4 and they got prepared and inserted the land covered by S.No. 23/19 an extent of Ac.0-74 cents instead of the land covered by S.No. 107/7 an extent of Ac.0.84 cents for less value in the said sale deed. The defendant, No.2 who is resident of Surammapeta taken the documents of the plaintiff from her bag and retained some of the documents with him pertaining to the suit schedule land. The plaintiff who is an illiterate not noticed which document he retained and subsequently on verification she found missing of the registered sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule land which is in her name. The defendants 1 and 2 misrepresented the fact and fraudulently obtained the sale deed to the land covered by S.No.23/19 an extent of Ac.0-74 cents instead of the land covered by S.No. 107/7 an extent of Ac.0-84 cents by playing fraud and undue influence against the plaintiff and D4. But no possession was delivered to them to the 1st defendant under the alleged sale deed Dt.27-07-2016. The nature of the property covered by plaint schedule is a mango tope with that trees and other variety of trees existing by the date of said registered sale deed and fraudulently got mentioned as dry land by the defendants 1 and 2 taking advantage of the old age and illiteracy of the plaintiff.
Further submitted that the plaintiff or 4th defendant are not the absolute owners of the property covered by S.No. 23/19 an extent of Ac.0-74 cents in Surammapeta area which is a joint family property and the defendants 5 to 7 who are other joint family members having equal rights in it. The alleged sale deed Dated. 27-07-2016 is not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff or the defendants 4 to 7 and it is also vitiated by fraud and no title or possession conveyed to Defendant No.1 under the alleged sale deed Dt. 27-07-2016. Recently on enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the
Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendants 2 and 3 fraudulently got made erroneous entries in the revenue records without causing any notice to the plaintiff or to the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 5 Dated : 23-04-2024
defendants 4 to 7 who are the other joint family members and they made such fraudulent entries behind the back of the plaintiff, with the help of some of the dishonest revenue officers. The erroneous entries in the revenue records are fraudulent and capricious and they are not binding on the plaintiff or on other joint family members and they are not reflecting real fact or actual physical possession on ground to the schedule mentioned property. Subsequently the plaintiff further came to know that the sale deed obtained by defendants 2 and 3 in the name of defendant
No.1 by playing fraud and undue influence against the plaintiff and defendant No.4 with a malafide intention to use the same against 5 defendant who is the son of plaintiff in the dispute between defendant No.5 and the defendant No.3 and his wife. In fact, the contents got mentioned by the defendants No.1 and 2 in the sale deed Dt.27- 07-2016 in respect of the schedule mentioned land are not true and they are created by defendants No.1 and 2 collusively with D3. Further the schedule land is not a vacant dry land and it is a mango tope with teak trees aged more than 30 years standing on it which is worth more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and no valid sale consideration passed under the alleged sale deed and there is no consus ad idum under it.
Further submitted that the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 15.06.2017 through her advocate to the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants intentionally delayed in receiving the said notice and subsequently, after issuing the said notice by the plaintiff, the defendant No. I created another sale deed dated 21.06.2017 in favour of D3 collusively which is nominal and sham in respect of the suit schedule land in order to trespass into the suit land to disposes the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 who are in actual physical possession of the suit schedule land. The alleged sale deed dated 21.06.2017 is also not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7. The revenue entries made in the name of D1 or D3 are behind the back”of plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 in respect of suit schedule land are fraudulent and capricious and they are not reflect the real physical possession to the suit schedule land. The defendants 1 and 2 got issued reply notice dated 20.07.2017 with untrue allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff necessitated to file the suit for the relief of declaration that the plaint schedule land and the tope thereon is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff along with D4 to D7, and also for cancellation of that the sale deed dated 27.07.2016 is void as it is vitiated by fraud and undue influence and the alleged sale deed dated 21.06.2017 sham and collusive and
O.S.NO. 102/2018 6 Dated : 23-04-2024
created by D1 and D3 and it is not binding on the plaintiff and D4 to D7. Since two days the defendants 1 to 3 proclaiming that they would disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also remove the valuable trees standing thereon. Hence this suit is filed.
3. On receipt of summons, the defendants made their appearance through their counsel and D.3 filed written statements by denying all the material allegations of plaint and same is adopted by the defendants no. 1 and 2 and further contended that the plaintiff and D-4 are not only the absolute owners of the property covered by
S.No.23/19 and that their entire joint family members have equal right and that the sale deed dated. 27.7.2016 is not true, and not binding on the plaintiff and D-4 to 7 and that it is vitiated by fraud and that the plaintiff came to know that D-1 in collusion with D-2 and 3 mutated the revenue records in his favour without notice to the plaintiff or 2-4 to 7 and that the said mutation is not true, and not binding on the plaintiff and that the land mentioned in the sale deed is out a vacant dry land but there are mango and other trees worth more than ten lakhs and that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice Dt.15.5.2017 and the defendants delayed receiving the said notices and that meanwhile created another sale deed in favour of 3 in collusion with a view to tress pass into the plaint schedule land and that the sale deed dated. 21.6.2017 is also not true, valid and and binding on the plaintiff and 4 to 7 and mutation entry in favour of -1 and 3 are also not true and that in anu 2 got issued reply notice with false allegation on 20.7.2017 and that therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit for the reliefs prayed in the plaint are all not true. The allegations in the plaint are created and articulated.
Further submitted that the plaint schedule property had never been purchased by the husband of the plaintiff for the benefit and welfare of the entire joint family of him, but it was purchased by the plaintiff herself vide registered sale deed dated.
01.04.1980. The plaintiff intended to alienate the schedule property for her necessities of discharging debts and represented that she is the absolute owner of the schedule property and she purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.1.4.1980 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and after negotiations the price was settled at Rs 2,96,000/- and the defendant No.1 paid the consideration in cash and got executed the registered sale deed dc.27.7.2016. As the plaintiff did not bring the legible copy of her sale deed, the D-1 insisted 0-4 also to join as executant.
Accordingly D-4 and plaintiff executed the sale deed in favour of D-1. The property was immediately delivered to D-1 and since then D-1 had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, it was sold to D-3. The thoroughly enquired scout
O.S.NO. 102/2018 7 Dated : 23-04-2024
the title of the plaintiff and verified the revenue records and thereafter purchased the schedule property for valid consideration. The plaintiff wanted to sell land of 0-84 cents covered by .No.107/7 at surampeta, but not land covered by S.No.23/19 15 x 5 nothing but falsehood and invented for the purpose of the suit. With a view to play fraud against the 2-1 to and as the court, because 0-30 cents out of 0-84 cents of land in S.No. 107/7 was long back acquired by the Government and compensation was also paid to the plaintiff. Thus the question of the offer by the plaintiff to sell 0-84 cents in the said sale deed does not arise. The will alleged to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff in respect of the land covered by S.No.107/7 is also utter falsehood, the alleged will was executed by Paternal aunt of the plaintiff, bequeathing her plaintiff and her children.
Further submitted that after purchase of the schedule property by D-1 vide sale deed dt. 27.7.2016, his name was mutated and pattadar pass book was issued to him with Unique No.02 EO 8400 5000051 after thorough enquiry and the plaintiff never objected for the same. Similarly subsequent to the sale deed in favour of 2-3 dt.21.6.2017, his name was mutated and he was issued pass book with unique No.02
M08 4 00005000080 for which also the plaintiff has not objected. The son of the plaintiff i.e. 3-5 unlawfully cut down some trees in the land of D2-3 and so D2-3 gave report to the police and then the son of the plaintiff raised a boundary dispute against defendants 2 and 3 by approaching revenue authorities and under those circumstances, the schedule land was surveyed and found that the boundaries are tallied with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and the revenue authorities confirmed that D2-3 is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The plaintiff at one breth claims the relief and declaration and injunction as if she is in possession of the schedule property and on the other berth claims for recovery of possession and thus her pleas are contradictory to one another. The plaintiff and her family members with a view to extract money or grab the property filed this suit speculatively with well articulation, in a cunning matter. Thus the plaintiff came to court with unclean hands, falsely pleading an unbelievable version of trans of Jesus Christ and her conversion to
Christianity. It is submitted that her conversion to Christianity and her faith towards the
Lord Jesus will not make her and her daughter to go into trans and passively execute sale deed. It is nothing but falsehood and no same person will believe such false story.
The D-3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and he has primafacie case as he purchased the property under sale deed for valid consideration and as he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, the balance of convenience is also in his favour. When the land is sold the presumption is that the trees standing on
O.S.NO. 102/2018 8 Dated : 23-04-2024
the land also sold unless otherwise the trees are exempted from sale specifically.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. The D.5 filed written statements by denying all the material allegations of plaint and same is adopted by the defendants no. 6 and 7 and further contended that It is true, this defendant, the defendant No.4, Defendant No.6 and Defendant No.7 are the children of Medisetti Krishna Rao through the plaintiff who is his wife. he admitted, the plaint schedule property is a joint family property of the plaintiff, defendants 4 to 7 and it is purchased during the life time of Medisetti Krishna Rao and the plaint schedule land consisting with Mango, teak, mova trees and country wood trees which is situated within the revenue of Surammapeta Village. Further, admitted, that the joint family of the defendants 4 to 7 and plaintiff are enjoying the plaint schedule land jointly, during and after the life time of Krishna Rao and the plaintiff joint family invested the amount for trimming the mango trees for improve its yielding. It Is also true, that the plaintiff converted into Christian religion along with Defendant No.4 and on that ground some bickering taken place in between their joint family members and the plaintiff left
Surammapeta village from the house of the 5th defendant and went to the house of 4th defendant and she used to come to Surammpeta village often when the 5th defendant absent in the house as and when the 5th defendant went to Vizag. It is also true, that there was a boundary dispute in between the 5th defendant and the defendants 2, 3 and the wife of 3rd defendant who is neighboring land owner to the land and tope of the 5th defendant and the dispute going on since long time.
Further submitted that the plaintiff has no properties or any source of income by the date of her marriage with Krishna Rao. After birth of defendants 4 to 7, the paternal aunt of plaintiff by name Adabala Narasamma W/o Late Appanna of Surammapeta
Village, out of love and affection towards plaintiff and her children ie., defendants 4 to 7, she executed a will dated 26.12.1974 out of her free will and in a sound disposing state of mind and bequeathed her properties in favour of plaintiff and defendants 4 to
7. The said Adabala Narasamma used to stay along with the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7and the father of the defendants 4 to 7 used to manage the entire properties including the properties of Adabala Narasamma and the joint family treated the entire properties as joint family properties. The father of the defendants 4 to 7 also working in Railway Department having his own income and all the income derived from the landed property and the income derived by his salary the father of the defendants 4 to 7 purchased the plaint schedule land together standing tope thereon with variety of trees in the name of the plaintiff for the benefit of the joint family. Thus,
O.S.NO. 102/2018 9 Dated : 23-04-2024
the plaint schedule land and tope thereon is the joint family property and it has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, defendants 4 to 7 during and after the life time of Krishna Rao the father of D4 to D7 and husband of plaintiff. The joint family invested the amounts and developed the tope and its hedges and trimming the mango trees for better yielding and enjoying the crops thereon till to today. The teak trees and other trees aged more than 50 years. The said Adabala Narasamma died in or about 1987 and the will dated 26.12.1974 executed by Adabala Narasamma acted upon and he properties devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 including the plaint schedule property with equal shares and the father of the defendants 4 to 7 also died in the year 2000 intestate by leaving the plaintiff, defendants 4 to 7 as his class-1 heirs and his share in the joint family properties including the plaint schedule property also devolved on the plaintiff, defendants 4 to 7 and thus the the defendants 4 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the all family properties including the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. The plaintiff and another sister 4th defendant Ve
Rupavathi llanki converted into Christian religion and due to the said reason some bickerings täken place in between the joint family members particularly with 5th defendant. So the plaintiff left the house and went to the Chinamerangi to her another daughter Rupa’s house ie., 4th defendant’s house and wherever 4th defendant residing the plaintiff used to stay with her.
Further submitted that while so the defendant No.5 having boundary disputes with defendants 2 and 3 and the wife of defendant No.3 and it was continued till the month of July 2017. The 5th defendant came to know recently that during the said dispute taking advantage of the family bickering, the 2nd and 3rd defendants, who are close relative to each other colluded with D1 and captured the plaintiff and 4th defendant and played fraud against them and created nominal sale deed Dated 27.07.2016 in favour of 1 defendant to the plaint scheduled mentioned joint family property. The alleged sale deed is sham and nominal and no consideration passed under it and the schedule mentioned tope was not put in their possession under the said sale deed and it will not created any right, title and possession to the 1 defendant to the plaint schedule mentioned land and it will not effect the right, title and possession of the defendants 5 to 7 to the plaint schedule property. The alleged sale deed dated 27.07.2016 is not true, valid and binding on the defendants 5 to 7. The plaintiff and the 4 defendant have no right to sell away the plaint schedule property to the 1 defendant as it is joint family property in which the defendants 5 to 7 also having equal shares ie., 3/5th undivided shares and in actual physical possession of the said property and the plaintiff and 4th defendant have no right to sell away the schedule
O.S.NO. 102/2018 10 Dated : 23-04-2024
mentioned property or create any sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. Further the defendants 5 to 7 are still in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute rights. It Is submitted even according to the will dated 26.12.1974, the only property which was devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 is a joint property and the income derived from the said property is only the source to the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 besides the earnings of the father of the defendants 4 to 7 for purchasing the suit schedule property which was purchased in the name of plaintiff for the benefit of joint family members. By the date of the purchase of the plaint schedule property in the name of plaintiff as the defendants 4 to 7 being minors by that time.
Further submitted that the defendants 5 to 7 issued a notice to the 1 defendant and informed that the sale deed dated 27.07.2016 is not true, valid and it is not binding on the defendants 5 to 7 and the plaint schedule property is the joint family property and the defendants 5 to 7 having undivided 3/5 shares in it and they are continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property and their possession was not effected under the alleged sale deed dated 27.07.2016 etc., the defendant No.1 received said notice with untrue allegations and further informed that they obtained pass book and title deeds: that he created a sale deed dated 21.06.2017 in favour of defendant No.3 etc. It is submitted that the defendants 1 to 3 in collusion between them they created alleged sale deed dated 21.06.2017 which is not binding on the defendants 5 to 7. The alleged sale deeds dated 27.07.2016 and 21.06.2017 are not true, valid and they are sham and nominal documents created by the defendants 1 to3 fraudulently. The
Thasildhar never served any notice on the defendants+4 to 5 to 7 when the defendants 1 to 3 said to have been filed any application and no enquiry was conducted and any such entries made in the revenue records by the Thasildhar,
Seethanagaram are fraudulent and surreptitious and they will not reflect actual physical possession of the defendants 1 to 3 to the plaint schedule property and the defendants 5 to 7 only in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the alleged entries in revenue records are not binding on the defendants 5 to 7 and the alleged entries in revenue records cannot be taken into consideration and it will not carry any presumption of law.
Further submitted that the 1st defendant filed written statement with untrue allegations which are not binding on this defendants. It is submitted that the property covered by S.No. 107/7 of Surammapeta Village is one of the property, out of total extent of about Ac.3.00 cents covered by the will executed by the paternal aunt of plaintiff in favour of plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 which is a joint family property.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 11 Dated : 23-04-2024
Some of the property covered by will was sold in or about 1990 and a small piece of land in S.No.107/7 has been acquired by the Government for digging a channel on its western side i.e., subsequent to purchase of the plaint schedule property by the joint family. After attaining majority age the defendant look after the affairs of the joint family and managing the joint family property being a male member in the joint family and the alleged sale deed dated 27.07.2016 said to have been obtained by D1 from plaintiff and D4 without consent of the other defendants 5 to 7 is not binding on them. Further the plaintiff is not a joint family manager after attaining majority ages of the defendants 5 to 7 and the alleged sale deed said to have been executed in favour of D1 by the plaintiff and D4 is not for the benefit of joint family members. So, the alleged sale deeds dated 27.07.2016 and 21.06.2017 are not true, valid and binding on the defendant 5 to 7. The passbook and title deed being issued in the name of plaintiff to the properties covered by will and the plaint schedule property being a elderly woman in the family and her name was entered after death of paternal aunt of the plaintiff as a pothi case and no partition was effected between the joint family members and it is joint family property which is treated as a joint family property during and after the death of the paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the will which is acted upon after death of the paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the defendants 4 to 7 having equal shares along with plaintiff in all the properties under the will including the plaint schedule property.
The claim of the defendants 1 to 3 not maintainable and therefore their defense is liable to be rejected. The defendants 5 to 7 are reserved their right to file counter claim or to file a separate suit. This defendant submit that they have no objection to favour of pass a decree in plaintiff without effecting the rights of the defendants 5 to 7. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On perusal of entire record and hearing of parties, the following issues are framed by this Court for trial.
Issue No.1. Whether the plaint schedule dry land together with tope standing thereon is the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants no. 4 to 7 or not?
Issue No.2. Whether the sale deed dated 27-07- 2016 obtained by D.1 and D.2 from plaintiff and D.4 is valid and binding on them or not?
Issue No.3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of suit or not?
O.S.NO. 102/2018 12 Dated : 23-04-2024
Issue No.4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants no. 1 to 3 as prayed for or not?
Issue No.5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by D.1 and D.2 from plaintiff and D.4 to the suit schedule property or not?
Issue No.6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the sale deed dated. 21-06-2017 which was created in the name of D.3 by D.1 and D.2 to the suit schedule property or not?
Issue No.7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendants no.1 to 3 to put her in separate possession of plaint schedule property after evicting them, in case plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant no.1 to 3 as prayed for or not?
Issue No.8. To what relief ?
5. During the trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and also examined
Penta Gowrinaidu as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on her behalf.
6. On the other hand, the defendant no.5 himself is examined as DW.1 and defendant no.3 himself is examined as DW.2 and defendant no.2 himself is examined as DW.3 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.7 on behalf of the defendants.
7. Heard the arguments of the counsels for plaintiff and the defendants.
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3:
The plaintiff is contending that the plaintiff’s husband purchased the land an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in S.No.23/19 together with 22 mango tope with various trees like 22 mango trees, 17 teak trees and Mohwa trees 3 and other countrywood trees 6
Nos. they are aged about 30 years which are standing thereon, which is situated within the revenue area of Surampeta Village. The husband of the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule land together with standing trees thereon for the benefit of the joint family with his self earnings who worked as a Railway employee. The plaintiff’s joint family consisting of her husband, her son and her daughters defendants 4 to 7. All are jointly enjoying the schedule mentioned property during and after the life time of the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 13 Dated : 23-04-2024
said Krishna Rao together with the Mango tope and Teak trees etc., on its hedges and enjoying the fruits of the tope and the plaintiff joint family invested an amount
Rs.1,00,000/- for trimming the mango trees for improve its crop. The plaintiff’s husband Krishna Rao died intestate by leaving the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 as his class I legal heirs and his entire properties including the schedule mentioned property devolved on them and the plaintiff, the defendants 4 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Further the plaintiff contending that he was converted into Christian religion along with her daughter Vellanki Roopa i.e., Defendant No.4 and on that ground some bickering taken place in between the joint family members of plaintiff. So the plaintiff had been left from Surammapeta village and went to China Merangi and
Parvathipuram to her daughter Roopa’s i.e., 4 th defendant, she often came to the joint family house at Surammapeta when the 5 th defendant went to Vizag and when he was absent in the house. The defendant No.2 who is resident of Surammapeta village who is the nephew of 3rd defendant and his wife Venkataratnam who are neighbouring owners of the land situated by the side of the lands and tope of the plaintiff’s son Le., 5 th defendant which is situated on the Eastern side to the suit Schedule joint family land and tope. Further the boundary dispute with the 5th defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 having knowledge that the plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s husband for the benefit of the joint family and the joint family members, the plaintiff, defendant 4 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and tope and the entire village including the defendants 1 to 3 having knowledge that the plaint schedule tope is joint family property of the plaintiff and her children D4 to D7.
Further contending that the defendants 1 and 2 misrepresented by saying that they wants to construct a church and requested to sell the land covered by S.No.
107/7 in an extent of Ac.0-84 cents within the Surammapeta revenue area for the devotional purpose which is near to the college for Rs.2,96,000/-. The plaintiff and her daughter 4th defendant who are devotees of Jesus Christ not noticed the malafide intention on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 and believed their misrepresentation innocently, the plaintiff and 4th defendant were put in trance by the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the said land which was bequeathed by the plaintiff’s mother under a registered Will. Under the trance of Jesus Christ the plaintiff and her daughter 4th defendant not noticed the evil and malafide intention of defendants 1 and 2 and they obtained the sale deed Dated. 27-07-2016 from the plaintiff, and 4th defendant and obtained plaintiff’s thumb impression and signature of 4th defendant without reading and explaining the contents thereon on its schedule and fraudulently and by playing
O.S.NO. 102/2018 14 Dated : 23-04-2024
undue influence and cheated the plaintiff and D4 and they got prepared and inserted the land covered by S.No. 23/19 an extent of Ac.0-74 cents instead of the land covered by S.No. 107/7 an extent of Ac.0.84 cents for less value in the said sale deed.
The defendant No.2 who is resident of Surammapeta taken the documents of the plaintiff from her bag and retained some of the documents with him pertaining to the suit schedule land. The plaintiff who is an illiterate not noticed which document he retained and subsequently on verification she found missing of the registered sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule land which is in her name. The defendants 1 and 2 misrepresented the fact and fraudulently obtained the sale deed to the land covered by S.No.23/19 an extent of Ac.0-74 cents instead of the land covered by S.No. 107/7 an extent of Ac0-84 cents by playing fraud and undue influence against the plaintiff and D4. No possession was delivered to them to the 1st defendant under the alleged sale deed Dated. 27-07-2016. The nature of the property covered by plaint schedule is a mango tope with teak trees
Further the plaintiff or 4 th defendant are not the absolute owners of the property covered by S.No.23/19 an extent of Ac.0-74 cents in Surammapeta revenue area is a joint family property and the defendants 5 to 7 who are other joint family members having equal rights in it. The alleged sale deed Dated. 27-07-2016 is not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff or the defendants 4 to 7 and vitiated by fraud and no title or possession conveyed to Defendant No.1 under the alleged sale deed Dated. 27-07- 2016. Further fraudulent and erroneous entries in the revenue records without causing any notice to the plaintiff or to the defendants 4 to 7 knowing fully well that joint family properties, they made fraudulent entries behind the back of the plaintiff, with the help of some of the dishonest revenue officers. After playing fraud and undue influence against the plaintiff and defendant No.4 with a malafide intention to use the same against 5 defendant who is the son of plaintiff in the dispute between defendant No.5 and the defendant No.3 and his wife. In fact, the contents got mentioned by the defendants No.1 and 2 in the sale deed Dated. 27- 07-2016 in respect of the schedule mentioned land are not true. Further the defendants No.1 and 2 collusively with D3, the schedule land is not a vacant dry land and it is a mango tope with teak trees aged more than 30 years standing on which is worth more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and no valid sale consideration passed under the alleged sale deed, and there is no consus ad idum under it.
Further contended that the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 15.06.2017 through her advocate to the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants intentionally delayed in receiving the said notice and subsequently, after issuing the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 15 Dated : 23-04-2024
said notice by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 created another sale deed dated 21.06.2017 in favour of D3 collusively which is nominal and sham in respect of the suit schedule land in order to trespass into the suit land to disposes the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 who are in actual physical possession of the suit schedule land. The alleged sale deed dated 21.06.2017 is also not binding upon the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 in respect of the plaint schedule land is fraudulent and capricious and they are not reflect the physical possession to the suit schedule land. The defendants 1 and 2 got issued reply notice dated 20.07.2017 with untrue allegations.
Further contending that the plaintiff along with D4 to D7 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property, and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 27.07.2016 is void as it is vitiated by fraud and undue influence and the alleged sale deed dated 21.06.2017 sham and collusive and created by D1 and D3 and it is not binding upon the plaintiff and D4 to D7. Since two days the defendants 1 to 3 proclaiming that they would disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also remove the valuable trees standing thereon. The plaintiff and the D1 to D7 is contending that the plaintiff, D1 to D3 are obtaining the sale deed, in collusive manner by playing fraud.
9.The D1 filed written statement and denying the material allegations, and further contending that the plaint schedule property had never been purchased by the husband of the plaintiff, the benefit of the welfare of the entire family of him. But it was purchased by the plaintiff herself, vide registered sale deed dated 01-04-2019. The plaintiff alienated the schedule property for her necessities of discharging the debts and represented that she is the absolute owner of the schedule property and she purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 01-04-1980 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and after negotiation, the price was settled at RS. 2,96,000/-. The defendant number one paid the consideration in cash and brought executed registered sale deed dated 27-07-2016, as the plaintiff did not bring the legible copy of sale deed , that the D.1 insisted D4 also to join the as executent. Accordingly, D.4 and plaintiff executed the sale deed in favour of D 1. The property was immediately delivered to D 1. Since then, D1 had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till It was sold to the D3. The D3 thoroughly enquired about the title of the plaintiff and verified the revenue records and purchased the schedule property for valid consideration.
Further contending that the plaintiffs wanted to sell land of acres 0.84 cents covered by survey number 107/ 7 at Surampeta but not land covered by survey
O.S.NO. 102/2018 16 Dated : 23-04-2024
No.23/19, nothing but a falsehood and invented for the purpose of the suit with a view to play fraud against the D1 to D3 and also the court, because of Ac. 0.30 out of AC.0- 84 cents of land in survey number 107/7 was long back acquired by the Government and compensation was also passed to the plaintiff. That is the question of the offer by the plaintiff to sell Ac. 0.84 cents in the sale deed does not arise. The will alleged to have been executed by the meternal aunt to of the plaintiff in respect of the land covered by survey No. 107/7 is also under falsehood. The alleged will was executed by the paternal aunt of the plaintiff between her property in favour of the plaintiff and her children. Further the schedule mentioned property by D.1 vide sale deed dated 27- 07-2016, his name was mutated and pattadar pass book was issued to him with a unique number 02 EO8A 005000051 after thorough inquiry the plaintiff never objected for the same. Similarly subsequent sale deed In favour of the D.1 to D.3 dated 21-06- 2017. His name was mutated and was issued pattadar pass book. The plaintiff was not objected the same.
Further submitted that the plaintiff and D.5 unlawfully cut down the trees in the land of the D3 and also D3 gave report to the police and then son of the plaintiff raised the boundary dispute against D3 by approaching revenue authorities under those circumstances, the scheduled land was surveyed and found that the boundaries are tallied with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. The revenue authority is confirmed that D3 is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land. Further one person claims the relief and the cancellation of injunction as if she is in possession of the scheduled property and other claim for recovery possession and her pleas are contradictory to one and another.
Further contending that the plaintiff and her family members with a view to extend money or grab property filed the suit speculatively with well articulation in a cunning matter, thus the plaintiff came to Court with unclean hands falsely creating the unbelievable version of the trance of Jesus Christ and her conversion to Christianity.
Further submitted that her conversion to Christianity and her faith towards the Lord
Jesus will not make her and her daughter to go into the trance and passively execute the sale deed. It is nothing but falsehood and no such person will believe in such false story. Further submitted that D.3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, he has prima facie case and purchased the property under the sale deed for valid consideration. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
10.Per contra, the D5 filed the written statement and they are admitting the plaint schedule property is joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant 4 to 7 and it
O.S.NO. 102/2018 17 Dated : 23-04-2024
purchased during the lifetime of Medisetty Krishna Rao, the plaint schedule land consisting of the mango trees. The plaint schedule property is the joint family properties, they invested the amount and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further the 5th defendant clearly and categorically admitted that the suit schedule mentioned properties existed at Surampeta village. Further admitted that there was a boundary dispute in between the 5th defendant and the defendant nos. 2 and 3. The wife of the third defendant, who is neighboring land owner to the land to the tope of 5th defendant and dispute is going on since long time. Further the plaintiff has no property or any source of income. By the rate of her marriage with Krishnarao, after birth of defendants, 4 to 7, maternal aunt of plaintiff by name Adabala Narasamma W/o
Late Appanna of Surammapeta Village, out of love and affection towards plaintiff and her children defendants 4 to 7 executed a will dated 26.12.1974 out of her free will and sound disposing state ofmind and bequeathed her properties in favour of plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7. After demise of the father of the defendants 4 to 7 and after demise of the Adabala Narasamma the joint family properties succeeded by them by way of bequeathed the Will and some of the properites succeeded by her father. The joint family invested the amounts and developed the mango tope in the suit schedule property. The Adabala Narasamma died in 1987 and the will dated 26.12.1974 executed by Adabala Narasamma acted upon and he properties devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 including the plaint schedule property with equal shares and the father of the defendants 4 to 7 also died in the year 2000 intestate by leaving the plaintiff, defendants 4 to 7.
Further contending that 4th defendant converted into Christianity, due to the family bickering taken place in between the joint family members particularly with 5 th defendant, the plaintiff left the house and went to the Chinamerangi to her another daughter 4 th defendant’s house and wherever 4th defendant residing the plaintiff used to stay there. The defendant No.5 having boundary disputes with defendants 2 and 3 and continued till the month of July 2017.
Further contending that the D1 captured the plaintiff and 4th defendant and played fraud against them and created nominal sale deed Dated 27.07.2016 in favour of 1st defendant to the plaint scheduled mentioned joint family property. The alleged sale deed is sham and nominal and no consideration passed. The schedule mentioned tope was not put in their possession under the said sale deed and it will not created any right, title and possession to the 1st defendant to the plaint schedule mentioned property. The alleged sale deed dated 27.07.2016 is not valid and binding upon the defendants 5 to 7. The plaintiff and the 4 defendant have no right to sell away the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 18 Dated : 23-04-2024
plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant as it is joint family property in which the defendants 5 to 7 also having equal shares.
Further submitted that the will dated 26.12.1974, the only property which was devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 is a joint property and the income derived from the said property is only the source to the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 besides the earnings of the father of the defendants 4 to 7 for purchasing the suit schedule property which was purchased in the name of plaintiff for the benefit of joint family members. By the date of the purchase of the plaint schedule property in the name of plaintiff as the defendants 4 to 7 being minors.
Further contending that the defendants 5 to 7 issued a notice to the 1 defendant and informed that the sale deed dated 27.07.2016 is not valid and it is not binding on the defendants 5 to 7 and the plaint schedule property is the joint family property and the defendants 5 to 7 having undivided 3/5 shares in it and they are continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property and their possession was not effected under the alleged sale deed dated 27.07.2016, the defendant No.1 received said notice with untrue allegations and further informed that they obtained pass book and title deeds: that he created a sale deed dated 21.06.2017 in favour of defendant No.3.
Further submitted that the defendants 1 to 3 in collusion between them they created alleged sale deed dated 21.06.2017 which is not binding on the defendants 5 to 7. The alleged sale deeds dated 27.07.2016 and 21.06.2017 are not binding and the sham and nominal documents created by the defendants 1 to3 fraudulently.
Further submitted the Thasildhar never served any notice on the defendants 5 to 7, when the defendants 1 to 3 name is mutated in the revenue records by the
Thasildhar, Seethanagaram are fraudulent and surreptitious and they will not reflect actual physical possession of the defendants 1 to 3 to the plaint schedule property and the defendants 5 to 7 only in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the alleged entries in revenue records are not binding on the defendants 5 to 7 and the alleged entries in revenue records cannot be taken into consideration and it will not carry any presumption of law.
Further contending that the 1st defendant filed written statement with untrue allegations are not binding. Further contending by the 5th defendant that the property covered by S.No. 107/7 of Surammapeta Village is one of the property, out of total extent of about Ac.3.00 cents covered by the will executed by the paternal aunt of plaintiff in favour of plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 which is a joint family property.
Some of the property covered by will was sold in or about 1990 and a small piece of land in S.No.107/7 has been acquired by the Government for digging a channel on
O.S.NO. 102/2018 19 Dated : 23-04-2024
western side i.e., subsequent to purchase of the plaint schedule property by the joint family. After attaining majority age the defendant look after the affairs of the joint family and managing the joint family property being a male member in the joint family and the alleged sale deed dated 27.07.2016 said to have been obtained by D1 from plaintiff and D4 without consent, the defendants 5 to 7 is not binding. Further the plaintiff is not a joint family manager after attaining majority ages of the defendants 5 to 7 and the alleged sale deeds dated 27.07.2016 and 21.06.2017 are not valid and binding on the defendant 5 to 7 and it vitiate the title. The passbook and title deed being issued in the name of plaintiff to the properties covered by will and the plaint schedule property being an elderly woman in the family and her name was entered fter death of paternal aunt of the plaintiff as a pothi case and no partition was effected between the joint family members and it is joint family property which is treated as a joint family property during and after the death of the paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the will which is acted upon after death of the paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the defendants 4 to 7 having equal shares along with plaintiff in all the properties. under the will including the plaint schedule property.
11.The rival contentions placed before the Court, in order to substantiate that suit schedule mentioned property is a dry land, together with tope standing there in the joint family properties, the plaintiff and the defendants number 4 to 7, the alleged sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by D1 and D2 from the plaintiff and D4 is fraudulent and collusive by making undue influence, coercing and misrepresenting the plaintiff and the D.4 and obtaining the sale deed by the D.1, that was sham document and nominal document and it was not binding upon the other defendants D5 to D.7. It is not binding, they are not parties to the document and sale deed is not void ab initio, and no consideration is passed.
Further the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as on the date of the institution of the suit and it is a joint family properties. In order to substantiate their contention and she is not the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of the institution of the suit and that is the joint family properties bequeathed by way of Will. The husband of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule mentioned property in the name of the plaintiff and the revenue record mutated in her name. It is the joint family properties of the suit schedule mentioned property.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 20 Dated : 23-04-2024
12.In order to prove and establish the existence of the fact in favour of the plaintiff and the D4 to D7, the documentary evidence is submitted before the court for the inspection of the court, in order to substantiate her right and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property, that exhibit A.1 certified copy of the registered sale deed
dated 01.04.1980 which is in her name to the suit schedule property, Ex.A.2 is the
Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 27.07.2016 obtained by D.1, D.2 from her and D.4. Ex.A.3 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by her to D1, D.2, dated 15.06.2017. Ex.A.4, is the Certified Copy of registered sale deed created by D.1 and
D.2 in favour of D.3 dated 11.06.2017. Ex.A.5 is the reply notice dated 20.07.2017 issued by D.1 and D.2.
In order to substantiate her right, interest and title over the suit schedule mentioned property, exhibit A.1 certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 01.04.1980 which is stood in the name of the plaintiff and the suit schedule mentioned properties purchased by her husband in the name of the plaintiff as on the date of the purchase, her name is mutated in the revenue records and she was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. Further that the exhibit A2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by D1 and D2 from the plaintiff and the D4. These two documents is clearly and categorically demonstrated that the plaintiff is the lawful purchaser of the suit schedule mentioned property. Her husband purchased the property in her name and she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property. Further by mentioning the said document, she is absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property. Her name is mutated in the revenue records and she is entitled and vested rights is created in favour of the plaintiff as on the date of the purchase by way of the registered sale deed vide exhibit A.1.
Further she clearly and categorically demonstrated that by claiming that Exhibit
A.1 schedule mentioned property is a joint family property of the plaintiff and the D 4 to
D7 and the exhibit A.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 27-07- 2016 obtained by D1 and D2 from D4. The exhibit A.2 registered sale deed executed in favour of the D1 and the D2 is the attestor of the said document. That was executed by the plaintiff and the D4 alone, by mentioning that suit schedule mentioned property is joint family property. The said documents clearly and categorically shows the plaintiff having right, title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned properties. She is the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property. Subsequently the plaintiff sold away the suit schedule mentioned property by way of registered sale deed dated 27- 07-2016 in the name of the D1.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 21 Dated : 23-04-2024
In order to disproven the contention that D1 is obtained the sale deed from the plaintiff by playing fraud and undue influence and they are under the trance of the
Jesus Christ the D.1 is obtained sale deed in a collusively, that is not applicable, not binding upon the other defendants D5 to 7. in turn the D1 is sold away the suit schedule mentioned property to the D3 under the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 21-06-2017.
In order to disproven the facts and the suit schedule mentioned property the plaintiff and the D4 alone have no right and interest to transfer and convey the title to
D1 by way of registered sale vide exhibit A2, that was not confer any absolute rights in favour of the D1. that is collusive under the trance of the Jesus Christ and by misrepresenting the plaintiff and the D4 for construction of the church in the suit schedule mentioned property, under that impression they are offered to sell the survey no. 107, but they are obtained the sale deed in survey number 23/19, but they are not offered to sell the property to the D1 in relating to the suit schedule mentioned property. In such a case, it is not applicable and not binding. The documents clearly shows that plaintiff having right over the suit schedule mentioned property and the revenue record stood in her name. She was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit, as on the date of the selling that to the D1. Whether the documents vide exhibit A.2 is binding upon the plaintiff, D.5 to D7 or not.
In order to scrutinizing the documentary evidence coupled with ocular evidence and the PW1 the plaintiff is examined and she clearly and categorically admitted that
Adabala Narasamma executed a Will bequeathing her properties in favour of her and her children. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that the schedule mentioned property purchased by her husband with his salary income and paternal aunt with her funds. By the time of purchase of the schedule mentioned property her husband was alive. It was purchased with an intention that it shall be for her sake and her children. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that by the time of purchase of the schedule mentioned property, the Will is executed by her paternal aunt with D6. By the time of purchase of the schedule mentioned property for the sake of the joint family. There is no dispute between her and her children. By the time of the taking thumb impression on the Ex.A.2 sale deed it was represented that property mentioned in the sale deed situated at near the college. The sale deed contents were not read over to her by the time of taking her thumb impression on Ex.A.2. The plaint schedule mentioned property belongs to her and her children. She has no exclusive right to sell the plaint schedule property.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 22 Dated : 23-04-2024
Though she clearly and categorically demonstrated and asserted that the suit schedule mentioned property purchased by her husband in her name is a joint family property for her sake and the sake of the children, it was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. During the cross examination, she was clearly and categorically admitted that the registered sale deed dated 27-07-2016 exhibit A2, she put her thumb impression and D4 put her signature. She voluntarily says that she never executed any document and she totally denied, initially she was admitted that the D1 obtained the thumb impression of the plaintiff and the signature of the D4. They both are the parties to the said document vide exhibit A.2. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that she has not received any consideration passed under the exhibit A.2 and D.4 alone knows it. They both are the daughter and plaintiff are enter into the sale deed in favour of the
D1 vide Ex.A.2. Subsequently they are denying and passing of the consideration the
D4 alone have knowledge.
Further she clearly and categorically stated that D.2 went to the Sub-Registrar office, D2 is an attestor and he is also accompanied along with them and the plaintiff and the D.4 were accompanied the Sub-Registrar office, she put her thumb impression and Sub-Registrar office. Further the D.4 signed. The Sub-Registrar did not put any questions to her. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that the averments in the plaint that they intended to sell the property bequeathed by the paternal aunt and she never intended to sell any property nor sold any property nor went to Sub-
Registrar office nor put her thumb impression. She totally denied in earlier admission and she totally denied she never enter into the any sale deed. She never offer to sell and sold out any property nor went to sub registrar office nor put the thumb impressions.
Her evidence itself is suspicious, though initially she admitted her thumb impression put in the Ex.A.2 and they sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to
D1 and they conveyed the title and transferable interest is created in favour of the D1 vide exhibit A.2. Subsequently, she denied the same. Further she clearly and categorically admitted and she might have put her thumb impression at Sub-Registrar office and her daughter D.4 might have put her thumb impression at Sub-Registrar office. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that at the time of receiving the consideration in the Sub-Registrar office, by the time her daughter D.4 Rupavathi one side and the persons who purchased the property is another side and 4 other persons were present in the Sub-Registrar. She clearly and categorically admitted that the genuinety of the Ex.A.2 is existed in between the plaintiff and the D4. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that her contention is exhibit A 2 is the signature of
O.S.NO. 102/2018 23 Dated : 23-04-2024
D4 and her thumb impression were obtained by playing fraud. Though she has taken how they are playing fraud and by ascertain the reason that under the trance of the
Jesus Christ they are converted Christians by influencing them by the D1 and D2 in a collusion manner by misrepresenting to constructing the church in the suit schedule mentioned property and for that they offered to sell survey No.107, but not the survey
No.23/19. Under the trans they offered to sell the another suit schedule mentioned property. The D1 and D2 by paying fraud and purchased the suit schedule mentioned property in their name. They never intended to sell the land.
Further she clearly and categorically demonstrated that she voluntarily stated that instead of one land, another land was shown in the sale deed vide exhibit A.2 by fraud. Further she clearly and categorically demonstrated that in the sale deed which the land mentioned in the schedule of the Ex.A.2. She never intended to sell any land.
Though she admitted in earlier that the she totally denied the existence of the Ex.A.2 sale deed, she never offered to sell the Ex.A.2 to D.1. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that she do not know what extent of land she owned at
Surampeta village and even she is not certain for sold out property vide exhibit A.2 and extent at Surampeta village. Further she stated that she never instruced his counsel at the time of preparation of plaint. The particulars in the plaint more particularly details of the land her son went to the her Advocate and drafting the plaint.
She clearly and categorically admitted that she cannot say the contents of the plaint.
She is an illiterate and her son alone can give details of the plaint. Her son is looking after her welfare.
As per her plaint pleadings, due to the family bickering, the plaintiff is used to residing in the residence of the D4 and she went away from Surampeta and she never living together with in one roof along with the D.5. It is quite contra, it is not believable.
Her version is not trustworthy. Further she clearly and categorically admitted there is no family disputes, along with her children, she is living happily. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that her son is looking after her welfare. She used to go to
Vishakhapatnam occasionally and further she never went to Vishakhapatnam. Her daughter D.4 is staying at Parvathipuram. She occasionally go to Parvathipuram at
D.4 house and she is maintaining the cordial relationship with all the children. The plaint pleading and averments, there is no family welfare and there is no friendly atmosphere existed in the family members and the bickering existed in between the family members taking advantage by D1 to D3 by in active collision having plan and design and obtaining the sale deed from the plaintiff. Subsequently, they are also raising another allegation that the document in relating to the suit schedule mentioned
O.S.NO. 102/2018 24 Dated : 23-04-2024
property was missing in her bag. There are quite contradictory statements are given and pleas has taken by the plaintiff and there is no certainty with regard to the selling of the Ex.A.2 voluntarily given free consent for entering into the sale transaction and sold away the exhibit A 2 to the D1. There is no other material is placed before the court that denying that they are obtaining fraud and they never executed, they never put thumb impression, they never received the consideration, but they are admitting the transaction and they enter into the sale deed, but they offered to sell another property, but schedule mentioned property. There is no clarity, certainty and comprehension with regard to the contention and pleas taken by the plaintiff. There is no corroboration and substantiation with regard to the pleas are inconsistence.
13. Further in order to prove and establish her right and interest, she further stated that she intended to sell, but she cannot say the extent of the land covered by the sale deed vide exhibit A.2. Further she know the D2 and D3. Further she do not know D.1.
She do not know who gave the name of D.1 at the time of drafting the plaint. There is quite contradictory statements and it is not believable. It is not trustworthy and she has all her property documents with her daughter D.6. It is quite contra, initially the plaintiff pleaded before the Court that when she kept the documents in relating to the schedule mentioned property in her bag that was missing. Whereas, during the cross examination her oral testimony is testified, she clearly and categorically demonstrated that the suit schedule mentioned property documents kept with the custody of the D.6 daughter of the plaintiff. Further she clearly and categorically stated that she do not know when she arrayed her children as defendants and D1. She do not know the D.1 and she never gave any document to him. By the time of preparation of the alleged sale deed vide exhibit A.2, they did not give any of the documents to them. It is quite contra, the oral testimony of the plaintiff. It is quite contra. It is not trustworthy it is not substantiated the allegations.
Further she clearly and categorically stated that the alleged payment of consideration of exhibit A.1 paid by husband and paternal aunt according to her is mentioned in Ex.A.1. The sale deed Ex.A.1, his name alone is mentioned, but not her children. It is clear cut admission, it is crystal clear the plaintiff is admitted exhibit A.1 property was purchased for herself only. Her husband and Paternal aunt purchased the property herself and they both have purchased the property for herself. Ex.A.1 property was purchased by herself and she is entitled for the suit schedule mentioned property and she is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property. The boundaries owners have changed from the time to time purchase. By the time of filing
O.S.NO. 102/2018 25 Dated : 23-04-2024
of the suit, the family members did not discuss and filed the suit. The college is situated on the way from the Surampeta to Maripivalasa, on the way to Maripivalasa.
She has no land near the college. She never intended to sell the land near the college.
There is no land transaction between herself and D.1 at any point of time.
She clearly and categorically admitted that the suit schedule mentioned property, she was alone having right, title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. Her husband and the paternal aunt purchased the suit schedule mentioned property for her sake alone, but not the children. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that her daughter constructed the Church near Belagam. There is no need to construct the church at Surampeta in relating to the suit schedule mentioned property. They are already constructed the church at Belagam, but there is no need to construct the churaehat Surampeta. She clearly and categorically admitted against the Pleas taken in the plaint averments, the defendant obtained the sale deed by misrepresenting under the trance of the Jesus Christ. They intended to construct the church, by that reason they proposed to sell the suit schedule mentioned property survey No.107, but not the survey No. 23/19, there is a clear cut denial. They are not intended to sold the suit schedule mentioned property for construction of the church.
There is no misrepresentation in collusion and fraud played upon the plaintiff and the
D4 and obtaining the exhibit A 2 by the D1. There is no material is placed before the
Court for proof and establishment of the said fact. The suit schedule mentioned property vide exhibit A1, the plaintiff is absolute owner. It is not the joint family properties by the time of purchase, the children are minors, it is for the sake of the plaintiff that was purchased by the husband of the plaintiff, but not the joint family properties.
14.Further corroboration with the contention of the PW1, the PW2 is also examined and the PW2 is also clearly and categorically demonstrated that he received summons to give evidence, he is the assistant under the control of the document writer Paruvada Makinaidu. He know the plaintiff Parvathamma. He know the attestors by name Kondabattula Manmadharao and he is resident of Surampeta village. The signature of the registered sale deed dated 27-07-2016 as on the date of the execution of the registered sale deed dated 27-07-2016 and the plaintiff is alive and present. According to the the instructions and information by the Kondabattula
Manmadharao the sale deed prepared. The plaintiff aged about 70 years old and the document is not read over to her she does not know the contents in the sale deed. At
O.S.NO. 102/2018 26 Dated : 23-04-2024
the request of Kondabattula Manmadharao who is the 1st attestor, he bear his signature in the said sale deed. The transaction not taken in his presence
Though he clearly and categorically stated that the D.2 is leading and preparing the exhibit A.2 in favour of the D.1. That was obtained by them in collusion, that contents is not read over to the plaintiff. Though they clearly and categorically demonstrated in the chief examination and his oral testimony is testified during cross examination, he clearly and categorically admitted that the sale deed confronted to the witness. He acknowledged the nature of the properties mentioned as ancestral property. He do not know the plaintiff and 4th defendant alone cannot transfer the suit schedule mentioned property. Further he clearly and categorically demonstrated that the scribe of the sale deed is one Maruvada Makinaidu, he served under his control as assistant for a period of 15 years. The said Maruvada Makinaidu is a fair person. He accepted genuine transfers for that. He scribed the documents.
Though he clearly and categorically demonstrated in chief examination, the contents is not read over to the plaintiff, the execution of the document by name
Parvathamma plaintiff is not read over and the has not given consent, she is not understanding by the date of the sale deed dated 27-07-2016, they never seen her.
Further he clearly and categorically admitted that the scribe of the exhibit A.2 is
Makinaidu is a genuine person and genuine transfer scribed the documents and both parties presented before him and given information about the details of the transaction affected in between them. Then only he write the documents in the disputed sale deed, as per the information given by both the parties, the said Makinaidu reduced into writing by way of document as it is. The seller of the document Parvathamma and
Roopa are executed in favour of the Siva Kumar that is D1 himself and one
Manmadharao is attestors of the said sale deed. Before attesting the sale deed, he inquired the plaintiff executed in the sale deed. They stated they received the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, then he attested the said document.
He clearly and categorically admitted that the sale deed is executed in favour of the D.1 by way of vide exhibit A.2. Though they are claiming that is a collusion and fraudulent, they are obtained by dominating her Will and they are obtained the exhibit
A.1, there is no other material is placed before the Court, his evidence is also testified evidence is clearly demonstrated that document existence of the exhibit A.2 in favour of the D.1, he was one of the attestor and DW2 is another attestor of the said document. The transaction is genuine transaction, both the parties given details and information to the Scribe Makinaidu, he executed and scribed the genuine document and genuine transfers. He never executed. He never drafted the fraudulent transfers
O.S.NO. 102/2018 27 Dated : 23-04-2024
with an intention to defraud by other creditors and subsequent transferee for alienation. The plaintiff executed the sale deed. They stated before them the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is received by them. After that, they are obtained the signature on the document. It is clear cut admission, admitted facts need not be proved. They both are admitting that existence of the Ex.A.2 in favour of the D1.
The D2 is one of the attestor and another attestor is PW2 Gowrinaidu attesting the said document after inquiring full-fledgely. He know the details of the schedule mentioned property in the said disputed sale deed and passing of the consideration of the plaintiff, except about the passing of the consideration to the executant, except this, he do not know the details of the property and whom entered in the description and survey numbers of the schedule mentioned property.
Further he clearly and categorically admitted as a general course the said
Makinaidu after execution of the deed the contents read over to the both parties after acknowledging contents he obtains signatures of the both parties. Subsequent to the execution of the document he never gone though the said sale deed. He clearly and categorically admitted that the said the scribe of the exhibit A.2 Makinaidu is read over after execution of the document deed, the contents read over to both the parties after acknowledging the contents he obtained the signatures of the both the parties. That is clearly admitted there is no scope for thrown the testimony, his evidence is trustworthy and give credence. It is cogent and trustworthy. It give credence to the existence of the exhibit A2. Soon after transferring the property by way of sale deed vide Ex.A.2 in favour of theD1 and soon after conclusion of conveyance the title and interest by the date of the registration of the sale deed in favour of the D1, the delivery of possession is handed over to the D1 and the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of institution of the suit. Soon after completion of the conveyance and the property is delivered to the D.1, he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. Subsequently even they are not filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed by raising the objection and allegation that D.1, the exhibit A.2 by playing fraud and collusion by misrepresenting and obtained the sale deed, they did not approach the court as the limitation is also barred, fraud is noticed by the defendant. Subsequently they have to file the suit after lapse of the time and they approached the court for cancellation of the suit schedule mentioned property.
Further in corroboration with the evidence of the plaintiff and the DW1 is the son of the plaintiff D5 is the son of the plaintiff, he clearly and categorically admitted that the suit schedule mentioned property his mother having exclusive right over the suit
O.S.NO. 102/2018 28 Dated : 23-04-2024
schedule mentioned property in survey No. 23/19 in an extent of AC. 0.74 cents. The pattadar pass books issued in favour of the plaintiff in survey No.23/19 might be mentioned in the said sale deed, the nature of the property is an ancestral property in a view of old survey number existed in the said sale deed dated 01-04-1980, the lands are existed in Surampeta Village and there is no Polytechnical College is located within the Maripivalasa village boundaries. The DW1 is clearly and categorically admitted that the plaintiff having exclusive right, title and interest of the suit schedule mentioned property, she can convey the better title which she has obtained by way of sale deed vide exhibit A.1. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that the survey number 107/7 property is not exclusively belongs to his mother and it is covered by a will executed by Adabala Narsanıma W/o Appana is paternal aunt of his mother. His mother having no salable right to sold out the survey number 107/7 having exclusive right, she cannot convey the title in favour of the D.1 , hence the sale transaction entered by the plaintiff and D4 with D1 is valid and binding upon the plaintiff and the D4 and D5 have no right and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff is having an exclusive right and title and she conveyed the title in favour of the D.1 as on the date of the sale deed dated. 27-07-2016. There is no material is placed before the court that the D1 is obtained the sale deed vide Ex.A.2 by playing fraud. By assigning the reason and the trans of the Jesus Christ they are obtained the sale deed. The pleas are quite contrary and there is no substantiation as the pleas taken by the plaintiff in the plaint averments and the defences defending is quite contra, she is not corroborated with each other.
In these circumstances, she is not substantiated that the exhibit A.2 is obtained by the defendant D1 and D2 is an attestor by playing fraud and obtained and it is not binding and there is no iota of material is placed before the court for relaying their version. The plaintiff did not present cogent material before the Court that the sale deed dated 27-07-20216 obtained by D.1 and D.2 from the plaintiff and D.4 is not valid, it is a collusive and it is misrepresentation of the D1 and D2 and obtained the exhibit A.2. In order to disproven the fact that the defendant adduced the evidence, the D.1 is not examined, and the D2 is the attestor, DW3 is examined and he produced the documentary evidence to disproven the existence of the fact, as on the date of the institution of the suit, the defendant is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned properties. He produced the documentary evidence, that is Ex.B.1 is the register sale deed, executed in favour of plaintiff by
Peddaredla Gopi Naidu and others in respect of the schedule mentioned property
Dated: 01-04-1980, Ex.B.2 is the original registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff
O.S.NO. 102/2018 29 Dated : 23-04-2024
and her daughter D4 in favour of D1 dated: 27-07-2016, Ex.B.3 is the original registered sale deed Ex D1 in favour of D3 Dated: 21-06- 2017, Ex.B.4 is the Pattadar pass book in favour of D1 original, Ex.B.5 is the Pattadar pass book in favour of D3 original, Ex.B.6 is the 1B account and adangal digitally signed certificates in favour of
D3 and Ex B 7 is the information furnished by land acquisition officer cum deputy collector Dt: 12-09-2018, Bobbili under RTI Act
In order to disproven the fact that, as on the date of the institution of the suit, the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the D3 and he is acquired the title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property by way of registered sale deed executed by the D1 in favour of the D 3 vide exhibit B3 registered sale deed
dated 21 16 2017. He clearly and categorically demonstrated that he acquired the
property by way of registered sale deed which was purchased by the D1 under exhibit exhibit B-2 is the original registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff and her daughter D.4 in favour of the D1 dated 27-07-2016, how the D1 is succeeded the property by way of the sale deed obtained from the plaintiff as she succeeded the property. Her husband purchased in her name and it was registered in the plaintiffs name dated 01-04-1980. In turn the plaintiff is executed the sale deed in favour of the
D-1 vide EX.B-2. Further the D1 is sold out said schedule mentioned property to the subsequent transferee that is D3 vide exhibit B3. In recognition of the registered sale deed, the Revenue official incorporated the name of the D.1 vide Exhibit B4 pattadar pass books issued in favour of the D.1 in relating to the suit schedule mentioned property. Further after purchase of the suit schedule mentioned property from the D1 to D3, it was registered vide Ex.B.3 the original registered sale deed executed by the
D1 in favour of the D3 and in recognition of the right, interest and title over the suit schedule mentioned property, the revenue officials incorporated, the name of the D3 in the revenue records and issued original Pattadar pass books vide exhibit B.5 in the name of the D3 Palapartti Sudarshan Rao. Further the revenue officials issued exhibit
B 6 - 1B account and adangal digital signed certificate in favour of the D3 as on the date of the incorporation and issued 1B account in the name of the D3. He was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property without any interruption and causing any hindrance. The plaintiff is also admittedly sold out the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the D.1. Subsequently D.1 sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to D3 for a valid consideration and same is registered and their names were incorporated in the revenue records. The transferable rights and interest is vested with the D3 as on the date of institution of the suit, the suit schedule mentioned property is in possession and enjoyment of the D 3, but not the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 30 Dated : 23-04-2024
D1 and D.2. Cancellation of the sale deed, which is not binding or it is not valid upon the other defendants D.2 to D.5. In such circumstances, the self acquired property of the plaintiff, then the plaint have sold out the same property. The original sale deed vide Ex.B1 is also clearly and categorically demonstrated that the plaintiff have got interest and absolute rights to convey the title to anybody, as her will and wish. She has voluntarily sold out the same to the D1 and D2 is the attestor of the said document. There is no other material is placed before the court for the alleged D1 and
D2 D2 misrepresented and obtained the sale deed by collusion.
In order to substantiate the defendant D1 and D3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of the instrument of the suit and they are examined the D1 is the son of the plaintiff, he clearly and categorically admitted that there is no record the other children of the plaintiff consented the exhibit B.2 sale deed. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that the Mandal surveyor conducting the survey with the help of the documents and given report against his contention. He clearly and categorically admitted that the allegations raised that the D.5 severed the branches of the teak trees claiming that they are belongs to them and the dispute that they were committed the theft. That was resolved outside the Court. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that he purchased suit schedule mentioned property by paying the valid consideration as on the date of the conveyance of the suit schedule mentioned property. he was the absolute owner of the
Suit schedule mentioned property. The sale is completed. The document are proof and the ocular evidence is clearly and categorically demonstrated that he was the rightful owner of the suit schedule mentioned property, whether the D.1 and D.2 are misrepresenting and colluding with the each other and obtained the sale deed. There is no material is placed before the court that they both are colluded and obtained the sale deed, in turn sold out to the D.3. The DW2 further admitted that he was present by the time of obtaining the documents by the D.1 and D.2 from the plaintiff. He has not seen the document of the plaintiff by the time of the transaction. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that himself and the D.1 l and D2 are representing the same counsel. Further he has given the brief to the counsel, by the time D2 was not accompanied and written statement is given.
Further he clearly and categorically admitted that exhibit B-2 by mentioning the plaintiff to discharge the sundry debts that the property which is succeeded as ancestral property, there is no record other than the children of the plaintiff consented the Ex.B.2. There is no mention in Ex. B-2. She was present by the time, there is no proof with regard to the removal of the tope in regarding to the suit schedule
O.S.NO. 102/2018 31 Dated : 23-04-2024
mentioned properties. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that Exs. A 1 and
B-2 schedule boundary owners names are different. witness adds that boundaries are one and the same. Further admitted that survey number mentioned in the EXs.A.1,
B-2 and B3 are not one and the same. Further admitted that boundaries recital does not contain the survey numbers. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that Ex.
A1 existing the mango more than 15 to 16 years. He further admitted that either of the document of the D.1 or his document there is no mention the existence of the tope.
Further he clearly and categorically admitted that approximately there are 10 to 15 trees are existed in the exhibit A.1, out of 10 to 15 , 2 to 3 are existed, there are twenty trees are existed in Ex.A.1. Though the document does not reflected the existence of the mango tope in the suit schedule mentioned property as they are not mentioned, but the plaintiff pleaded that the mango tope is existed another country made trees, Mohwa trees and teak tress were existed in the suit schedule mentioned property that was also not mentioned that by way of collusion that was obtained by the
D.1 . There is no other material is placed before the court that D1 is manipulating and obtained the sale deed from them.
Further in corroboration with the evidence of the D.W.1 and D.W.2, D3 was examined that is Kondabattula Manmadharao and he clearly and categorically stated that he is one of the attestor of these two documents that is vide exhibits B-2 and B3.
He clearly and categorically admitted that he know the both the parties, they are the residents of the Surampeta village. He clearly and categorically admitted that he know the defendant as on the date of the registration of the sale deed, 1st defendant and himself both are joined together, gave reply notice to the plaintiff in the absence of the
D3. The first defendant having full pledged knowledge with regard to the schedule mentioned transaction obtained by him vide Ex.A.2 dated 27-07-2016. He know where the 1st defendant secured the sale consideration vide Ex.A 2. He clearly and categorically admitted that by the time, at the request of the D.1 he was accompanied with him at the office of the Counsel, Pathivada Appanna, in order to give reply to the plaintiff. The D.1 gave reply to the plaintiff. The contents read over to him mentioned in the written statement before filing, he has understand the same and given consent to the counsel to file before the Court. The D1 alone having personal knowledge with regard to the contents mentioned in the written statement. By the time of the Ex.A.2,
D3 is also present.
Further he clearly and categorically admitted that he has not mentioned the D.5 given the details at present. and further by the time execution of the Ex.A.2 either in legal notice and written statement or any other proceedings in the suit. They requested
O.S.NO. 102/2018 32 Dated : 23-04-2024
the D.5 executed in exhibit B-2 but he reluctant to sign. Again, he stated that himself is sign as an attestor in the exhibit A.2. The plaintiff is aged in 65 to 70 years. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that he is not remember the date of given reply to the plaintiff. The reply notice Dt: 20-07-2017. Further admitted that Vide Ex.A5, the date of execution of sale deed Dt: 27-07-2016. He do not know the execution of the sale deed vide ExA4 obtained by D3. Further, he do not know whether the D3 and the
D1 created a sale deed Dt: 21-06-2017 vide ExA4. He is not remember whether the details of the EXA4 were mentioned in written statement or not.
15.In corroboration with the evidence of the DW1 to DW3. They both are admitting that the suit schedule mentioned property is exclusive right of the plaintiff and she sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to D-1, in turn he transferred the property to the subsequent purchases that is D3 by way of registered sale deed. The DW1 clearly and categorically admitted that the property mentioned in EX.A.1 dated 01-04-2018 in favour of the plaintiff and the exit B-2 dated 27-07-2016 and the property mentioned in the EX.B.3 dated 21—06-2016 are one and the same. They have no knowledge about the execution of the EXs.B.2 and B.3 transaction. Initially his mother executed the sale deed in favour of the D.1 Dabbiru Sivakumar. They clearly and categorically admitted that the transaction is existed in between them. They are having knowledge with regard to the suit schedule mentioned property sold by the plaintiff and D.4 in favour of the D1 as on the date of the the registration he was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. They clearly and categorically admitted that having knowledge and pressuring that the D1 and D.2 with active collision by misrepresenting and taking advantage of the conversion of the Christianity under the trans of Jesus Christ and they are obtained sale deed by misrepresenting by construction of the church at Surampeta village in relating to the suit schedule mentioned property, for that reason, the defendant, D4 to D5 have got knowledge with regard to the convey the title in favour of the D1 as on the date of the knowledge they did not taken any action for cancellation of the sale deed executed by his mother and
D4 in favour of the D.1. That was not challenged. That was not claimed by the plaintiff and the D4 to D7. In such a case and knowing fully well having reason to believe and the existence of the transaction in between them and they prudently knowing the fact they ought to have to cancel the sale deed executed by the plaintiff and D.4 in favour of the D1. If it is assuming that it is collude that it is obtained by fraud and by collusion. in such a case they immediately approached the due process of law and claiming the recovery of the possession and cancelling the instrument in favour of the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 33 Dated : 23-04-2024
D1 and claiming the recovery of the possession as on the date of dispossession of the suit schedule mentioned property. Further he is not approaching the court with the clean hands and they did not presented the cogent material before the court for claiming the suit schedule mentioned property that sale deed is entered by the D-1 in with active collision with the D2 and obtained the sale deed without their free consent and there is no passing of the consideration and the other oral testimony is testified, the PW2 clearly and categorically demonstrated before the court and the plaintiff and
D.4 are receiving the sale consideration. After that they are obtained the signatures on the sale deed and same is registered before the sub Registrar office in the name of the D1, that transaction is valid and binding upon the plaintiff and defendant, it is valid and binding. There is no misrepresentation and collision. There is no proper material and corroborative material placed before the court to disprove the fact.
The defendant D1 to D3 successfully presented the documentary proof as on the date of the institution of this suit they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property, they are enjoying without any interruption. The plaintiff have got exclusive right over the suit schedule mentioned property. In such a case there is no collusion, misrepresentation and getting the sale deed in the name of the
D.1, in turn after acquiring the full-fledged absolute rights the D.1 can having right over the suit schedule mentioned property, he can convey the title to anybody as his will and he can sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to the subsequent purchaser and with regard to the transaction and other material. In such a case, the issues number 1 to 3 are clearly proved by the defendants. The document executed by the plaintiff is binding upon the plaintiff and D.4. It is valid and it is creates rights and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. Hence, issues no.1 to 3 decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
16.Issue number 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction against the defendants number 1 to 3 prayed for or not ?.
The plaintiff failed to prove that the material contention and oral and documentary evidence is testified, the documentary evidence is clearly and categorically demonstrated that the exhibit A1 and the plaintiff have got exclusive right over the suit schedule mentioned property, for that she sold out the same and convey the right, title and interest to the D1 as on the date of the conveyance and sale is concluded. That sale deed is registered in favour of the D1. In recognition of the sale deed, the revenue officials incorporated the name of the D1 by issuing the Pattadar pass books and title deeds in the name of the D.1 Dabbiru Siva Kumar as on the date
O.S.NO. 102/2018 34 Dated : 23-04-2024
of the institution of the suit, he was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. Subsequently, he sold out the same to the D.2 Palapatri
Sudarshana Rao by way of registered sale deed vide exhibit B.3. In recognition of his title and interest, the revenue officials issued pattadar pass books in the name of the
DW 2 Palaparti Sudarshana Rao and issued pattadar pass books vide exhibit B.5. The 1-B account and digitally signed certificate in favour of the D.3, as on the date of the institution of the suit, the suit schedule mentioned property is in possession and enjoyment of the D.3, but not in possession of the plaintiff.
The pre-requisite to satisfy the court granting of the permanent injunction the plaintiff has to prove prima face case and balance of convenience and irreparable loss cause to the plaintiff, if the permanent is not granted. By the date of the institution of the suit, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of the convey the title by way of registered sale deed in favour of the D.1 and she was ceased to be a rightful owner and possessor of the suit schedule mentioned property. Once the physical possession is delivered to the buyer and sale is completed and physical possession is delivered, as on the date of the delivery of the possession in favour of the D/1 , she was not in possession of the suit schedule mentioned property. She was not entitled for permanent injunction. In turn, the defendant D1 sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to the D3, as on the date of the purchase, he was in the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property without interruption and enjoying continuously. In such a case the plaintiff is failed to prove the prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable loss caused to her, as on the date of the institution of the suit, the suit schedule mentioned property is in physical possession and enjoyment of the D.3. The plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction as sought for. in such a case the plaintiff is not entitled for seeking of the permanent injunction. Accordingly the issue number 4 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
17.Issue number 5:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by D.1 and D.2 from the plaintiff and D4 to the suit schedule mentioned property or not “
In order to substantiate for cancellation of this sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by the D1. Though they are stating that exhibit A.2 sale deed dated 27-07- 2016 obtained by D.1 from the plaintiff and D4 by inactive collision that the document is obtained, they are not fairly selling and no consideration is passed to them, that
O.S.NO. 102/2018 35 Dated : 23-04-2024
cancellation of the instrument by way of collusion and fraud played by the plaintiff. In such case presuming a while presuming that the D.1 and D.2 are colluding with each other and obtained sale deed from the plaintiff and D4, in such a case the plaintiff got every right to cancel the instrument immediately after noticing that D1 and D2 is obtaining the can deed by active collusion and by misrepresenting them and misleading them and obtained the sale deed.
By raising the allegations by the plaintiff that they are not proposed to sell the schedule mentioned property, but they proposed to sell the property in survey number 107/7, but not the survey No.23/19 in an extent of AC. 0-74 cents. Instead of the land covered by survey no. 107/7 in an extent of AC. 0-84 cents by playing fraud and undue influence against the plaintiff and the D.4. In such a case, he clearly and categorically admitted that the plaintiff taken the defenses and they are proposed to sell the survey number 107/7 in an extent of AC. 0-84 cents. By suppressing the material facts and misconception of fact they enter into the sale deed in survey No. 23/19 in an extent of
Ac.0-74 cents. Further the plaintiff raising allegation that the original documents are stolen by the defendant and that was kept in the custody of the plaintiff in his bag and that was also stolen. Thereafter that was taking advantage and that was manipulated by mentioning the contents, without read over the contents to the plaintiff and obtained the sale deed dated 27-07-2016. That was liable to be canceled. That was not binding. The suit schedule mentioned property, the plaintiff is absolute owner, she has every right to convey the title and interest of the suit schedule mentioned property for a valid consideration, given free consent to sold out the schedule mentioned property to the D.1.
Further, she has taken the defence that the D1 and D2 misrepresented by saying that they want to construct the church and requested to sell the land covered by Survey Number 107/7 in an extent of Ac. 0.84 cents within the Surampeta revenue village for devotional purpose, which is near to the College of Rs.2,96,000/- as a valid consideration. Under malafied intention, dishonestly misrepresented, inducing the plaintiff to enter into the sale deed. Presuming a while, if they are acquiring the sale deed under the trans of Jesus Christ and they obtained the sale deed. The D4 to D.5 have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff alone having exclusive right over the suit schedule mentioned property. She can conveyed. By producing the documentary evidence, vide exhibits A1 and A2, that was clearly demonstrate the exclusive right over the Plaintiff under the misconception of fact they obtained the sale deed by collusion, by playing fraud.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 36 Dated : 23-04-2024
In order to disproven the fact, if liable to be canceled, the sale deed and PW1 oral evidence is testified, she clearly and categorically admitted that the registered sale deed dated 27-07-2016 vide Ex.A.2. She put her thumb impression and D.4 put her signatures, she alone cannot alienate the property. The Will property is covered under the survey No. 107/7, but the self acquired property of the plaintiff is covered under the suit schedule mentioned property in survey No. 23/19, having exclusive right to her. She clearly and categorically admitted that the consideration was passed and she put her thumb impression at Sub-Registrar office and D.4 signed. The Sub-
Registrar did not put any questions to her. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that the averments in the plaint and intended to tell the property bequeathed by her paternal aunt. She never intended to sell property any property nor sold any property, nor went to Sub-Registrar office, nor put thumb impression, she totally denied as raised allegation in plaint pleadings, that is quite contra. She clearly and categorically admitted that she put her thumb impression at Sub Registrar office and the consideration and everything is received by her daughter. She clearly and categorically admitted in her cross examination that oral testimony is testified, she clearly admitted that she might put her thumb impression at Sub-Registrar office and her daughter put her signature at Sub-Registrar office. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that whenever they sold out the suit schedule mentioned property by the time herself and D.4 are presenting and 3 or 4 other persons who are presenting on the other side. Further she clearly and categorically admitted that in her contents, D.4 singed and her thumb impression were obtained by playing fraud. There is no need to present in the Sub-Registrar office and convey the property and registered the suit schedule l mentioned property in favour of the D.1. In such a case
D.1 immediately after noticing the sale deed obtained by D1 and D2 within the stipulated period of four month under the registration and they have to cancel the said instrument and to restore the schedule mentioned property in the name of the plaintiff and cancel the sale deed vide exhibit A.2. The ambiguous statement and apparent on the face of the pleadings and oral testimony and the documentary proof clearly and categorically demonstrated that her intention to sell the property in relating to the survey No. 1077, but not the survey No.23/19.
She clearly and categorically admitted that she cannot say the extent of the land covered in the sale deed Ex.A.2. Further she clearly admitted that Ex.A.1 property was purchased for herself and her husband and maternal aunt purchased the property for herself. The boundaries owners have changed the bund from time to time. Further, she clearly stated that she never intended to sell the land to anybody near the college.
O.S.NO. 102/2018 37 Dated : 23-04-2024
There is no land transaction between her and D1. at anytime. She is quite contradictorily stated the different lines and different versions, it is not believable and not trustworthy. Further they pleaded in their pleadings and her daughter constructed church near Belagaum. They never intended to construct the church at Surampeta
Village in relating to the suit schedule mentioned property. The oral testimony is clearly and categorically demonstrated that they voluntarily come forward and sold out the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the D1, D2 is only the attestor of the said document. what he has played, what way he has misrepresenting and played fraud to the plaintiff and the D.4, that was not to explain property before the court for relying the version of the inactive collusion with the D1 and D2 obtained the sale deed.
In such a case, the cancelation of the sale deed is no proper grounds is submitted
before the court for cancelation of the sale deed dated 27-07-2016 by D.1 and D.2.
In further testification of the oral testimony, the PW2 is one of the attestor of the said document, he clearly and categorically admitted that the seller of the said documents Parvathamma and Rupa are executed the sale deed in favour of the Siva
Kumar, himself and Manmadharao are attestors of the sale deed, before attesting the sale deed, they inquired the plaintiff executed the sale deed, they stated they received the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, then attested the said document. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that except enquired about passing of the consideration to the executant, except they do not know the details of the property. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that as the general the scribe of the exhibit. A.2 after acknowledged the same he obtained the signatures of the both the parties, he read over the contents to the plaintiff after understanding the contents mentioned in the exhibit A.2 after that they have been put the signature that was cleared up. There is no coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation, after read over the contents, as the oral testimony of the PW2 clearly and categorically demonstrated that after read over the contents to them after understanding they obtained the signatures on the exhibit A.2 there is no collusion and they are not obtaining their signatures by playing fraud against them with a dishonest intention.
There is no grossly insufficient consideration, in such a case the document is not void ab initio, the option of the parties and the gross negligence, there is no plea of grossly insufficient. confederation is also not pleaded the plaintiff. In such a case, they are not sought for cancellation. The document is valid and binding. It is not liable for cancel.
Even presuming a while that cancellation of the said document, the plaintiff has to cancellation of the said document, the plaintiff has to restore on compensation to be made when the instrument is canceled, but they did not offer. Mere seeking the relief
O.S.NO. 102/2018 38 Dated : 23-04-2024
of the cancellation of the sale deed, but they did not offer to compensate and restore the sale consideration to the vendor of the said document to D1 and they did not offer, when the instrument is in evidence of the different rights of the different obligations, the court might have in proper case cancellation in part and allow it stand for the residual. Further such a cancellation of the instrument, the beneficiary against whom the cancellation is adjudicated of the instrument, the court may require to the party whom such a relief is granted to restore and to compensate to which they reached justice may require, compensation to the person against whom the instrument is cancelled. The plaintiff did not offered any compensation for restoration of the physical possession that was is also not binding, there is no inducement, threat, coercion and undue influence against her will. That transaction is not entered. If the transaction is entered against her will, certainly she can cancel the instrument and there is no proper and corroborative material submitted before the court that D.1 and D.2 obtained the sale deed in collusion by playing fraud and put the thumb impression and signature at the Registrar office and another independent evidence is testified, there is no other meterial places, that is clear and demonstrated that she was given free consent and received the valid consideration in such a case that instrument cannot be cancelled.
Even it is come before the court with unclean hands at belated stage. The issue no.5 is answered accordingly.
18.Issue number six :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the sale deed dated 21-06- 2017 which was created in the name of the D.3 by D1 and D2 in the suit schedule mentioned property or not ?.
In order to substantiate the issue number 6, the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the sale deed dated 21-06-2017 which is created in the name of the D3 by the D.1 and
D.2 in the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff cannot seek the relief against the stranger to the transaction and convey the title in the name of the D.3 after full fledged title vested rights is created in favour of the D1, in turn the D 1 conveyed the title by way of sale by registering the suit schedule mentioned property in the name of the D.3 for receiving the sale consideration. In corroboration with the documentary evidence is submitted before the court that vide exhibits B-1 to B7, clearly and categorically demonstrate that the how the D1 is acquiring the title of the suit schedule mentioned property and the plaintiff succeeded the said property from her husband.
He purchased the suit schedule mentioned property in the name of the plaintiff after acquiring the right, interest and title over the suit schedule mentioned property. She
O.S.NO. 102/2018 39 Dated : 23-04-2024
voluntarily come forward and proposed to sell the suit schedule mentioned property in the name of the D.1.
Though they are raising the pleas before the court, that was not properly explained, that contrary pleas are made, that contrary is not proven before the court that the plaintiff cannot seek the relief against the stranger to the contract. The privity of contract cannot be unless the interest of the stranger can be devolved and affected.
The plaintiff and the D3 no way concern, there is no contractual obligation, is existed in between them. The D1 voluntarily sold out the suit schedule mentioned property in the name of the D3, as on the date of the purchase of the suit schedule mentioned property vide Ex.B.3 registered sale deed executed by the D.1 in favour of the D.3
dated 21-06-2017, absolute rights vested with him. In recognition of the right and
interest and over the suit schedule mentioned property, the revenue officials is also incorporated his name in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book in the name of the D.3 vide exhibit B.5. As on the date he succeeded the property by way of sale as they are acquiring the property, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. There is no other material is placed before the court for cancellation, strong and reasonable grounds is not submitted before the court for cancellation of the said instrument.
The D2 is the attestor of the two documents. There is no other reason assigned by the plaintiff, except these two reasons, there is no other reasons is submitted
before the court for disproven the fact that liable for cancellation of the suit schedule
mentioned property and restore the possession and the reverse back to the delivery of the physical possession to the plaintiff. In such a case, the substantial evidence should be presented before the court for disproven the fact, sale deed executed by the D.1 in favour of the D3 liable to be canceled. The plaintiff cannot seek the relief against the
D3. The plaintiff is stranger to the document, and she has no way concerned. It is supposed that the transaction is entered by the D.1 and D.2 by collusion. The plaintiff can seeking the relief for cancellation and seeking the relief for restoration. In turn, the subsequent vendor, is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property by way of sale deed. In such a case, they cannot be entitled for cancellation of the suit schedule mentioned property, even she did not offer to restore and return back the compensation and the consideration passed to them. That was not offered by the plaintiff.
19.In corroboration with the documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence and the DW1 is the son of the plaintiff, he clearly and categorically admitted that the
O.S.NO. 102/2018 40 Dated : 23-04-2024
survey No.23/19 in an extent of Ac. 0-74 cents during the life time of his father. The suit schedule mentioned property was purchased, by the time of purchase the suit schedule mentioned property in her mother’s name as no source of income. The adapted parents of the mother executed Will in favour of her mother and her children that is herself, D.4 to D.7. Out of the income sources of her father, the plaint schedule property is purchased by his father in the name of the plaintiff and for the benefits of the family members. By the time of purchase the suit schedule mentioned property, the mango Garden is existed, even till date. There is no mention in documentary evidence the existence of the mango garden. There is a boundary disputes are existed between
D2 and D3. There is a dispute with regard to the conversion of the Christianity by his mother and D.4. That clearly and categorically admitted that without his knowledge plaintiff and D.4 sold out the suit schedule mentioned property and executed the sale deed in favour of the D.1.
He clearly and categorically admitted that the exhibit A.2 is sold out to the D1 without the knowledge of the D.5. Though he is having knowledge, the plaintiff having absolute right, title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. The D.5 have no interest and right in respect of the share of the suit schedule mentioned property. In such a case, there is no need to obtain the consent from the D.5 by his son. He further clearly and categorically admitted that the D.1 to D.3 having malafied intention obtained the sale deed from the plaintiff. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that the family members have equal rights regarding the suit schedule mentioned property, but they did not submitted any cogent material that all the family members having equal rights in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property.
The exhibit A.1 clearly and categorically demonstrated that the plaintiff alone having exclusive right, interest and title and transferable interest over the suit schedule mentioned property. The children having no right over the suit schedule mentioned property. The children having right over the survey number 107/7, but not the survey
No.23/19. In such a case, they have no right to claim the suit schedule mentioned property. His evidence is clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff alone having right about the suit schedule mentioned property. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that his mother purchased three landed properties in survey number 23/19 in an extent of Ac.0.74 cents, 108/15 in an extent Ac. 0-25 cents, S.no.108/7 in an extent of Ac. 0-27 cents. He clearly and categorically admitted that admitted facts need not be proved. The suit schedule mentioned property sold to D.1 by his mother on 27-07- 2016, in turn, the D.1 sold out the said property to D3 on 21-06-2017. Further admitted that D2 is one of the attestor of the sale deed dated 27-07-2016. Further he purchased
O.S.NO. 102/2018 41 Dated : 23-04-2024
the eastern side land of the schedule mentioned property by way of the sale deed on 20-06-2007. The D2 might have an identification attestor for the sale deed.
He clearly admitted that the D.2 is attestor, knowing fully he is also added as the party to the suit. Further he admitted that according to the sale deed dated 27-07-2106 is dry land and infact the mango Garden is existed. Further admitted that the western bondary is mentioned by name Madisetti Parvathamma. Further he clearly and categorically demonstrated that sale deed dated 01-04-1980 in respect of the item number one was mentioned in as survey No.23/14 in an extent of Ac.0.74 cents. That was converted in survey No.23/19. The said survey number mentioned in the revenue records in the name of the mother as survey No.23/19. Further he clearly admitted that there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries of the suit schedule mentioned property with D.3. The boundaries are mentioned in suit schedule mentioned property of the sale deed of his mother in eastern side Kondasbathula Narasamma, Maradana
Simhachalam tope. The boundaries are mentioned is true.
He clearly and categorically admitted that there is a family dispute existed with regard to the conversion into Christianity only his mother. There is no documentary proof to show that the sale deed dated 01-04-2019, to speak that the land is purchased by his mother with the funds of his father himself is provided the medical aid to the mother. She was also stayed with her. Her mother stated in quite contra, there is family bickering arose in between the family members. But the PW1 did not agree with that there no bickering arose in the family members. They are living happily together in one roof. Further he clearly admitted that it was mentioned that out of total extent of Ac. 0-80 cents, survey number 107/7, Ac.--30 cents of land is acquired by the
Government for Jangawati project long back. The government awarded compensation of Rs.27,000/- to his mother. The remaining extent is left over to the Ac.0-54 cents.
Further, there is no corroboration with regard to the pleadings and the oral testimony of the DW1 that is D.5, there is no corroboration. Only they left over the
Ac.0.54 cents and they proposed to sell is Ac.0-74 cents is quite contra. Further admitted that her mother is supposed to sell in survey number 107/7 in an extent of
Ac.0-84 cents, but they falsely mentioning the survey No.23/19 in an extent of Ac.0-74 cents and obtained the sale deed. There is no cogent material is placed before the court for proof and establishment the fact, they are not liable for the cancellation.
Further admitted that survey no.107/7 property is not exclusively belongs to his mother and it is covered by Will executed by the Narasamma, paternal aunt, in relating to the survey No.107/7 and her children and herself having right over the the survey number
O.S.NO. 102/2018 42 Dated : 23-04-2024
107/7, but not the suit schedule mentioned property in relating to survey No.23/19 in an extent of AC. 0-74 cents.
He clearly and categorically admitted that the suit schedule mentioned property is nature of the property is not the ancestral property, in view of the old survey number existed in the said sale deed dated 01-04-1980, the lands are existed in Surampeta village. Further he clearly admitted that he might be examined D.4 as a witness behalf of him with regard to the documents. The family members are equally entitled the share over the suit schedule mentioned property. There is no material is placed before the Court, the family members are entitled for the equal shares. In such a case, they are not entitled for cancellation. He is not interested to sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to his enemy by his mother. The Pw1 clearly and categorically admitted that root cause for filing the suit for seeking the cancellation of the suit schedule mentioned property. Her mother is sold out the suit schedule mentioned property to his enemy. That is the root cause for filing the suit. He was accompanied with her mother at the time of giving brief to his counsel and the family members are in active collusion for seeking the cancellation and the family members having knowledge for resistance of the sale deed and they are not liable for seeking the cancellation.
Further he clearly and categorically admitted that his mother sold out the property to Maji Simhachalam and Maji Appala Swami in the year 2002, but he has not objected and not taken any action against them. Further he clearly and categorically admitted that there is an exchange in between the said persons and his mother in exchange of the lands by way of reducing the same, she has not taken any action against them as they exchanged the lands by his mother. Another ground for filing the suit, the sale consideration is below the market value. The root cause for filing the suit, there is no collusion by playing fraud, only the schedule mentioned property sold by the D.1 to his enemy, that is the root cause and another reason is that consideration is below the market value. That is not for genuine ground as on the date of the enter into the sale deed, they have to stick on the promise and exchange of the things and that is the root cause, there is no other reason that sale deed is valid and binding, that may not be liable to be cancelled. That is not the proper reason. After selling and conveying the title to the 3rd parties. The 3rd party can sold the property to anybody as his wish and they might not be restrained them not to sell the property to his enemy that is the absolutely bar that allegations cannot be considered that is against the public policy.
That condition is not valid and not binding, that conditional transfer is void ab initio even no condition put in the EA2. For that reason, they are filing the suit not seeking
O.S.NO. 102/2018 43 Dated : 23-04-2024
the cancellation, on that ground that cannot be canceled the sale deed dated 21-06- 2017. The suit schedule properties sold by him owned by the D.3 is the enemy of the
D.1 and the boundary dispute is existed in between them. For that reason, the sale deed cannot be cancelled. That was the absolute rights vested to the D.1 and D.3 and the purchased the suit schedule mentioned property for a valid consideration and D3 is one of the attestor of the said document and the convince was concluded, they both are entitled. The documentary proof coupled with oral evidence demonstrated the right and interest in favour of the D.3, but they may not cancel the sale deed. The cancellation of the sale cannot be proper. Contractual obligations is concluded. There is no breach. There is no collusion and playing fraud. The plea of the plaintiff itself is inconsistent and there is no certainty and substantiation with regard to the misrepresentation, fraud and taking advantage of the family bickerings. The PW1 is stated different lines and DW1 is stated different lines and there is a family bickerings arose among the family members about the reason they are obtaining the sale deed.
That is not the proper reason behind back and only the root cause for the suit schedule mentioned property is sold to his enemy that is D3, that is root cause for seeking the cancellation. The terms and conditions is mentioned in the sale deed is valid and binding and that may not be canceled and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit schedule mention property.
The oral evidence and the documentary evidence is clearly substantive the right and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the D.3 and D.1 is sold out the same property and conveyed and transfer the vested rights absolutely in favour of the D.1. in such a case, D4 to D5 and plaintiff cannot seek the cancellation of the said document on the petty reason is not proper and consistent to disproven the fact of the existence of the registered sale deed and conferred the title and interest over the suit schedule mentioned property and that may not be canceled.
20.Issue number. 7 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief to direct the defendants number 1 to 3 to put her in separate possession of the suit schedule property for evicting him in case a plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction against the defendant number 1 to 3 as prayed for or not ?
The plaintiff is not entitled the relief against the defendants. Number 1 to 3, put to her into separate possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the D1 to
D3 in relating to the suit schedule property and put her into the possession is reverse
O.S.NO. 102/2018 44 Dated : 23-04-2024
back to her and she did not present cogent material and substantiation. The documentary evidence and the oral evidence clearly and categorically convey the right, title and interest of the suit schedule mentioned property in favour of the D1 to
D3 and they were in physical possession and enjoyment by way of purchasing the sale by paying the sale consideration. The reason submitted by the plaintiff and the D1 is not proper and the root cause for filing the suit is two grounds is not properly considerable grounds and that may not be assuming the plaintiff might have misrepresenting and misconcealment of the fact by suppressing the real facts and the plaintiff is proposed to sell the property in relating to the survey No. 107/7 but not the survey number 23/19. It is quite contra. There is no corroboration and substantiation with regard to the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant DW1 and DW3 was clearly proved that transaction is valid and binding the suit schedule mentioned property is conveyed the right and interest and the Revenue Records and everything is revealed 1-B account digitally.
The revenue records is clearly and categorically shown the physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in possession of the D3 as on the date of the purchase, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property. In such a case, the pretty reasons and flimsy grounds might not be cancelled the sale deed unless the strong reasons and corroborative material is placed before the Court,
That sale deed dated 27-07-2016 obtained by the D.1 by way of fraud. In turn, he sold out the same to the D.3 by way of registered sale deed dated 21-06-2017, as on the date of the enter into the sale deed, they are conveying the title and interest. They are the absolute owners of the suit schedule mentioned property as on the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled for relief of directing the defendant No.
3 to put her into separate possession over the plaint schedule property after evicting them. The plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction against defendants number 1 to 3 as sought for as she was not presented any cogent material before the Court to disproven the fact. Non existence of the fact is highly probable and prudent man ought to have to analyze and being that non existence of the fact and the plaintiff is failed to prove the non existence of the fact and that sale deed is obtained by way of fraud and collusion. There is no material is placed before the Court. There is no corroboration with regard to the oral evidence and documentary evidence. The document itself is clearly demonstrated that absolute rights and interest over the plaintiff. In turn, the plaintiff is conveyed the title in favour of the D1. In turn the D1 is sold out the same to the D.3. There is no collision. The transitions entered into the parties with free consent. The consus addidum is clearly proved by the defendants. They are given free
O.S.NO. 102/2018 45 Dated : 23-04-2024
consent and passing the consideration, the contractual obligations is clearly performed and thereby acquiring the property. In such a case when the absolute rights is vested with the property, there is no dispossession of the immovable property, immediate recovery of the dispossession, there is an abnormal delay and the plaintiff come to the court with unclean hands. She did not presented the balance of convenience before the Court. The circumstances and situations demanded, their oral evidence of plaintiff and DW1 evidence is also quite contra. in such a case the plaintiff cannot be entitled for the relief sought for and put her into separate possession as prayed for.
Accordingly issue No. 8 is answered.
24.Issue no.8: To what relief ?
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed, and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2024.
Sd/-. Smt. M.Sarojanamma
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Bobbili
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined :
For the Plaintiff :
P.W.1 : M.Parvathamma
P.W.2 :Penta Gowrinaidu
For the Defendants :
D.W.1 : Medisetty Venkateswara Rao
D.W.2 :Palaparthi Sudarshana Rao
D.W.3 : Kondabattula Manmadha Rao
O.S.NO. 102/2018 46 Dated : 23-04-2024
Exhibits Marked :
For the Plaintiff :
Ex.A.1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 01.04.1980 which is in name of plaintiff to the suit schedule property..
Ex.A.2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 27.07.2016 obtained by D. 1, D.2 from the plaintiff and D.4.
Ex.A.3: Office copy of legal notice got issued by me to D1, D.2, dated 15.06.2017.
Ex.A.4: Certified copy of registered sale deed created by D.1 and D.2 in favour of D.3 dated dated 11.06.2017.
Ex.A.5: Reply notice dated 20.07.2017 issued by D.1 and D.2.
For the Defendants :
Ex.B.1 : Register sale deed, executed in favour of plaintiff by Peddaredla
Gopi naidu and others in respect of the schedule mentioned property
Dated: 01-04-1980
Ex.B.2 : Original registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff and her daughter
D4 in favour of D1 dated: 27-07-2016
Ex.B.3 : Original registered sale deed Ex D1 in favour of D3 Dt: 21-06- 2017
Ex.B.4 : Pattadar pass book in favour of D1 original
Ex.B.5 : Pattadar pass book in favour of D3 original
Ex.B.6 : 1B account and addangal digitally signed certificates in favour of D3
Ex B.7 : information furnished by land acquisition officer cum Deputy
Collector Dt: 12-09-2018, Bobbili under RTI Act.
Sd/-. Smt. M.Sarojanamma
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Bobbili