1 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR
PRESENT: SRI M. SATISH KUMAR,
VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR.
Wednesday, Dated this the 08th day of April, 2026
AS.No.35 of 2020
Between:
1. K. Raja Reddy,S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged 66 years, OcC: Business, R/o. H.nO. 10-63, New Gaddiannaram colony, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Mitta Dilip Anand, S/o. M. Krishna Murthy, Aged 60 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Plot NO.241-C, ESI Quarters, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad.
.....Appellants/Defendants
And
D. Madhava Reddy, S/o. Late Buchi Reddy, Aged 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.53, Anupama Nagar, Hastinapur, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
...Respondent/Plaintiff
Appeal against Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar in
O.S. NO.1697 of 2012
Between:
D.Madhava Reddy
... Plaintiff
AND K. Raja Reddy and another 2 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
...Defendants
This appeal suit is coming up for final hearing on 17-02-2026 before me in the presence of Sri Vijay Maski, Counsel for appellants and of Sri D.V.Srinivas Rao, Counsel for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: JUDGMENT ::
1.The appeal in A.S.No. 35 of 2020 is preferred by the appellants/
Defendant No.1 & 2 under Order XLI Rule 1 R/W. Section 151 of Civil
Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree in O.S. 1697 of 2012 dt.
09-01-2020 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal suit is hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
3. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plot bearing
No.23 admeasuring 1000 Sq. yards in Sy.No.92 of Turkayamjal Village, Hayath nagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same from its owner Syed
Fazalullah Quadri under a registered sale deed dt.16-06-2004 vide document
No.9176 of 2004 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East, and delivery of possession of the same took place on the date of Registration 3 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
(herein after called the "Suit schedule property). The said Syed Fazalullah
Quadri purchased the said property from defendant No.2 under registered sale deed dt.28-02-1979 vide doc. No.2101/1979 and the defendant No.2 purchased the above said property from Syed Abdul Hameed under a registered sale deed dt.18-01-1979 vide doc.No. 494/1979. The plaintiff further submit that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and prior to that, the same was in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff's vendor and in order to protect the suit schedule property from the clutches of land grabbers, long back the plaintiff have erected the khadis surrounding the suit schedule property and further the plaintiff constructed a room in the suit schedule property and obtained Electricity connection and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, and all the owners of the plots in Sy No.82 formed as an association i.e., Mythri valley Plot Owners Welfare Association and the plaintiff is the member of said Association and paid an amount of Rs.5000/- towards development charges.
4. It is submitted that the plaintiff used to visit the suit schedule property frequently and on 10-08-2012 defendant No.1 along with his henchmen came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and also tried to remove the khadis legally and also tried to dispossess the plaintiff & due to resistance put up by the plaintiff and his relatives & neighbours, the defendants left the place by threatening that they 4 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
will come again with greater force and illegally dispose the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Even the plaintiff lodged report to SHO, P.S. Meerpet, but the said police did not incline to take any action as the matter is of civil dispute in nature and advised to approach the civil court.
5. It is submitted that the plaintiff came to know that on 12-8-2012 the
Defendant No.1 in connivance with defendant No 2 got executed agreement of
Sale Cum General Power of Attorney registered vide document No.23381 of 2006 dt.20-12-2006 inspite of knowledge about the fact of sale of the schedule property and consequentially execution of sale deed in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Syed Fazalullah Quadri vide document No.2101/1979 by delivering the possession in favour of Syed Fazalullah Quadri in respect of the suit schedule property conveying all his rights and title over the suit schedule property and who in turn executed the registered sale deed dated 18.6-2004 vide document No.9176/2004 in favour of plaintiff and therefore the defendant
No.2 has no more right and title over the suit schedule property and the defendant No 1 will not get any right or title over the suit schedule property
6. It is submitted that the defendant No 1 under the guise of invalid document ie.. Agreement of Sale cum GPA bearing document No.23381/2006
dated 20-12-2006 is constantly interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property with a deliberate acts 5 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
with malafide intention to occupy & grab the property. The plaintiff is apprehending danger to him and his property at the hands of the defendants who are highly influential people and at any point of time they may grab the suit schedule property. The plaintiff apprehends that if the said invalid document bearing No.23381/2006 dt.20-12-2006 remains on the records of the office, there is every possibility of creating third party interest to perpetuate further illegalities by the defendants which may be lead to multiplicity of proceedings incurring heavy expenditure adverse to the interest of the plaintiff in the event the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and damage, a document from the Defendant No.2 for the suit schedule property. Hence the suit.
7. The defendant No.1 and 2 filed Written statement denied the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff to prove regarding his portion and ownership of the suit property and further stated that the documents submitted by plaintiff showing Syed Fazalullah Quadri as owner of the suit schedule property vide doc.No.9176/2004 dt. 16-06-2004 is a fabricated and created document by the plaintiff for the purpose of showing his ownership of the suit schedule property by creating this false link documents which is never in existence as per the Govt. Record and further submitted that Defendant No.2
Sri M. Dilip Anand has never executed the said document in favour of Syed
Fazalullah Quadri at any time and signatures appearing on the said document are fabricated and created by the plaintiff.
6 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
8. Defendant further submit that prior to that there was incident of land grabbing of the said Survey number including suit property by the L.M Khan,
Pasha Khan, Syed Khaja and Ch.Manohar, V.Narsimha Gupta, Ch.Ramanaiah and others on which Defendant No.1 has registered a case against the said persons in Cr. No.637/2009 at P.S.Vanastalipuram, Cyberabad, dt.28-10-2009 and police filed charge sheet vide C.C. No. 666/2010 and since from the date, there was constant attempt to grab the suit schedule property by the land grabbers which have been renewed by this plaintiff by showing false document
Bearing No.9176/2004 dt. 16-06-2004 by Syed Fazalullah Quadri.
9. The defendant further submit that prior to grabbing the suit property the plaintiff herein dumped construction material on suit property for which defendant No.1 gave continuous complaints in police station Meerpet vide complaint dt.10-08-2012, 29-08-2012, 05-10-2012 and police registered a case in Cr. No.524/2012 dt.5-10-2012 and registered a case but plaintiff and one Syed Fazalullah Quadri committed the offence punishable U/sec. 420, 468, 471, 447, 427, 506 IPC.
10. Defendants further submit that right from the purchase of the property by defendant No.2 from Syed Abdul Hameed under Regd.Sale deed vide doc.494/1979 dt. 18-01-1979 defendant NO.2 is in possession and ownership over the suit property and he neither sold the property to Syed Fazalullah 7 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
Quadri or anybody as contended by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has never and nor in possession of the property and after giving complaint to the police dt.10- 08-2012 the defendants constructed one room which plaintiff claiming to be constructed by him by misleading the government by showing the property as his own obtained permission from the electricity department on the construction belongs to Defendant No.2 and the plaintiff in order to support his case formed a false association and a receipt of amount of Rs.5,000/- under the guise of Mytri vally plot owners association which is not at all registered one nor legally bounded on the defendants and defendants denied that on 10- 08-2012, D.1 along with his henchmen came to suit property and tried to interfere with peaceful possession of the plaintiff and due to his resistance in association with relatives and neighbours, he could stand with his possession and also denied that defendant threatened with plaintiff to be returned with great force and forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit property and they denied that on 13-08-2012 the plaintiff made complaint to the Meerpet police station but police not taken any action and direct the plaintiff to go to civil court.
11. The defendants further submits that D.1 got executed an agreement of sale cum GPA vide doc.No.23381 of 2006 dt. 20-12-2006 and by this time or subsequent to it till today there is no entry in the E.C. and Government records selling the schedule property by D.1 in favour of Syed Fazalullah Quadri and 8 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
no possession of the suit property has been delivered either by D.2 or any other person to Syed Fazalullah Quadri as such the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff does not have any cause of action and the present suit is filed basing on the false documents of
Syed Fazalullah Quadri as he is not owner of the property and the ownership of the suit property has not transferred legally under valid document and suit is barred by limitation and prayed to dismiss the suit.
12. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as registered document No. AGPA No. 2338/2006 as void and not binding on the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual
injunction against the defendant as prayed for?
13. During the trial on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as
Pw.1 and got marked. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17 i.e., Ex.A1 is Certified Copy of sale deed bearing document No.494/1979, dated: 18.01.1979, Ex A2 is Certified
Copy of sale deed bearing document No.2101/1979, dt. 28.02.1979, Ex:A3 is
Original sale deed bearing document No.9176/2004, dated: 16.06.2004.,
Ex.A4 is Certified Copy of Agreement of Sale cum GPA bearing document
No.23281/2006, dated 08.11.2006, Ex.A5 is Original Electricity Receipt dated:
9 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
09.08.2012, Ex.A6 is Original Receipt of Mythree Valley Association dated:
09.09.2012, Ex.A7 is Original photos along with CD, Ex.A8 is Certified Copy of
Encumbrance Certificate dated: 06.02.2013, Ex.A9 is Certified Copy of
Encumbrance Certificate dated: 06.02.2013, Ex.A10 is Certified Copy of complaint in FIR No.524/2012, Ex A11 is Original Electricity Bill dated:
08.05.2013, Ex.A12 is Original payment receipt dated: 21.05.2013, Ex.A13 is
Original Electricity Bill dated: 12.07.2013, Ex.A14 is Original Payment Receipt
dated: 25.07.2013, Ex.A15 is Original Electricity Bill dated: 11.01.2014,
Ex.A16 is Original Payment Receipt dated: 14.02.2014, Ex.A17 is Original
Electricity Bill dated: 07.05.2014, Ex.A18 is Original payment receipt dated:
23.05.2014, Ex.A19 is Original Property Tax payment receipt dated:
10.02.2014, Ex.A20: Certified copy of the charge sheet in Cr.No.524/2012 of
P.S. Meerpet, Ex.A21 is Certified copy of the opinion given by the Finger Print
Expert along with the letter, dated.28.04.2015 addressed to II Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, LB Nagar in Cr.No.524/2012, P.S. Meerpet. The
Respondent also got examined S. Narsimha Reddy as Pw.2.
14. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 himself examined as Dw.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.11 i.e., Ex.B1 Attested copy of FIR issued in Cr.No.
524/2012, Ex.B2 Certified Copy of Pahani for 1979-1980, Ex.B3 Certified copy of pahani for 1978-1979, Ex.B4: Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.03.1992,
Ex.B5 Encumbrance Certificate dated: 21.07.1993, Ex.B6 Encumbrance 10 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
Certificate dated: 24.01.1996, Ex.B7 Encumbrance Certificate dated.
10.10.2013, Ex.B8 Regularization and Authorization dated: 27.07.1984, Ex.B9
Agreement of Sale cum GPA with possession bearing document
No.23381/2006, dated. 08,11.2006, Ex.B10 Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.494/1979, dated: 18.01.1979, Ex.B11 Copy of order passed in
Crl. Petition No.812/2014, dated: 13.07.2014.
15. On hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant who is the defendant No.1 and 2 in the main suit preferred under the
Appeal Suit No.35 of 2020 on the following grounds:
16. The Judgment and Decree of the court below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and facts of the case. The court below ought to have seen that the respondent has filed O.S No.1697 of 2012 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar for Declaration of Agreement of Sale cum
General Power of Attorney (with possession) Doct.No.23381/2006 dt. 20-12- 2006 as null and void which is apparently barred by limitation. The suit for declaration of document as null and void can be granted only when the suit is filed within three years of the execution. The Court could not have decreed the 11 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
suit for declaration of document of 2006 as null and void in 2012 as it is hopelessly barred by limitation. The court below ought to have seen that the suit ought not to have been numbered in as much as the plaint on its plain reading appears as barred by limitation. The court below failed to see that the respondent/plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit land on the date of suit i.e., 17-9-2012, either before said date or after said date. Therefore decreeing the suit without respondent/plaintiff being in possession is erroneous. The court below ought to have seen that the allegations in the plaint with regard to approaching police and police advising the respondent/plaintiff to approach court is false and it is quite reverse as the appellant/defendant no.1 lodged report in P.S.Vanasthalipuram which was registered as Crime No.637/2009 and later numbered as C.C No.666/2010 which is pending. The court below ought to have seen that when the plaintiff tried to occupy the schedule property forcibly by dumping construction material, the appellant/defendant not gave police report on 10-8-2012, 29-8-2012 & 5-10-2012 and Cr.No.524/2012 was registered against the respondent/plaintiff and his vendor. The court below ought to have seen that when the respondent clearly stated that the suit plot is open land and there is no fencing or wall around it, the electricity bills
Ex. All to A19 are mere creation and no electricity connection can be given to vacant land. The court below ought to have seen that the respondent/plaintiff did not produce any property tax but in the Judgment in para 11 it was stated 12 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
that the respondent/plaintiff is paying property tax. The court below ought to have seen that when the Mythri Valley Welfare Association was formed in 2012, the payment of welfare charges in 2012 is only brought into existence for the purpose of suit. The court below ought to have seen that the report of expert in Cr.No.524/2012 addressed to II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B Nagar is merely an opinion which is not yet marked in said crime and expert who gave said opinion was neither examined nor cross-examined. The court below ought to have seen that mere marking the opinion of expert as Ex
A21, the same could not have been made base to believe the execution of Ex.
A2 and to uphold the title of respondent/plaintiff. The Lower court failed to sec that the respondent/plaintiff did not examine his vendor Syed Fazalullah
Quadri to prove that Ex. A3 is executed by him and that he delivered possession to him. The court below failed to see that as per Ex.B4 the appellant/defendant no.2 and his brother who were the registered owners of plots 23 & 24 admeasuring 1000 Square Yards each, clearly admitted that they are only name lenders and the real owner of those plots is the appellant/defendant no.1 only. It was also stated in said Ex.B4 that the stamp duty and registration for the sale deeds on their names were born by the appellant/ defendant no.1 only. Therefore the appellant/defendant no. 2 could not have executed sale deed no.2101/1979 dt.23-2-1979. The court below failed to see that in view of Ex.B4, there is no possession of 13 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
respondent/defendant no.2 and therefore could not have delivered possession to Syed Fazalullah Quadri and decreeing suit merely relying on Ex.A21. The court below failed to see that the original registered sale deed No.494/1979 dt.18-01-1979 is with the appellant/defendant no.1 and not delivered to Syed
Fazalullah Quadri and therefore the execution of 2101/1979 dt.23-2-1979 is doubtful. The court below failed to see that assuming without admitting that the appellant/defendant No.2 registered the sale deed No.2101/1979 dt.23-2- 1979, he cannot be considered bonafide purchaser as he has not taken original sale deed No.494/1979. The trial court erred in decreeing the suit though there is no reference to the sale deed no.494/1979 and the sale consideration is shown as Rs.1000/- in both the sale deeds. Therefore Syed
Fazalulla Quadri is not at all a bonafide purchaser and finally prayed to dismiss the suit.
17. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondents and perused the record.
18. Now points for consideration is :
1) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of trial Court is
unsustainable and requires any interference by this Court while
sitting in appeal, if so, with what observations?
2) To what result?
14 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
19. POINT No.1:
Plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 reiterated the contents of the plaintiff in his chief examination and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.21 as referred above.
In the cross examination Pw.1 deposed that in the year 2012 he became the member of the Mytri vally plot owners association and the said association was formed on 10-08-2012 and it was registered with the register of societies and there are 25 members in the said association and he admitted that on the report of the defendant No.1 he attended Meerpet police station on 05-10-2012 and further admitted that police Meerpet registered a case in Cr.No. 514/2012 against him and he filed quash the said case before Hon’ble High Court and
Hon’ble High Court disposed of the said petition directing the police not to
arrest him . He further deposed that he not filed complaint against D.1 for the offence punishable U/sec. 420 IPC and he mentioned in the plaint that defendant came to the suit property and trying to dispossess him from the suit schedule property on 10-08-2012 and 13-08-2012 and the police did not receive the report lodged by him stating that he has to approach civil court and he has not issued any legal notice to D.1 and D.2 from 10-08-2012 till date of filing of suit and there is no development agreement between him and Mytri vally plot owners association and further deposed that Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 bears date 09-09-2012. He denied suggestion that after filing of suit he fabricated Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 for the purpose of this suit and Ex.A.7 15 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
photographs filed for the purpose of the suit and the door number of the suit schedule property given by GP authorities and house number for the suit property issued in the month of April, 2014 and he is not aware whether defendants filed report against his vendor same is registered vide
Cr.No.637/2009 in P.S. Vanastalipuram and Defendant No.1 and Defendant
No.2 never came to suit scheudle property but two persons came when he questioned them, they stated that they came at the behest of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. he denied suggestion that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are fabricated sale deeds and he has not taken original of Ex.A.1 from his vendor
Syed Fazilulla Khadri. He denied suggestion that Ex.A.3 not executed by
Fazilulla Khadri in his favour and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are not true and valid documents. He denied suggestion that D.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and he is not owner of the suit schedule property and he denied suggestion that Ex.A.19 is created for the purpose of this suit. He denied suggestion that his vendor Fazilulla Khadri created Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 sale deed that he executed Ex.A.3 in his name without having valid right and title and possession over the property.
20. The plaintiff also got examined one S. Narsimha Reddy as Pw.2. he also deposed similar lines of Pw.1 that Pw.1 purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed vide doc. No.9176 of 2004 dt.16-06-2004 from 16 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
Syed Fazalullah Quadri and since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession of the same and prior to that vendor of the plaintiff was in possession and plaintiff also erected kaddis surrounding the suit schedule property and also constructed room and obtained electricity connection for the suit schedule property and he further deposed that he is owne4r of the plot
No.4 part and plot NO.5 and 6 total 2250 sq.yds in Sy.No.92 of Turkayamjal village and all owners of the plots in Sy.No.92 formed as an association i.e.,
Mytri Vally plot owners welfare association and he is president of the said association and all the members paid Rs.5,000/- towards development charges and defendant No.1 without having any right under the guise of invalid agreement of sale cum GPA vide doc.No. 2338 of 2006 dt. 20-12-2006 interfering with his possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and
D.1 habit of creating false and forged documents and creating hurdles to the owners of the plots to extract amount.
21. In the cross examination Pw.2 admitted that D.1 lodged complaint at
Meerpet police station on 05-10-2012 , 10-08-2012 and 29-08-2012 that some persons forging the documents of Sy.No.92. He also admitted that criminal cases pending against the plaintiff on the file of II MM Court, R.R. District on the report lodged by Defendant No.1 . He further deposed that he has not attested Ex.A.3 and further deposed that D.1 is one of the attestor of Ex.A.3.
17 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
22. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 himself examined as Dw.1 and he reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief examination and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 as referred above. He further deposed that he improved his version that the suit property purchased by him in the name of defendant No.2 with the help of M. Nageswar Rao vide doc. No.494 of 1979 dt.
18-01-1979 from one Abdul Hameed in the name of his nominee Defendant
No.2 and further contended that the plaintiff fabricated document vide
Doc.No.9176 of 2004 dt.16-06-2004 for the purpose of suit and created link document and defendant No.2 never executed any document in favour of Syed
Fazilulla khadri and signature appearing on the said document is fabricated.
He further contended that Defendant No.1 got executed agreement of sale cum GPA vide doc. NO.23381 of 2006 dt.20-12-2006 and no possession of the suit schedule property has been delivered either by him or other person to
Syed Fazilulla Khadri and he further deposed that he has purchased plots total 18 admeasuring 17700 sq.yds in Sy.No.92 situated at Turkayamjal village in the year 1979 out of which plot No.23 purchased by him in the name of
Defendant No.2 vide doc.No. 494 of 1979 dt. 18-01-1979 and he got marked
Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11.
23. In the cross examination Dw.1 deposed that Madhava reddy filed this suit against him alone seeking perpetual injunction and he has no 18 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
acquaintance with him and he met him only at police station, D.2 is brother of his classmate and he know him since his college days and further deposed that one Abdul Hameed was the original pattedar of land in Sy.No.92 of
Turkayamjal village and he admitted that Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3 pahanies in the name of Abdul Hameed and his name was not recorded and he admitted that
Ex.B.9 it is mentioned that Abdul Hameed converted the land adm. Ac.6-30gts into 30 plots and sold the same by obtaining layout from Gram panchayath. He deposed that he purchased one plot No.2 from Abdul Hameed out of 30 plots and he is in possession of plot No.2 till date and D.2 purchased only one plot from Abdul Hameed under Ex.B.9 and he further deposed that he know the contents of Ex.B.1 FIR and he admitted that in Ex.B.1 it was mentioned that he has purchased 30 plots in Sy.No.92 on that he deposed that he has not mentioned the said fact in the complaint. He admitted that he further mentioned in Ex.B.1 that he got sale deed executed in favour of D.2 and further mentioned that he purchased the plot got registered in the name of
D.2 . He admitted that till date D.2 not registered any sale deed in his favour only Ex.B.8 was executed and he admitted that as per Ex.B.8 D2 was absolute owner of the property covered under said document and sold to him to meet his family necessities by receiving sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and further admitted as per Ex.B.9, D.2 himself purchased the property and not mentioned that he/ D.1 purchased the said property in the name of D.2. He 19 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
admitted that under thumb impression of the vendor in Ex.A.2 his name and name of Vivek Anand mentioned and he admitted that Ex.A.2 executed in Sub
Registrar office and he admitted that in his written statement he has not mentioned that he purchased 18 plots in Sy No.92 admeasuring 17700sq.yds.
He admitted that in Ex.B.1 FIR it is mentioned that the plaintiff constructed in one room in the suit property and he again stated that plaintiff tried to construct room and stopped. He admitted that Ex.A.20 charge sheet filed on his complaint and he admitted that during investigation police obtained thumb impression of D.2 and sent to FSL and FSL report is the Ex.A.21 and further admitted that in Ex.A.21 FSL report it was found that thumb impression of D.2 was matching with thumb impression with Ex.A.2. He denied suggestion that as per Ex.A.8 E.C. the transaction of D.2 reflected in the E.C. and as per
Ex.A.9 , E.C. Fazilulla khadri sold the suit property to the plaintiff and he admitted that police filed charge sheet against D.2 and shown Fazilulla khadri and Madhava reddy as a witnesses in the complaint given by him. He denied suggestion that D.2 already sold the suit property to Fazilulla khadri who inturn sold the same to the plaintiff as such D.2 has no right to execute agreement of sale cum GPA in his favour and Ex.B.7 created for the purpose of the suit and he admitted that Ex.A.6 receipt plot owners association registered. He admitted that Pw.2 filed criminal complaint against him alleging that he created fabricated documents by forging signatures vide Cr.No.700 of 2016 in C.C.
20 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
1148/2019 and it was pending. He denied suggestion that he along with D.2 and their men and trying to interfere the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property though he has knowledge the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff only in order to grab the suit schedule property filed false complaint and tried to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff.
24. In this case, the case of the plaintiff is that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.23 admeasuring 1000Sq.yds in Sy. No.92 of
Turkayamjal village, and he purchased the same under Ex.A.3 registered sale deed dt.16-06-2004 from Syed Fazalullah Quadri and since the date of purchase, he has been in possession of the suit schedule property and it is further case of the plaintiff is that his vendor purchased the said property from defendant No.2 under registered sale deed Ex.A.2 dt.28-02-1979 and defendant No.2 purchased the same from Syed Abdul Hameed under Ex.A.1 dt.18-01-1979 and he also erected the kaddies surrounding the suit property and constructed a room and obtained electricity connection and all the owners of the plots in Sy.No.92 formed association I.e, Mytri Valley Plot Owners welfare association and he has paid RS.5,000/- towards development charges and on 10-08-2012 D.1 along with his henchmen tried to interfere with possession though he lodged police report at P.S. Meerpet but police not registered report stating that it is civil dispute advised to approach civil court 21 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
and on enquiry he came to know that D.1 in connivance with D.2 got agreement of sale cum GPA in respect of suit schedule property under Ex.A.4 dt.20-12-2006. In spite of knowledge of the sale of the suit property by the vendor of plaintiff under Ex.A.2.
25. On the other hand Defendant No.1 and 2 filed common written statement and contended that D.2 never sold the suit schedule property under
Ex.A.2 and defendant No.1 further contended that when there was a land grabbing he got registered a case at P.S. Vanastalipuram vide Cr.No.637 of 2009 and it was numbered as C.C.666/2010 against some persons and further contended that he also lodged police report against the plaintiff dt.10-08- 2012, 29-08-2012, 05-10-2012 vide Cr.No. 524 of 2012 registered against plaintiff and Syed Fazalullah Quadri U/sec. 420, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 506
IPC and D.2 never sold the property to Syed Fazalullah Quadri
26. Defendant No.1 who is examined as Dw.1 deposed that one Abdul
Hameed was original pattedar of land in Sy.No.92 of Turkayamzal village and total extent of land is Ac.10-34gts and said Abdul Hameed and Dw.1 admitted that in Ex.B.9 under which he purchased from Defendant No.2 wherein it is mentioned Abdul Hameed converted the land of Ac.6-30gts into 30 plots and sold to prospective purchasers, therefore, it is clear that originally said Abdul 22 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
Hameed was the owner of the land in Sy.No.92 and the said Abdul Hameed converted the said land into plots and sold to various persons. Though in the written statement, defendant No.1 and 2 never stated that Defendant No.1 purchased 18 plots in Sy.No.92 admeasuring 17700 sq.yds at Turkayamzal village in the year 1979 and present suit schedule property purchased by D.1 in the name of D.2 under Ex.A.1, but the said fact was stated by defendant
No.1 in his chief examination affidavit who examined as Dw.1 by improving his version to his written statement.
27. The defendants got marked Ex.B.9 agreement of sale cum GPA wherein it is mentioned that the vendor i.e., Defendant No.2 herein absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property purchased under Ex.A.1 and as
Defendant No.2 is need of money and sold the same to defendant No.1 for total consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- under Ex.B.9 but in Ex.B.9 there is no mention that though it was registered in the name of Defendant No.2 but actually purchased by Defendant No.1 in the name of Defendant No.2.
Therefore, the pleadings of the Defendant No.1 and 2 are against the contents of the Ex.B.9 and also the evidence of Dw.1 against to the Ex.B.9.
28. More over Dw.1 got marked Ex.B.8 Declaration and Authorization dt.28- 07-1984 wherein it is mentioned that
“it was said to be executed by D.2 and his son Mitta Vivek Anand
declaring that they are only nominees of D.1 for the suit schedule plot
23 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
and plot NO.24 i.e., plot No.23 and 24 in Sy.No.92 of Turka yamjal village.
Though said plots are registered under Ex.A.1 and document
No.603/1979 at expenses of Defendant No.1 and further mentioned that
they have no moral claim or right over the said plots partially or totally
and for them very happy to be as a nominies for him”.
29. Therefore, the alleged transaction of Ex.B.8 is hit by Sec. 4 of Binami
Transaction Act. Sec. 4 of Binami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 as under:
4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami:
(1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
(2) No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
30. Therefore, defendant No.1 not entitled any right over the suit schedule property as per Sec. 4 of Binami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Even basing on Ex.B.9 also defendant NO.1 not get any right and title over the suit schedule property as it was Binami transaction.
31. Though Defendant No.1 and 2 in the written statement contended that
D.2 not executed Ex.A.2 in favour of Syed Fazalullah Quadri, but to prove his 24 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
contention in this case defendant No.2 not enter into witness box. More over plaintiff got marked Ex.A.10 certified copy of FIR and complaint in Cr.No.524 of 2012 that Ex.A.2 was forged document. The plaintiff got marked Ex.A.20 copy of charge sheet in the above said crime, as per the contents of the Ex.A.20 shows that the police after investigation on the complaint of Defendant NO.1 filed charge sheet U/sec.420 IPC against defendant No.2 heren wherein it is mentioned that the investigation established that “ in the year 1979, initially the accused Mr.Mitta Dilip Anand ( Defendant
No.2 herein ) had executed a sale deed on the name of Lw.2 Syed Fazullah
Quadri vide doc.No.2101/1979 dt. 23-02-1979 i.e,. Ex.A.1 herein in respect of the property plot No.23, admeasuring 1000 sq.yds i.e, suit schedule property herein. While the matter stood, in the year 2004 on the strength of the sale deed executed by the accused Mitta Dilip Anand, the Lw.2 Syed Fazullah
Quadri had sold out the said property in favour of Lw.3 Madhava Reddy, (plaintiff herein) vide doc.No.9176/2004 ddt. 16-06-2004 under Ex.A.3.
Meanwhile in the year 2006, the accused Mitta Dilip Anand had again executed another sale cum GPA to the complainant Mr. Kalva Raji Reddy vide doc.No. 23381/2006 dt. 08-01-2006 in respect of very same property that was sold initially to the Lw.2 Syed Fazullah Quadri. Therefore, the accused (defendant No.2 herein) had with a dishonest intention double registered the same property to the Lw.2 Syed Fazullah Quadri and then Lw.1 Raji Reddy respectively and caused the complainant wrongful loss. Thus the accused I..e,
Mitta Dilip Anand (defendant No.2 herein) charged for the offence U/sec. 420
IPC”.
25 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
32. More over the plaintiff also got marked Ex.A.21 FSL report in the above said criminal case, it appears that the police sent Ex.A.2 to hand writing expert with admitted thumb impression of defendant NO.2 and in the report it is mentioned that the Thumb impression on Ex.A.2 belongs to defendant No.2 as they are identical in nature. Dw.1 also in the cross examination admitted that the police during investigation obtained thumb impression of D.2 and sent to FSL and FSL report is Ex.A.21 and thumb impression of D.2 matching with thumb impression on Ex.A.2 of D.2. More over Dw.1 in the cross examination categorically admitted that in Ex.A.2 first attestor column his signature is appeared and another witness son of the D.2 M. Vivek Anand appeared on
Ex.A.2. Therefore, the plaintiff also proved execution of the Ex.A.2 by defendant No.2 in favour of Syed Fazillah Quadri as suit schedule propety sold by D.2 in favour of said Syed Fazillah Quadri and inturn as per Ex.A.3 said
Syed Fazillah Quadri sold the same in favour of plaintiff on 16-06-2004 and possession also delivered. More over even though D.1 is one of the attestor for
Ex.A.2 and knowingly D.2 sold the suit schedule property to Syed Fazillah
Quadri on 28-02-1979 got executed under Ex.B.9 for the suit schedule property dt. 08-11-2006 and when Defendant NO.2 sold the same in favour of
Fazilulah Quadri on 16-06-2004 and delivered possession, again under Ex.B.9 defendant No.1 not get any title, possession over the suit schedule property because as on the date of Ex.B.9 defendant No.2 has no valid title and 26 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
possession over the suit property therefore, he cannot convey any right, title and possession to the D.1 because no one convey better title than what he has and police also in the charge sheet under Ex.A.20 clearly mentioned that
Defendant No.2 cheated the Defendant No.1.
33. Sec. 48 of Transfer of Property Act as under:
48. Priority of rights created by transfer.—
Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immovable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.
34. Therefore, as Ex.A.2 is dt. 23-02-1979 whereas Ex.B.9 is dt.08-11-2006,
Ex.A.2 is prevail over the Ex.B.9. Therefore, basing on Ex.B.9, D.1 not get any right and title over the suit schedule property. More over the plaintiff proved that he is having electricity power connection and paying electricity bills and he also basing on Ex.A.6 that he become member of the Mytri Valley plot owners welfare association and same also deposed by Pw.2 and plaintiff proved possession over the suit schedule property and as per the photographs also showing there were kaddies and there is small room in the suit schedule property.
27 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
35. In Written arguments filed by the appellant counsel contended that D.2 not executed sale deed in favour of Syed Fazilulah Quadri therefore, the plaintiff not get any title over the suit schedule property and suit is barred by limitation and D.1 purchased under Ex.B.9 and D.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.
36. On the other hand respondent’s counsel argued that Defendant No.2 already sold to the vendor of the plaintiff and subsequent sale to the vendor of the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 obtained sale deed from Defendant No.2 as
Ex.A.2 is prior to Ex.B.9, therefore, Defendant No.1 not get any right and title basing on Ex.B.9 and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
37. The counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in 2004 Law Suit ( SC) 1005 between State of
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mast Ram wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in relevant para No.6 as under:
6. ….Firstly, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Ex. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a junior scientific officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted under the hand of a Government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has completely over-looked the provision of sub- 28 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a junior scientific officer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section 4 of Section 293. What sub-section 4 of Section 293 envisages is that the court to accept the documents issued by any of six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents.
38. The counsel for the respondent relied on another judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 between Vidhyadhar Vs.
Manirao and Anr dt. 17-03-1999 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in relevant para No.16 as under:
16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box.
39. The counsel for the respondent relied on another judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court (D.B) reported in 2024 Law suit (SC) 613 between Kaushik
Premkumar Mishra & Anr Vs. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held in relevant para No.35 as under:
29 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
35. The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value applies in situations where the seller appears to have some semblance of legitimate ownership rights. However, this principle does not protect a subsequent purchaser if the vendor had already transferred those rights through a prior sale deed. In a case where the vendor deceitfully executes a second sale deed 26 years after the initial transfer, without disclosing the earlier transaction and without any ongoing litigation regarding the property, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of a bona fide purchaser. Essentially, if the vendor's rights were already severed by the first sale, any later sale deed made without transparency and in bad faith is invalid. The subsequent purchaser, even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be considered bona fide because the vendor no longer had the legal right to sell the property. Thus, the protection afforded by the bona fide purchaser doctrine is nullified by the vendor's deceitful conduct and the pre-existing transfer of rights.
40. More over Ex.B.1, Ex.B.4 to Ex.B.8 and Ex.B.11 not much helpful to the case of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff in this case categorically stated that on enquiry he came to know that on 12-08-2012 the defendant No.1 herein got executed a document Ex.B.9 from Defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule property, thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit and more over the plaintiff is not party to the Ex.B.9 document. Hence the suit is filed with in the limitation. Basing on the above discussion, this court finds that the trial court rightly passed the judgment, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the findings of the trial court judgment. Accordingly the point No.1 and 2 are answered.
41. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.
30 of 30
AS.35 of 2020 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist
1697 of 2012 dt.09-01-2020. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
(Typed to my dictation to stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 08 th day of April, 2026).
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge L.B. Nagar, at R.R. District.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Appellants :- For Respondents:
NIL NIL
Exhibits marked
For Appellants :- For Respondents:
NIL NIL
VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge L.B. Nagar, at R.R. District.