1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT,
VIJAYAWADA.
Present: SMT. M.SUDHA, VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada
Monday, this the 28th day of February, 2022
O.S.No.74/2010
Between:
Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.8/2022, dated 21.1.2022)
... Plaintiff.
And
1.Sri Kunda Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Private employee, D.No.22-7-27/1, Giri Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada-11.
2.B.V.Prasanna Kumar, S/o.James Vijayendra Rao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, H/o.Sri B.Raja Mohan, House No.42-258-5/A, Raja Nagar, Uppar Guda, Moulali, Hyderabad-500 040.
3.Motha Prathima Priyadarshini, D/o.B.V.Prasanna Kumar, Hindu, aged 37 years, D.No. 40-9/4-2/1, Plot No.103A, Municipal employees colony, Opp. Pin- namaneni Poly Clinic, Patamata, Vijayawada.
4.Perikala Prasanthi, D/o.Late B.V.Prasanna Kumar, Hindu, aged 39 years, D.No.40-9/4-2/1, Plot No.103A, Municipal employees colony, Opp. Pinnama- neni Poly Clinic,Patamata, Vijayawada.
5.Bollapalli Sandeep, S/o.Late B.V.Prasanna Kumar, Hindu, aged 35 yeas, D.No.40-9/4-2/1, Plot No.103A, Municipal employees colony, Opp. Pinnama- neni Poly Clinic,Patamata, Vijayawada.
(defendants 3 to 5 are added as per the orders in I.A.No.21/2018, dated 3.12.2018)
...Defendants.
This suit coming on 25.2.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Narasimharao, Advocate for plaintiff, of Sri CH.Vishnu Vardanarao, Advocate for the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant was died and the defendants 3 to 5 having been remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The suit is filed for cancellation of sale deed vide Doc.No.2506/2004,
dated 26.2.2004 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant
illegally by playing fraud on the plaintiff authority and also for permanent 2 injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men and followers from alienating the plaint schedule property in favour of 3rd parties and handling the same in any manner and whatsoever nature and for costs.
2)The provenance of the case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments is:
The plaintiff is an authority initially constituted under the Provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Subsequently by virtue of Act, 11 of 2014 with effect from 30.12.2014, APCRDA, and later
AMRDA vide repeal Act 2020 (Act No.27 of 2020), dated 31.7.2020. Later by virtue of repeal Act. No.11 of 2021, dated 13.12.2021 APCRDA. The objects of the plaintiff authority shall be to promote and secure the development of all or any of the areas comprises in the development areas concern according to plan and for that purpose, the authority shall have the power to acquire by way of purchase on otherwise, hold, manage, plan, develop and or otherwise dispose of land and other property to carry out or on its behalf such other operations like supply of water and electricity, dispose of sewerage and other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for the purpose of incidental thereof. The
Commissioner of the plaintiff is the Chief Executive and Principal Officer and he is competent to represent the plaintiff in all proceedings. The 2nd defendant who is an administrative officer kept under suspension conspired with the 1st defendant with some other employees of the plaintiff authority executed several sale deeds fraudulently.
He further submits that the plaintiff acquired an extent of Ac.159.43 cents at Payakapuram, Vijayawada under award No.5/86, Dt.28-08-1986 and award No.1/37, Dt.12-08-1997 under town expansion scheme/sites and services programme, a comprehensive layout was prepared for an extent of
Ac.137.83 cents which consist of such viz., EWS, LIG, MIG, etc. A public notification Dt. 21-10-1987 was issued in the news papers for allotment 3 of plots to the public on lottery basis. As such initially 780 plots were allotted on lottery basis in the year 1989. In the year 1993 due to formation of Bund to Budameru drain along with layout an extent of Ac.25 was reduced from the total layout. The public were allotted plots on 1st come 1st served basis. The public were allotted plots on 1st come 1st served basis till 1999.
Thereafter no further advertisements or publicity was given for allotment of plots in the said area. The plaintiff should follow the guidelines laid down in
G.O.Ms.No.1183, MA, Dt. 9.11.1981 for allotment purpose. All developed plots or houses constructed in any housing scheme shall be notified to the public in the news paper. Such notification inviting application from the intending purchaser either on outright purchase basis or installment basis normally shall confine to each of the scheme developed and got ready for allotment. In case if more than one scheme is ready for allotment, common notification may be issued, but the applicants may be asked to indicate their order of preference of the scheme in which he would require the allotment either plot or house when such preference is given by allottee, the application shall be considered only for the scheme to which he had given the 1st preference.
He further contended that all the plots for EWS and LIG shall be allotted only through drawing lot. The plots intended for MIG and HIG are to be allotted by the auction. The allotment should made with the reference to their income corresponding to the type of plots i.e., EWS, LIG and MIG, HIG and as per seniority of applications received. Principal of reservation for applicant belonging to SC and ST should be followed.
After exhausting the persons found in the selected list/ reserved list re notification should given for allotment or auction as case may be. Applicant should pay EMD amount along with application. After receipt 25% of amount of the plots cost, the authority will issue a letter for allotment. The remaining should be paid in 3 equal quarterly installment from the date of 4 allotment. The plot should be registered only after payment of final cost.
It is submitted that the officials of Vigilance and Enforcement
Department took up an enquiry in the month of July, 2004 into the allotment of the plots in the said Payakapuram, layout, in the relating to the transactions and registrations that took place in the year 2004. They identified certain irregularities of registration of 70 plots i.e., 25 plots relating to EWS category bearing Nos.383, 422, 40, 41, 91, 102, 106, 131, 181, 185, 187, 221, 224, 288, 289, 411, 432, 449, 450, 451, 452, 447, 471, 475 and 480 and 37 plots in LIG category bearing Nos.42, 89, 96, 107, 123, 140, 165, 174, 177, 184, 193, 194, 200, 201, 202, 203, 208, 213, 221, 240, 247, 257, 259, 262, 278, 287, 290, 302, 308, 309, 321, 343, 346, 357, 376 and 389. 8 plots in MIG category bearing Nos. 84, 241, 246, 259, 304, 336, 354 and 361.
The said lay out submitted their report to the Government. The Principal
Secretary, MA and UG Department in letter No.14501/E2/2004-7, Dt.07-10- 2004 forwarded the Vigilance report No.98, Dt.27-08-2004 of the GAD (V&E)
Department, Hyderabad to the plaintiff pertaining to irregularities in allotment of Payakapuram layout and submitted a detailed report. On perusal of the said report it was found that the said 70 plots were irregularly allotted and registered without specific authority.
He further contended that the normal procedure for allotment of plots in the layout formed by APCRDA (Amended as per order in I.A.No.8/2022,
dated 21.1.2022), the plaintiff will invite applications from the public through
publication of notification in the news papers. The plaintiff authority will deliver applications on payment of cost of application and it will be numbered and attested by the employee concerned. Every such filled application should be submitted along with the prescribed EMD. Later the plaintiff authority will issue formal allotment order assigning the plot number in favour of the allottee. The orders of allotment specified the procedure for payment of plot cost. If the allottee fails to pay the plot cost, a demand will 5 be issued but in these 70 cases there was no demand notice issued for payment of plot cost at any time. A survey will be conducted by the Planning wing of the plaintiff to measure the plot before handing over possession over the allotted plot and before executing the registered deed infavour of the genuine allottee for recording exact measurements. In case of excess extent a notice will be issued for collecting additional cost for the increased extent.
In the above said 70 cases the normal procedure was not followed.
In the year 2004 where the conspiracy of illegal allotment and registration took place, there was no such notification calling application for allotment of plots in Payakapuram Scheme. In fact subsequent to 1989 there was no such notification for this purpose. In 55 cases out of 70 cases the cost of the plot was deposited subsequent to registration plots. In all the 70 cases the plaintiff found Xerox copies of application which not even bare the application number and signature of the plaintiff authority and no EMD was deposited. The particulars of such application were not entered into the records of the plaintiff. The Xerox copies of such application are fabricated.
None of the individual including the 1st defendant never brought the fact of submitting an application for allotment of plot to the notice of the plaintiff.
The estate wing with allotment of plots in the lay out developed the plaintiff.
The 2nd defendant who acted as Deputy Management Officer in Estate
Division of the plaintiff authority during the period in 2004 covered by fraud manipulated the records for 70 plots referred above inconvenience with the individuals to gain wrongfully. The 2nd defendant knows that it is his duty to circulate the file for approval of the plaintiff for issuing allotment orders. As he connived with the alleged applicants in the said 70 cases including the 1st defendant, he never made any attempt to circulate the file to the plaintiff either or allotment or for registration. The 2nd defendant himself issued allotment orders assigning plot number 259 in LIG –II scheme measuring 185
Sq.Yards, which more fully describe in the plaint schedule to the 1st 6 defendant illegally without any direction from the plaintiff and against the provisions of said G.O and executed sale deed Doc.No.2506/2004, dated 26.2.2004 for schedule property. The concerned registers of the plaintiff authority and process of allotment and proceedings have been tampered and fabricated by the defendants in difference folds to execute a registered sale deed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. The said plot is also covered in the Vigilance report as irregular. The 2nd defendant is neither competent to execute the said registered sale deed on behalf of the plaintiff nor the 1st defendant is entitled to claim for a registered sale deed for the schedule property. Thus the 2nd defendant was kept under suspension.
The plaintiff found that the 1st defendant deposited an amount of
Rs. 32,375/- for the purpose allotment of plot in Payakapuram scheme and the plaintiff never fixed any cost of plot in the year 2004 @ Rs.32,375/- and in fact there was no notification for this purpose in the year 2004 must less from 1989 onwards. Hence it can’t be called the said amount as cost of plot.
The 2nd defendant connived with 1st defendant and other individual colluded that whatever be the amount deposited by the parities in the said 70 cases accepted same as cost of this respective plot. The 2nd defendant deeply involved in the irregular allotment and registration of the said 70 plots in favour of different individuals and allotting one such plot i.e., plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant. The plaintiff did not allot the plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant and did not issue any orders of registration and the 2nd defendant has no competency to execute the sale deed in favour 1st defendant. Moreover the plaintiff authority did not deliver the physical possession of the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant.
The Secretary of the plaintiff authority vide letter authorization No.RC.A- 3.1714/2001, Dt.09-01-2001 informed the concern S.R.O.s., that 2nd defendant was authorized to execute sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not give any such order authorizing 2nd defendant to 7 execute the sale deed on his behalf.
It is further submitted that the plaintiff authority authorized Sri
P.Simeon Deputy Estate Management Officer, of this authority to perform registration of plots relating to Payakapuram, Amaravathi Town ship,
Mangalagiri and Chenchupet, Tenali vide Letter No.RC.A3/1714/01, Dated 10.1.2002. But the letter, Dt.09-01-2004 authorizing the 2nd defendant was issued by the then Secretary of this authority without the knowledge of the plaintiff authority which speaks volumes about the fraud and as such said letter is not valid. Moreover the plaintiff did not delegate any power to the then Secretary to issue such irregular authorization infavour of 2nd defendant and he exercised extra jurisdiction.
It is further submitted that 2nd defendant also tampered the relevant pages in DCB register in favour of the individuals in respect of 70 plots and he also manipulated the entries in their favour. It is established during the enquiring connived with 1st defendant and others and registered 70 plots for which he made allotments fabricating records fraudulently much below the market value for his personal gains. Thus, the 2nd defendant played mischief by illegal registration of plots at the cost of plaintiff interest. There is no public notification issued by this authority calling for applications for allotment of plots in Payakapuram Town Ship. In the present case 1st defendant was a farmer as per his application but he was working as an office boy for the last 2 years as per the certificate issued by the Proprietor of M/s.Ravi Emporium, Near H.B. Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. The application of the 1st defendant does not bare EMD amount. The 1st defendant did not pay 25% of the plot cost before issue of alleged allotment order as per records. There is no acknowledgement of the concern employee of the estate section on the Xerox copies of applications found. The alleged application was not scrutinized in the estate section as per guidelines. No note file was circulated to the vice chairman of the plaintiff at any stage in 8 the case of 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant himself approved alleged letter of allotment of the 1st defendant. Allotment letter number: RC.A1-302/94,
Dt.29.11.1999 issued n the name of Sri K.Mangapathi Rao, IAS., the Vice
Chairman, VGTM UDA,Vijayawada who was not the Vice Chairman of the plaintiff authority as on the date of issue alleged allotment order. The 1st defendant deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- initially on 3-03-2004,
Rs.5,000/- on 5.3.2004, Rs.10,000/- on 12.3.2004 and Rs.12,375/- on 17.3.2004 totaling Rs.32,375/- towards plot cost on her own accord in the year 2004 with regard to the plaint schedule property. Whereas the cost of the plot was only fixed at Rs.37,000/- in the year 1998. The 2nd defendant executed the said sale deed in favour of 1st defendant without specific authorization of the plaintiff. The DCB register which is an index for receipt for payment was tempered. Some pages were turnout and new pages were inserted to benefit the applicants and the 1st defendant, so as carryout fraudulent transactions. The application for allotment of plot should not be considered in case if an applicant filed to pay EMD and 25% plot cost but the alleged allotment order Dt. 29.11.1999 was issued by the 2nd defendant by himself with antidate without the knowledge of the plaintiff and without the payment of the EMD and 25% of the plot cost. The said sale deed is null and void and the said sale deed allegedly executed by the plaintiff through the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant came into existence as a result the fraud misrepresentation, negligence and in gross violation of the
G.O.Ms.No.1183, Dt.09-11-1981. The plaintiff authority is not responsible for the illegal acts committed by the 2nd defendant by issuing fabricated allotment order and registration of the plot in favour of the 1st defendant.
The 1st defendant does not hold owner ship, title and possession in pursuance of the said sale deed. The plaintiff authority has issued show cause notice, dated 24-02-2005 to the 1st defendant directing him to appear
before the plaintiff to file explanation if any. Since there was no proper
9 reasonable representation and material and on perusal of the record and explanations and other alleged allotttees the fraud came into the light on 01- 04-2006 with regard to the said transaction and some transactions in
Amaravathi Town Ship. Accordingly the plaintiff authority passed an order for cancellation of the sale deed. The 1st defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the plaintiff authority approached by the Hon’ble High Court to A.P while disposing of the Writ petition filed by the 1st defendant and similar writ petitions filed by the others in its order dated 24-03-2008 quashed the impugned order of the plaintiff authority, where by the sale deeds executed infavour of the 1st defendant and others were cancelled by the plaintiff. The
Hon’ble High Court given liberty to plaintiff authority to avail the remedies
indicated in the order. Hence, he is constrained to file the suit.
3.The 1st defendant filed written statement in general contending that the allegations in the plaint are not true and correct and interalia contending that the 2nd defendant is working in the authority and he is in the officer cadre and he was acting as authorized person to execute the registered sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff and also the then Vice- chairman of the plaintiff authority gave authorization to him and addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar’s of Vijayawada, Tenali and Mangalagiri. The sale deed of this defendant clearly shows that the plaintiff passed resolution proceeding dated 15.2.1996 and further it is also recited in the sale deed that fixation of value by vendor i.e. plaintiff vide proceedings
No.A3/890/1994, Dated 14.8.1997 based on the board resolution No.308,
dated 5.8.1997 and this shows how the consciousness of the vendor while
execution of the sale deed. So it is clearly reveals that the plaintiff has not allotted plot to the 1st defendant is an utter lie and document in question spoken to the extent that the allotment of plot to this defendant and fixing of sale value and the said recital is conflicting the order of the plaintiff and the contents of the plaint are conflicting and this type of pleading of the plaintiff 10 is contra to the Sec. 91 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and whether the document is executed for valued consideration and is there any authorization to execute or pertaining to proof of document at this juncture it cannot be possible to come to a conclusion that the execution of document is proved as it can be proved or disproved only after elaborate enquiry and evidence. He is not responsible for the absence of note file as it was internal affair of the plaintiff. The suit filed by the plaintiff’s authority is barred by the limitation as the sale deed sought for cancellation is dated 26.2.2004 and the plaintiff contented that they came know the fraud played by the 2nd defendant and he was suspended in the year 2004 and having the knowledge that the 2nd defendant executed the void document and limitation runs from the date of knowledge or from the date of document which was sought to be cancelled i.e. the sale deed of this defendant is 26.2.2004 and its time bared by 25.2.2007 as per article 59 of Limitation Act, hence suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff stopped the sale of plots subsequent to 1989 is an utter lie in the light of existence of registered sale deed bearing
Doc.Nos.5777/2004 and 6305/2003 with regard to the plots of Payakapuram purchased by the employee of the plaintiff by name P.Simeon and P.Bala
Tripura Sundari who is the wife of one Prasad who is working in the Estate
Section of this plaintiff. He paid full consideration as stipulated by the authority as well as by the registering authority as per the valuation register maintained by the Sub-Registrar’s office. Further the registration authority having satisfied itself after the due enquiry under Sec.88 of the Registration
Act and registered the document. The sale deed executed in his favour cannot be impeached as illegal or invalid as the said document was supported by the valuable and proper consideration and was duly executed by the competent person namely Administrative Officer, a cursory perusal of the endorsement made by the registering officer reveals that the executants was the competent person and that the consideration paid by him was 11 accounted properly in the account books and the said amount was received by the plaintiff. He is not guilty of any lapse either by way of commission or omission and he is not liable to be penalize in any manner either factually or legally. The plaintiff’s authority permitted the Administrative officer to sell and execute the plots is stopped from questioning the validity and legality of the document particularly when the execution and registration was duly entered into all concerned books and the consideration was duly remitted to the authority. He purchased the property for valuable consideration in good faith from a competent official, the sale deed in his favour cannot be disputed particularly when the competent executants represented that the property sold under sale deed mentioned above in favour of this defendant is free from all the encumbrances. He further submits that the plaintiff’s authority stopped from impeaching the sale in his favour. The so called irregularities are not true and correct to his knowledge and they are within the exclusive knowledge of the concerned officers. Hence, the purchase made by him cannot be questioned, even if there is any loss he cannot be held responsible for any such loss as such he is the purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.
He filed additional written statement by contending that in the year 2004 the 2nd defendant B.V.Prasanna Kumar executed the sale deeds in favour of this defendant in the capacity of Deputy Estate Management officer of the plaintiff’s authority and during the course of his employment and under the course employment of the plaintiff’s authority did the registrations in favour of this defendant and several persons and the defendants 3 to 5 are no way concern with these proceedings. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.The 2nd defendant filed written statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint inter alia contending that inspite of the notification 12 and vide publicity during the year 1989 calling applications from the public for allotment of house sites at Payakapuram there was no proper response from the Public and there was very poor demand for the plots. Out of 1800 plots only 1300 applications were received against the said notification and the plots were allotted to all the 1300 applications but only 500 members were paid the requisite initial payment and the remaining allottees failed to pay the necessary amount. As a result the said allotments to the extent of 800 plots were cancelled and there remained 1300 plots unallotted. Even these 500 allottees who paid the initial amounts have not paid subsequent installments over a decade. As on 2004, there were more than 100 members allottees still have to pay subsequent installments. They are reluctant to pay the subsequent installments as the plots are not habitable.
It is submitted that the Payakapuram area is a low lying and every year it is prone to inundation due to floods. As a result the residents of the locality were provided rehabilitation as and when the area was affected by floods.
Due to the said reason there is very poor demand for the said plots. As such the plaintiff authorities allotted the plots whenever the intending purchasers approached without any further notification and the process continued from 1989 onwards and still there are several plots kept for sale without any allotment. The 2nd defendant further submits that he being incharge of the estate Officer he was authorized by the competent authority to execute sale deeds vide letter RC.A3/1714/2001 dt.9.1.2004 on behalf of the plaintiff which fact was also admitted by the plaintiff in para No.10 of the plaint and said letter was also submitted to the registration authorities and the role of this defendant is only to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff as per the directions of higher authorities. With regard to the allotment and receipt of sale consideration is not the duty of the 2nd defendant except forwarding the file along with note put up by the staff to the higher authorities for allotment and the higher authorities have to approve the note 13 and after due approval, the file will revert to the lower staff for execution of the documents and this defendant has to subscribe the signature on behalf of the Vice-Chairman as per directions. With regard to the receipt of the sale consideration and maintenance of DCB Register, this defendant has nothing to do with the same and there was separate machinery to receive the sale consideration and maintenance of D.C.B. Registers. Even to receive filled in applications, collection of necessary documents(Income Certificates etc.,) and to inform about the payment of further installments from the allottees, maintenance of DCB Registers including making entries, preparation and submitting the sale deed to the sub-registrars, for registration there is separate machinery in the office of the plaintiff. This defendant has nothing to do with the above work. Suppressing all these material facts this defendant was made a scapegoat in the said transactions simply because he has subscribed the signature on behalf of the plaintiff. This defendant submits that the plaintiff itself admits that this defendant was authorized by the then Secretary to perform registration of plots and this itself shows that he is properly authorized to register the plots in favour of the allotted parties.
This defendant submits that the other employees who are concerned with the transactions are also proper and necessary parties in this suit and the plaintiff intentionally and deliberately omitted them and as such the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further submitted that this defendant executed number of sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff nearing about 200 sale deeds in the year 2004 itself including one sale deed in favour of Deputy
Estate Officer Sri P.Simeon and all those sale deeds were approved by the plaintiff accepting the authorization of this defendant. The same procedure was followed in all the said transactions including allotment, execution of sale deeds and receipt of sale consideration etc., including the sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant by this 2nd defendant and if the entire 14 record relating to all the plots of the plaintiff authority are produced before this Hon’ble Court right from the notification including notice calling applications and receipt of sale consideration it will reveal the entire picture and the procedure followed by the authorities. There are instances where the authorities executed sale agreements by receiving cheques instead of cash payment. It is not out of place to mention that the majority of the employees of the plaintiff obtained two to three plots including the Deputy
Estate Management Officer Sri P.Siemeon either in their name or in the names of their family members in all the projects taken up by the plaintiff authority. In fact, as per rules provided in G.O.Ms.No.1183 they cannot be allotted more than one plot, butas there is no demand for the plots and several plots are unsold and the plaintiff authority was in financial crisis and to meet the regular maintenance expenditure and “Krishna Pushkaram” expenditure, the then plaintiff authorities took a decision to allot and sell the plots whoever approached deviating the norms and procedure. Further the plaintiff acquired about 108 acres of lands at Kantheru, Guntur District from
ACC Limited. Originally this land acquisition was made to allot house plots as per the notification, but subsequently the entire land was sold to a single person without making layouts totally deviating and violating the rules and objects of the plaintiff. The then Vice-Chairman and other higher authorities are all aware of the sale transactions executed by this defendant and they have received the full sale consideration and utilized the same on behalf of the plaintiff. As such it is clearly evident that the plaintiff authority has never followed the rules and regulations issued in G.O.Ms.No.1183, dt.9.11.1981, not only in payakapuram scheme but also in other schemes such as
Chenchupet, Tenali etc. The plots were allotted based on day to day arising situations duly deviating the provisions of the said G.O. since 1989. Now, the plaintiff authority taking the shelter of said G.O. to attribute fraud by framing baseless charges and irregularities on this defendant. It is not out of place to 15 mention that authority has allotted nearly 150 plots to journalists without issuing notifications against provisions of the said G.O. at the same rates.
This defendant submits that after the vigilance authorities pointed out irregularities in the procedure the higher authorities of the plaintiff made this defendant a scapegoat to cover up their latches and misadministration, which is quite uncharitable, unethical and illegal. In fact this defendant simply followed the direction of the higher authorities and performed his duties to the utmost satisfaction of one and all. This defendant further submits that the relevant records were handled by several lower staff during the year 2004 and they might have and every reason to believe to manipulate the same to exonerate themselves from the irregularities pointed out by the vigilance authorities. This defendant is not the custodian of the records. Even the irregularities pointed out by the Vigilance authorities are only deviation of the procedure followed by the higher authorities but the said irregularities are not illegal. There is no loss caused to the plaintiff. This defendant was reinstated in the plaintiff authority on 27.3.2010 and retired from the service on 31.3.2010 on superannuation. Further the plaintiff has not impleaded proper and necessary parties with the ulterior motive and deliberately as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5.During the course of proceedings 2nd defendant died. I.A.No. 21/2018 was filed to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant and the same was allowed. Accordingly the defendants 3 to 5 are impleaded as legal representatives of 2nd defendant, but they failed to file their written statement and remained exparte.
6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by my predecessor on 4.1.2016.
1)Whether 2nd defendant fabricated allotment order with antidate 29.11.1999 for the schedule properties in favour of 1st defendant?
2)Whether the 2nd defendant executed registered sale deed dated 16 26.2.2004 by playing fraud on the plaintiff?
3)Whether the sale deed, dated 26.2.2004 is null and void and liable to be cancelled?
4)Whether 1stdefendant is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration?
5)Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?
6)Whether the suit is within the time of limitation?
7)Whether the plaintiff committed several irregularities and illegalities?
8)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?
9)To what relief?
The issues are recasted as follows by the then Presiding Officer on 14.11.2019.
1.Whether 2nddefendant fabricated allotment order with antedate for the schedule property in faovur of the 1st defendant?
2.Whether sale deed executed by D.2 in favour of 1stdefendant by playing fraud on the Plaintiff?
3.Whether 1stdefendant is the bonfide purchaser for valuable consideration?
4.Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
5.Whether plaintiff is guilty for suppression of material facts?
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed?
7.Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants?
8.Whether sale deed executed by 2nddefendant in favour of 1stdefendant by colluding with him?
9.Whether any fraud took place in the plaintiff organization in relating to the plaint schedule property?
10.Whether the suit is within the time of limitation?
11.Whether the plaintiff committed several irregularities and illegalities?
12.Whether the plaint schedule property was allotted in favour of 1stdefendant as per the Procedure?
13.Whether the plaintiff authority passed the resolution proceedings Dt.15-02-1996 in favour of the 2nddefendant as alleged by 1stdefendant to execute suit sale deed in favour of 1stdefendant?
14.Whether the 1stdefendant obtained the sale deed for the schedule property in accordance with the procedure of the plaintiff?
7. On behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.4 are examined and Exs.A1 to
A21 are marked. On behalf of the 1st defendant, he himself examined as
D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B19 in cross-examination of P.W.1. Exs. X1 and X2 are marked through P.W.3. The 2nd defendant did not choose to produce any evidence on his behalf.
8Heard the plaintiff. The defendant counsel.
9.ADDL. ISSUE Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9:
For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated in common, these four issues are 17 answered together.
It is seen from the record on plaintiff side admittedly P.W.1 who is the then Deputy Estate Management Officer-I in plaintiff’s authority who speaks about the plaint averments including speaks about Exs.A1 to A21. P.W.2 who worked as surveyor of Planning Section of plaintiff authority, who is discharging his duties as Junior Planning Officer. P.W.3 who is no other than the Sub Divisional Engineer, of B.S.N.L. through him Exs.X1 and X2 are marked. Ex.X1 is the Photostat copy of authorization letter in
O.S.No.273/2009. Ex.X2 is Photostat copy of information letter marked in
comparison with original information marked in O.S.No.273/2009. P.W.4 is the then Vigilance & Enforcement Inspector, Enforcement Department in Guntur and Vijayawada Division.
10.On perusal of entire evidence placed by plaintiff side and defendant side, the plaintiff case in nut shell that the plaintiff authority acquired an extent of Ac.159.43 cents at Payakapuram, Vijayawada under award No.5/86,
Dt.28.08.1986, and award No.1/37, Dt.12-08-1997 for the year 1986 and 1987 respectively under town expansion scheme/sites and services programme. A comprehensive layout was prepared for an extent of
Ac.137.83 cents which consist of such categories of plots viz., EWS, LIG, MIG, and HIG etc. A public notification dated 21.10.1987 was issued in the news papers for allotment of plots to the public on lottery basis. As such, initially 780 plots were allotted on lottery basis in the year 1989. All the plots intended for EWS and LIG shall be allotted only through drawing lot and the plots intended for MIG and HIG are to be allotted by auction.
11.In pursuance of notification 1st defendant is allotted the schedule property under group of L.I.G at an extent of 165 Sq.Yards vide
Doc.No.2506/2004, dated 26.2.2004 by 2nd defendant illegally without any direction from the plaintiff authorities and the 2nd defendant also executed sale deed infavour of 1st Defendant for plaint schedule property which is not 18 valid under law. Further case of the plaintiff is that 2nd defendant also allotted total 70 plots including 1st defendant in the capacity of Deputy
Estate Management Officer of plaintiff authority by manipulating the records of 70 plots with the convenience of individuals to gain wrongfully. For which, the plaintiff authority seeking cancellation of sale deed vide Doc
No.5993/2004, dated 24.4.2004 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant. As per the plaintiff every sale should be in accordance with
G.O.Ms.No.1183, dated 09.11.1981 for the scheme of Payakapuram,
Amaravathi Town ship, Mangalagiri and Chenchupet, Tenali etc. For which the defendants 1 and 2 denied the said contention of the plaintiff and pleaded that registered sale deed under Doc.No.2506/2004, dated 26.2.2004 is valid in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down in
G.O.Ms.No.1103, dated 09.11.1981 for the scheme of Payakapuram,
Amaravathi Town ship, Mangalagiri and Chenchupet, Tenali Purely as per the directions given by higher officials. Thereafter the Vigilance Department after enquiry came to know the irregularities committed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant and others, subsequently explanation given by all the allotees including 1st defendant. Since there was no proper explanation of alleged allotees, the plaintiff authority cancels the sale deed executed by 2nd defendant to them. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the plaintiff authority, the 1st defendant and others approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing the writ petition wherein the Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders of Plaintiff Authority, thereby the sale deeds executed in favour of 1st defendant and others were cancelled by the plaintiff. However the Hon’ble
High Court given liberty to plaintiff authority to avail the remedies indicated in the orders. Ex.A15 is the common order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., dated 24.3.2008 .
12.Defendants 1 and 2 denying the case of the plaintiff and further contended that 2nd defendant is authorized person to execute the registered 19 sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff authority. Further contended that plaintiff suppressed the real facts and suggested the false things for getting the relief. It is further case of the defendant is that the suit is barred by limitation as the limitation runs from the date of knowledge or from the date of document which was sought to be cancelled i.e. the sale deed of this defendant is 20.2.2004 thereby it is time bared by 19.2.2007 as per article 59 of Limitation Act.
13.The main point for determination is whether the 2nd defendant misused his official capacity by executing Ex.A14 sale deed vide Doc.No.2506/2004,
dated 26.2.2004 in favour of the 1st defendant for wrongful gain without
adopting due process in favour of the 1st defendant.
14.P.W.1 deposed that he was authorized person in the capacity of Deputy
Estate Management Officer-I , VGTM, UDA, Vijayawada to register the sale deeds under the scheme and 2nd defendant was not an authorized person to register the sale deed under the scheme. He further deposed that after due enquiry the Vigilance Department has prepared a report, dated 27.8.2004 under Ex.A4 finding 70 irregular registrations of plots under the said scheme.
Ex.A4 is covering letter, dated 8.10.2004 along with Vigilance report No.98,
dated 27.8.2004. In the said vigilance report the conditions for allotment of
plots as per G.O.M.S.No.301, dated 17.4.1981 and another G.O.M.S.No.1183 under Ex.A3 are referred clearly. It is specifically mentioned in the Vigilance
Report that VUDA hasallotted plots irregularly to 8 persons listed at page No.5.
15.On perusal of pleadings as well as evidence placed by both sides, the admitted facts are the officials of vigilance and enforcement department took up enquiry in the month of July, 2004 in respect of allotment of plots by the 2nd defendant and identified the irregularities in allotment of 70 plots in categorically, 20 plots in Economically Weaker Section, 37 plots in L.I.G. and 8 plots in M.I.G deviating the procedure laid down in G.O.M.S.No.1183. It is 20 also admitted fact that basing on Vigilance enquiry report the 2nd defendant was suspended from his service on 8.10.2004, later he was revoked from service on 23.3.2010 by GORT.No.330 and reinstituted into service on 27.3.2010 and he was retired on 31.3.2010. It is also undisputed fact that the 1st defendant paid an amount of Rs.32,375/- towards plot cost in different dates and the 1st defendant also deposited an amount of Rs.32,375/- out of the said amount only after registration of the plaint schedule property. The main contention of the plaintiff is that 2nd defendant fabricated allotment order with ante date for plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant by way of executing sale deed by playing fraud. Further case of the plaintiff is that 2nd defendant executed sale deed in favour of 1st defendant by colluding with him, whereas the 2nd defendant submitted that he executed the sale deed nearly 70 including the sale deed in favour of 1st defendant and thus sales were approved by the plaintiff authority accepting the authorization of 2nd defendant. Further case of the 2nd defendant is that the plaintiff authority is in financial crisis to meet regular maintenance and expenditure, the then plaintiff authority took decision to allot and sale the plots whoever approached the plaintiff authority by deviating the norms and the then Vice Chairman of plaintiff authority well aware of sale transactions executed by 2nd defendant only after receiving the full consideration on behalf of the plaintiff authority and the 1st defendant contention is that he obtained the sale deed from 2nd defendant under Ex.A14 is to be filled and 2nd defendant being an employee of plaintiff’s authority that to after payment of full consideration. It is further case of the 1st defendant that P.W.1 is not competent person to depose the evidence. Further his contention is that he obtained sale deed from the 2nd defendant as per the orders of the then Vice
Chairman.
16.Whatever the rival contentions coming from both sides the fact remains that 2nd defendant or his legal heirs D3 to D5 did not choose to 21 produce any evidence on his behalf during the course of trial so, 1st defendant only contesting party. This court already discussed above P.W.1 is no other than the Estate Management Officer by filing his chief examination affidavit reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint. At once, the plaintiff alleges that 2nd defendant fabricated allotment order and executed sale deed in favour of 1st defendant by playing fraud on plaintiff by colluding with 1st defendant relating to plaint schedule property, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove their case by adducing cogent and consisting evidence.
17.P.W.1 deposed that 2nd defendant is not competent person, to exe- cute the registered sale deed under Ex.A14 vide Doc.No.2506/2004, dated 26.2.2004 in favour of the 1st defendant and for the unlawful acts commit- ted by 2nd defendant , the plaintiff authority is not responsible. P.W.1 further deposed that physical possession of property covered under Ex.A14 is not delivered so far to 1st defendant and still it is in the possession of the plaintiff authority. P.W.1 further deposed that the then secretary of the plaintiff au- thority addressed a letter RC.A3/1714/2004, dt.9.1.2001 informing the
Sub Registrar concerned that 2nd defendant was not authorized to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff and did not authorize the then secre- tary to give authorization to 2nd defendant. He further deposed that the plaintiff authority authorized him to register the plots in Payakapuram, Amar- avathi Township, Mangalagiri, Chenchupet, Tenali etc. by way of letter
RC.A3/1714/2001, dt.9.1.2002. He further deposed that the letter No.
RC/A3/1714/2001, dated 9.1.2001 issued by the then secretary authorizing 2nd defendant is not valid and it was issued by playing fraud upon the plaintiff authority.
18.As per Ex.A4 letter from the Principal Secretary to Government, MA &
UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad to the Vice Chairman, VGTM, UDA enclosing vigilance and enforcement department report, the vigilance de- partment found irregularities in allotment of plots and mode of payment of 22 1st defendants and others. Once the plaintiff contending that 2nd defendant without authorization and approval from plaintiff authority by playing fraud fabricated allotment order in favour of 1st defendant and executed sale deed, particularly 2nd defendant colluding with 1st defendant and committed fraud on plaintiff organization relating to plaint schedule property, to disprove the same. Actual persons are 2nd defendant or D3 to D5 have come to the court and deny the same by entering into witness box but reasons best known to them, pending the suit they did not produce evidence i.e., D2 was not dare enough to enter into the witness box to support his version. It is also not the case of the defendant if really the enquiry report filed by Vigilance and En- forcement department under Ex.A4 submitted on 27.8.2004 is false, the de- fendant should challenge the same, but the defendant did not do so, that too it is a public document duly enquired by department officials. Further the contention of 2nd defendant, is as per directions of higher authorities he did all the things and Ex.A9 is authorization given by the then Vice Chairman
Rama Chandra Reddy. If at all the contention of 2nd defendant that Ex.A9 au- thorization given by Vice Chairman and on the other hand plaintiff denies the case of 2nd defendant that Rama Chandra Reddy has no authority to give au- thorization to 2nd defendant, it is the duty of 2nd defendant to explain how the said Rama Chandra Reddy gave authorization to him, no piece of paper filed by 2nd defendant to show that he was authorized by plaintiff authority to exe- cute sale deed in favour of 1st defendant.
19.Further on perusal of Ex.A5 Form Instructions to applicants for allot- ment of plot there are certain rules for allotment of plots. As per contention of plaintiff all the procedure under Ex.A5 rules violated by 2nd defendant and no notification issued for allotment of plots without proper procedure incor- porated under Ex.A5. It is not the case either 1st defendant or 2nd defendant, they followed the rules incorporated clause A2 (h) of Ex.A5.
23
20.Further when I considered the evidence of D.W.1 he categorically de- posed that he knew about the suit proceedings and the Urban Development
Authority is a Government body. He also admits that the division in the process of registrations accrued was mentioned in para Nos. 7 and 12 of the plaint. He admits that he has no proof to show that he paid sale considera- tion to UDA. He also speaks that he does not have proof to show that he purchased application for allotment of plot and he voluntarily says that he paid Rs.50/- towards costs of application. He further stated that as per the information received from Real Estate Business People, he approached the
U.D.A. but he did not have notice of publication. He admits that he has no proof filed by him to show that he was allotted a plot. Witness adds that he received allotment order, but it was misplaced. Further he did not address a letter to the U.D.A. demanding to register the plot and he handed over sale consideration amount to the Account of the Estate Officer Office and on the date of registration, but he has no receipt to that effect. Further he has no concerned with Ex.A14 and he does not remember who signed the allotment order and to his remembrance at an extent of 185 square yards site allot- ment at Rs.175/- per square yards. But he does not know the other details.
Further speaks that he was not told to pay the advance E.M.D. (Earned
Money Deposit) and he did not pay. Further he did not participate in auction.
Further he was shown the plot on the date of registration and explain about the measurement but not measured on ground before at or after the regis- tration. Further he speaks that the Estate Officer informed him about the rate of square yard, but he does not know his name. He also speaks he en- quired with regard to fraud in the transactions. Further he speaks that he has not filed any document except sale deed from U.D.A. and he does not know the procedure to be followed while purchasing plot from Government organization. Further he is not paying the vacant property tax and he has no proof to show his possession over the property except the sale deed. Further 24 he came to know about the fraud played by Prasanna Kumar in respect of transaction of U.D.A. plots in the year 2006 at Payakapuram Township. He received show cause notice from U.D.A and appeared before authority and put forth his case. He also speaks thereafter he was informed on 1.4.2006 i.e. his sale is cancelled If once, the plaintiff mainly alleges that 2nd defen- dant played fraud against plaintiff authority in respect of transaction of plots,
Payakapuram, the defendants 1 and 2 have to deny the same, already dis- cussed above, 2nd defendant did not enter into witness box and D3 to D5 re- mained exparte and 1st defendant admits that he came to know that fraud played by 2nd defendant in respect of transaction of plots in the year 2010 at
Payakapuram. Once the plaintiff coming forward that no serial numbers on applications and all applications of allottees are Xerox copies,
G.O.M.S.No.1183 was not followed, income certificates of allottes are fake much less 1st defendant and signatures of plaintiff authority, and no EMD was deposited. Further particulars of applications were not entered in the records of plaintiff, thereby, 2nd defendant manipulated records of 70 plots with convenience of 1st defendant and others can’t be thrown out.
21.Further the plaintiff contended that as per Ex.A6 attested copy of fabri- cated allotment order No. RC.A1-302/94, dated 30.11.1994 contains the sig- nature Sri K.Mangapathi Rao and as per vigilance report under Ex.A4 show- ing that Sri K.Mangapathi, IAS worked as Vice Chairman, VGTM UDA, Vi- jayawada from 24.3.1996 to 9.3.1999, Dr.J.Suresh Babu, I.A.S. worked as
Vice Chairman from 9.3.1999 to 17.6.2003, V.N.Vishnu, I.A.S. has been work- ing as Vice Chairman from 16.7.2003 continued and present 2nd defendant
Sri B.V.Prasanna Kumar, A.D.O. worked in V.G.T.M., VUDA from 1987 May to 1999 and again from 1.1.2004 to continuing in the said post as on the date of said Vigilance Report, dated 27.8.2004. It is showing that as on the date of registration of Ex.A14 sale deed, dated 16.3.2004 2nd defendant herein worked as ADO in V.G.T.M., VUDA. There is a clear observation at Page No.16 25 last lines of vigilance report and its continuation to page No.17 that the Vigi- lance enquiry found that 2nd defendant played major role in collection of amounts from the allottees. It is further observed that around
Rs.12,00,000/- not remitted to VUDA Account, yet registrations were com- pleted as if the payments were made, obviously means that 2nd defendant pocketed the amount not remitted and he fabricated the documents particu- larly note file and caused disappearance of D.C.B. Register.
22.It is further observed in the Vigilance Report that the 2nd defendant has connived in accepting false salary certificates, fraudulent notarized doc- ument and antidated stamp papers. In such a case, it is the duty of the de- fendants 1 and 2 to rebut the same by placing cogent evidence on their be- half, but in the present case best known to 2nd defendant, he did not choose to adduce any evidence and defendants 3 to 5 remained exparte. The 1st defendant admitted that he did not receive allotment order and did not pay
EMI amount so also he did not file any proof that he was allotted plot, so also notice of publication for purchasing of application and proof of payment of sale consideration to UDA. If so, the 2nd defendant violated the rules and procedure laid down under Ex.A5 allotment instructions.
23.The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the cell phones were not introduced in the year 1999 by BSNL and the cell number of No- tary Advocate referred in the year 1999 is totally false and the same is ob- served in the enquiry report. At page No.12 of the enquiry report Ex.A4, there is specific finding that the affidavits in case of 70 allottees were pre- pared by the Advocate Sri S.Siva Ram Prasad ( Notary) referring cell num- ber 9440373529 and when the Vigilance Authorities enquired with the
BSNL, the AGM has informed that BSNL cell phones were introduced on 30- 10-2003 in Vijayawada and the SIM activation date of that particular cell number is 31-5-2003. It is further found in the enquiry report Ex.A4 that the notary had fabricated the said affidavit with ante date mentioning the 26 cell number which was not in existence by the date 10-4-1999 when the said affidavit was signed.
24.Plaintiff further contended that 1st defendant has not filed any piece of evidence to believe that the possession was delivered to 1st defendant and he constructed the house on said plot. Ex.A17 is the copy of movement reg- ister maintained in the office of plaintiff during 1-1-2004 to 31-7-2004 con- sisting of page Nos. 1 to 93. On perusal of Ex.A19 the entries are not made on original page of the register and on separate page the entries are typed and written and pasted on the original page. Once the plaintiff arguing that 2nd defendant tampered the relevant pages in DCP Register in favour of indi- viduals in respect of 70 plots including the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant manipulated entries in their favour and 2nd defendant convinced with 1st de- fendant and other registered 70 plots for which he made allotments to allot- tees by fabricating the records fraudulently, particularly he violated the rules incorporated in Ex.A3. As per Ex.A3 in para No.10 it is mentioned that the allotment of shops or the office space in the shopping centers and com- mercial complexes developed by the authority, shall be made by optioning the rights of occupation on rental basis only. The procedure for optioning the occupancy rights shall be on the basis of connected rules and regula- tions which are now in force in the municipalities of the State. The offset rent for option, shall not be less than the prevailing level of rents in similar existing centres or in the centres which had been developed by the author- ity. The rents derived from these shopping centres and other commercial building and complexes shall form a steady source of income to the author- ity. Only in exceptional circumstances, and with the prior approval of the
Govt. , the shops and office spaces in the newly developed commercial com- plexes may be allotted under hire. Purchase system or on the basis of out right sale. As such, this court has no option to accept and believe the ver- sion of plaintiff, that 2nd defendant fabricated allotment order with antidate 27 for the plaint schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant and sale deed executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant by playing fraud on plaintiff and 2nd defendant colluded with 1st defendant, 2nd defendant com- mitted fraud in the plaintiff organization mostly relating to plaint schedule property and thereby 2nd defendant is not followed the procedure while al- lotting plaint schedule property in favour of 1st defendant so also 1st defen- dant has not obtained sale deed under Ex.A14 and the schedule property in accordance with the procedure as contended by the plaintiff particularly procedure laid down in clause A2 (a) in Ex.A3. Hence, these issues are an- swered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
25.ADDL. ISSUE NO.6:
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of cancellation of sale deed?
The learned counsel for the plaintiff mainly submits that the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 1st defendant is not valid and liable to be cancelled, whereas the defendants 1 and 2 contention is that sale deed executed by 2nd defendant by exercising power conferred by the plaintiff authority. On perusal of plaintiff side documents and also P.W.1 evidence, his case is that 1st defendant deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 3.3.2004, Rs.5,000/- on 5.2.2004, Rs.10,000/- on 12.3.2004 and
Rs.12,375/- on 17.3.2004 totaling Rs.32,375/- towards plot cost on his own accord in the year 2004 and the 1st defendant has deposited an amount of
Rs.32,375/- after registration of plaint schedule property in his favour.
Whereas the cost of plot was originally fixed at Rs.37,000/- in the year 1998, both the defendants colluded together and got the said sale deed registered in favour of the 1st defendant. Once there is a clear violation of rules incorporated in Ex.A3 as deposed in para No.10 of P.W.1 chief examination affidavit, so also no possession was handed over to 1st defendant by the plaintiff authority and so many irregularities committed by 2nd defendant at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant which are 28 discussed in earlier findings in Issue Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9, there is clear fraudulent transaction made by the 2nd defendant i.e. without approval from the plaintiff’s authority, he executed the sale deed original of Ex.A14 in favour of 1st defendant which is not valid, thereby, it is liable to be cancelled. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
26.ADDL. ISSUE NO.3:
Whether 1 st defendant is the bonafied purchaser for valuable
consideration ?. The 1st defendant by filing his chief examination affidavit, examined as D.W1 stating that the allegations in Para No.7 and 12 of Plaint are true and the para 13 of the plaint shows the mode of registration of sale deed had happened. D.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that he has no proof to show that he was allotted with plot and he is not paying the vacant prop- erty tax. He has no proof that the Prasanna Kumar was authorized to exe- cute the sale deeds and also admitted that he has no proof to show his pos- session over the property except the sale deed. When cross examination of
D.W1 is consider he categorically admitted that he has no proof to show that he paid sale consideration to UDA. So also no proof to show that he pur- chased the application for allotment of plots, at one stage he failed to show he was allotted with plot. It is not the case of D.W1 that he has no knowl- edge about the process of registration was mentioned in Para Nos.7 and 12 of plaint and he also knows para No.13 of plaint says the mode of Registra- tion of sale deed. Once he admits that he has no proof that 2nd defendant authorized to execute sale deeds, but simply states that he assumed and believed that 2nd defendant has got authority, further he paid the considera- tion for the sale deed subsequent to registration, which is not denied by him, how can he considered as Bonafide purchaser for valuable considera- tion. Therefore, knowning fact that 2nd defendant is not authorized person to execute sale deed and also in the rules noted Para No.12 of plaint, that he 29 violates the same, undoubtedly he is not considered as bonafide purchaser of plaint schedule property for valuable consideration. Furthe he has not filed any proof to show that he is in possession of plaint schedule property. I already discussed above 2nd defendant was already exparte. Hence this is- sue is answered against the 1st defendant.
27.ADDL. ISSUE NO.5: Whether the plaintiff is guilty for the suppression of material facts?. 1st defendant says that plaintiff authorized P.W1 to perform registra- tion of plots relating to Payakapuram, Amaravathi Town ship, Mangalagiri and Chenchupet, Tenali etc. is lie. In view of registration documents why because Doc.No.8440/2004, dated 19.4.2004 lease deed executed by the plaintiff through 2nd defendant in favour of Y.Narasimharao under Ex.B18 the property situated at Payakapuram. So also Doc.No. 5077/2004, dated 19.4.2004 executed by the plaintiff authority through 2nd defendant in favour of P.W.1 shows that the plaintiff suppressed the real facts but here in
P.W1 categorically stated that Plot No.29 under Doc.No.5777/2004 was reg- istered the same in his favour with the authorization of Vice chairman. Fur- ther P.W.1 categorically stated that remaining 66 sale deeds executed by 2nd defendant for payakapuram Town Ship and found that they are made as per procedure. Once P.W.1 speaks about his property was purchased under the orders of Vice chairman, the question of the plaintiff suppressed the mate- rial facts, does not arise. Ex.B18 is photo copy of lease deed executed by vice chairman of UDA presented by 2nd defendant. So this issue is also an- swered in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant.
28. ADDL. ISSUE NO.7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Permanent injunction against the defendants?. Once the plaintiff established that 2nd defendant has no proper author- ity to execute the sale deed infavour of 1st defendant and also in the ab- sence of allotment made by the plaintiff to show the execution of sale deed under original of Ex.A14 is null and void, further plaintiff is coming forward that no possession was delivered to 1st defendant by virtue of void docu- 30 ment original of Ex.A14, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining and alienating the plaint schedule prop- erty in favour of third parties. When, D.W1 evidence is considered on this aspect he admitted that he has no proof to show that his possession over the plaint schedule property, except under Ex.A14 sale deed, so far sale deed i.e., original of Ex.A14 obtained by 1st defendant is concerned, this court already discussed it is a void document and it is to be cancelled in view of failure of 1st defendant possession over the plaint schedule property.
On the other hand, the plaintiff established that it is in their possession till now. So the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property as prayed for. Hence this issue is also an- swered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. 29. ADDL. ISSUE NO.10
10.Whether the suit is within the time of limitation?
The defendant counsel mainly submits that the suit is barred by limi- tation as the date of registration of sale deed under original of Ex.A14 is taken into consideration, the suit has to be filed within 3 years from its reg- istration which attracts the Article 59 of Limitation Act. Whereas the coun- sel for the plaintiff submits that the period of limitation would not be at- tracted to the void document from the registration taken by way of fraud etc. Plaintiff further submits that suit is filed after knowledge of said fraud.
30.Whatever the arguments advanced by both sides when I look into the document original of Ex.A14 it was registered on 26.2.2004. Further the suit herein filed on 16.2.2009 i.e. after period of 3 years from the date of regis- tration of the document. At the stage when I considered the Article of 59 of
Limitation Act it says that 3 years period for filing the suit to cancel or set aside the decree for rescission of contract. The limitation starts from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree canceled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become know to the plaintiff. So the period of limitation begins to run from the date of knowl- 31 edge of but not from the date of registration. Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribed void document, a period of limitation for 3 years for filing of a suit to cancel the document, applies only voidable transaction not to void transaction. A void document is nullity a decree for setting aside the same is not necessary.
31.As seen from the record herein the present case and as per Vigilance
Report it reveals that 2nd defendant without authorization and fraudulently registered 70 sale deeds in all categories i.e. EWS, LIG, MIG and HIG including the plaint schedule property herein covered under original of
Ex.A17. In support of the plaintiff’s case he relied upon the decision inAIR
2006 S.C.3608 between Prem Singh and others Vs Birbal and
others, wherein the lordship held that
Article 59 of Limitation Act would be attracted when a document is prima facie valid, where coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud asserted by the plaintiff which required to be proved and when a doc- ument is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity. Therefore, the contention of 5th defendant that present suit is barred by limitation. With reference to 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 is liable to be re- jected. Since Ex.A17 is void, there was no necessity for 1st plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration that it is void. Here in the present case when I considered the facts in case, once the plaintiff proved that 2nd defendant without any authorization executed regis- tered sale deed under Ex.A14 by fraudulent manner, the question of attrac- tion of Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 as contended by the defendant does not arise.
32.On the other hand, the plaintiff proves that it was registered unauthorisedly with fraudulent manner, which is voidable transaction, thereby Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 does not applies. Moreover, in this case D.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that he has no proof to 32 show that he paid sale consideration to UDA. Further he admits that he did not pay EMD (earned money deposit). Further he admits that he has no proof to show that 2nd defendant was authorized to execute sale deed but 1st defendant assumed that 2nd defendant got authorization. In such a case the defendant not only failed to prove that he paid consideration. But his own admission that he has no proof that 2nd defendant is authorized to execute sale deed under original of Ex.A14. Thereby it can be said that in the absence of consideration under original of Ex.A14, so also in the absence of 2nd defendant authorized to allot or execute sale deed under original of
Ex.A14, the said registration under original of Ex.A14, prima facie appears void document under law and liable to be cancelled.
33.Coming to another decision relied by the plaintiff reported in 2015 (2)
ALT Siddiavinssa Begum died Lrs vs. Shamsunissa Begum, in which
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
Article 59 of Limitation Act it prescribes period of limitation for filing suit to cancel a document, applies only voidable transaction and not to void transaction, Article 59 of Limitation Act would be attracted when a document is prima facie valid, where coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud asserted by the plaintiff which required to be proved and when a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.
The contention of defendant at present suit is barred by limitation when reference to Article 59 of Limitation Act is to be rejected. Since sale deed is void there was no necessity for plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration that it is void merely because such prayer is made Article 59 of
Limitation Act cannot be said to be attracted.
In this case when the title denied by the defendant, suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and possession, appellant pleaded that 33 brother of 1st plaintiff has title to it, they have not completed neither title to it acquisition title by adverse possession. The brother of 1st plaintiff admitted the title of mother of 1st plaintiff, as well as title of plaintiff to the house under registered relinquishment deed executed by her sisters in favour of the 1st plaintiff. In the above case, the plaintiff established that the plaintiff’s mother is owner of item No.1 house after her declare their relinquishment under Ex.A63 by co-sisters of 1st plaintiff, whereas the defendants 2 to 4 considered as trespassers having no right to continue in item No.1 house they failed to establish that 1st plaintiff has no title and defendants 2 to 9 are the owners, therefore, liable to be evicted. Here 5th defendant relies upon Article 59 of Limitation Act that a suit for cancellation of sale deed should be within three years from the date of sale and the suit filed on 20.8.1981. In the above case there is a dispute with regard to
Ex.A18 since it is a void document i.e. Ex.B14 sale deed. Ex.A18 is void.
When a void transaction is honest in the eye of law and nullity for decree setting aside the same is not necessary as Ex.A14 is void, contention of 5th defendant that present suit is barred by limitation with reference to Article 59 of Limitation Act is rejected.
In the present case is also this court already discussed once the plaintiff proved that the 2nd defendant executed Ex.A14 sale deed without authorization from plaintiff authority and no proof for receiving of consideration to execute the same and registered which comes as void document, as such when it comes void document registered as there applicable of Article 59 of Limitation Act as contended by the defendant does not applied. Therefore, in view of discussion the suit is within the limitation.
34.Coming to the decision relied by the plaintiff decided on 22.11.2021
in Civil Appeal Nos. 6989-6992 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP ©
Nos.2033-2036 of 2016) between Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar
34
and Others etc. = AIR (SC) 564 Supreme Court of India (Division
Bench), wherein the facts are analyzed that the appellant Kewal Krishan executed a power of attorney in favour of Sudarshan Kumar on 28th March, 1980. Acting on the same, two sale deeds were executed by Sudarshan
Kumar. The first sale deed is purported to sell a part of the suit properties to his minor sons by showing the sale consideration of Rs.5,500/-. Another one is irrespective of his wife by showing consideration of Rs.6875/- . Two suits were filed by the appellant one against Sudarshan Kumar and his two sons and the other suit against Sudarshan Kumar and his wife for injunction, suit alternative decree for possession, subsequently suit was amended by the for declaration of that the power of attorney and sale deeds were null and void, trial court dismissed the suits. Being aggrieved by the same, the
District Court also decreed the suit by granting joint possession by setting aside the sale deeds. However, the relief for compensation was rejected.
Again 2nd appeal preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, which have been allowed against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court and order has been impugned. In these appeals, wherein it is held that there is no evidence adduced on record by Sudarshan Kumar that his minor sons had any source of income or paid consideration so also his wife. While observing in the above judgment the lordship held that sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act and it does not provide for payment of price at a future date, it is not at all sale in the eyes of law. Therefore, such a sale will be void. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. Hence the issue of bar of limitation of the prayers for declaration incorporated by way of amendment does not arise at all.
35
35.Coming to decision relied by the defendant reported in 2009 (2) ALD
389 between Kona Kanthamma vs. Gunte Mukkala Srinivasa Rao
where in the facts are analyzed in the above case the suit filed for declaration to declare the registered sale deed is void and not binding on the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff case is that P.W.1 never stated any fraud or misrepresentation on part of respondent i.e. D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4 who are examined on behalf of the respondent side, wherein the defendant pleaded that the said house sold to him after he paid decretal amount, the legal action against the plaintiff and the plaintiff is allow to continue on nominal rent of Rs.40,000/- and present suit is filed as counter blast filed by him.
In the above case it is held that mere not enough to reach on finding of fraud proof of such fraud must be beyond all reasonable doubt. In the above case, the plaintiff failed to establish any fruad in execution of Ex.A2 sale deed, consequently the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration.
In this case plaintiff clearly proved that 2nd defendant fabricated allotment order with ante date and also execute a sale deed by playing fraud as such the above judgment is not no way aided to the defendant as it is not mere suspicious fraud document. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff.
36.Applying the above analogy to the case on hand, here in the present case, though the actual price is fixed in the year for an amount of
Rs.37,000/- but the 1st defendant deposited an amount of Rs.32,375/- in various dates towards the plot cost in his own accord in the year 2004.
Therefore, the said sale is not valid in the eye of law invoking the Sec. 54 of
Transfer of Property Act, which defined in the sale. Further D.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that he has no proof to show that he was allotted with plot and he is not paying vacant property tax, undoubtedly he is not considered as bonafied purchaser of plaint schedule property for valuable 36 consideration.
37.In support of 1st defendant case, he filed a decision reported in Civil
Appeal No. 9519/2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.11618 of 2017)
between Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) Thr.
LRS & ORS. Wherein the facts are analyzed that the respondents 2 and 3, who are defendants 2 and 3 contending that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation, as the plaintiff admitted that the execution of the Sale
Deed is on 02.07.2009 in favour of Respondent No.1 . The dispute is that they have not received a part of the sale consideration. Further if the Sale
Deed was being challenged, he would have filed the suit within three years i.e. on or before 02.07.2012. Further the case of the defendant the property was transferred in the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, after trial was completed, the trial court held that the period of limitation for filing the suit was 3 years from the date of execution of the Sale Deed i.e. 02.07.2009.
Whereas, the suit was filed on 15.12.2014. As such, the suit was barred by limitation invoking Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Aggrieved by the order the plaintiff filed first appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the same was affirmed by the High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff filed 2nd appeal while giving finding by the Apex Court coated Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. and Art. 58 and 59 of Limitation Act.
Further observed that the case made out in the plaint that even though they had executed registered sale deed on 2.7.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.
1,74,02,000, an amount of only Rs. 40,000 was paid to them. The remaining 31 cheques mentioned in the Sale Deed, which covered the balance amount of Rs. 1,73,62,000 were alleged to be "bogus" or "false", and allegedly remained unpaid. The case of the plaintiff is to be believed the Plaintiffs would have remained silent for a period of over 5 and ½ years, without even issuing a legal notice for payment of the unpaid sale consideration. The 37 plaintiffs apparently filed suit after property was further sold by the respondents 1 to R2 and R3. The delay of over 5 and ½ years after the alleged cause of action arose in the year 2009, shows that the suit was barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 i.e. another plea of plaintiff is that cancellation of subsequent Sale Deed executed by
Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which cannot be entertained as the trial court rightly exercised the power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. thereby this appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
Wherein the present case filed by the plaintiff the facts are not like so.
I have already discussed in the above as per judgment in AIR 2006 S.C.
3608 between Prem Singh and others vs. Birbal and others, the limitation was not played. Hence, the above judgment is no way helps the 1st defendant case.
38.ADDL. ISSUE No.4:-
4)Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
As per 2nd defendant written statement it pleaded that the other em- ployees who are concerned with the transaction are also proper and neces- sary parties in this suit and plaintiff is intentionally and deliberately omitted them and as such the suit is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Whereas, the plaintiff opposed the above pleadings, if really, the contention of 2nd defen- dant in the above proceedings are true and correct the burden is heavily lies on him to contest the same. With the reasons best known to 2nd defendant or defendants 3 to 5 they are remained exparte i.e. that 2nd defendant did not enter into witness box and he failed to prove that other employees how they are concerned with the transaction are also proper and necessary. On the other hand when this court very clearly discussed above 2nd defendant is the person only committed irregularities. In the result, he is responsible for irregularities committed by him.
38
39.The 2nd defendant in his written statement states that plaintiff himself admits that 2nd defendant was authorized by the then Secretary to perform registration of plots and itself shows that he was properly authorized to register the plots in favour of the allotted parties. Further submits that the other employees who are concerned with the transaction are also proper and necessary parties in the suit and plaintiff intentionally deliberately omitted them, as such, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties with an ulterior motive and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
40.Admittedly to prove the said allegation of the 2nddefendant, who mentioned in his written statement, either defendants 3 to 5 or defendant 2 ought to have come to the court to give evidence. But the reasons best known to the 2nd defendant, he did not enter into witness box in support of his plea taken in written statement. So also defendants 3 to 5. Therefore, unless the witness supports his version by way of entering into witness box in support of his plea, the said mere allegations in the pleadings cannot be looked into. As such, the 2nd defendant though burden lies on him to prove the said allegation he failed to discharge the same. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
41.ADDL. ISSUE No.11-
11.Whether the plaintiff committed several irregularities and illegalities?
The plaintiff authority has never followed the rules and regulations issued in G.O.M.s.No.1183, dated 9.11.1981 not only in Payakapuram scheme but also in other schemes such as Chenchupet, Tenali etc. The plots were allotted based on day to day arising situations duly deviating the provisions of the sais G.O. since 1989. Now the plaintiff authority taking the shelter of said G.O. to attribute fraud by framing baseless charges and irregularities on this defendant and it is not out of place to mention that authority has allotted nearly 150 plots to journalists without issuing 39 notifications against provisions of the said G.O. at the same rates. Though the 2nd defendant made the above said allegation that the plaintiff has committed several irregularities and illegalities particularly allotting of plots to P.Bala Tripura Sundari who is the wife of one Prasad who working the
Estate Section of this plaintiff and P.W.1 on the same date violating procedure laid down in Ex.A3 etc. and also one Sri M.Mangapathi, P.W.1,
Lakshmi Narayana and others appeared to be inserted as per Ex.A14 orders passed in pursuance of the show cause notice by the plaintiff authority, the plaintiff did not take any action against 14 allotments in order to prove the above allegations, he did not enter into the witness box. Further P.W.1 categorically stated though they executed sale deeds under Exs.B9 to B12, which are certified copies of sale deeds, the 2nd defendant has allotted the above said plots and he registered the same. In such a case, the 2nd defendant is proper person to speak the registration of the said documents is in accordance with the procedure or not. The 2nd defendant was not examined who is proper person to speak the above said facts. In such circumstances, the allegations of defendants that plaintiff made irregularities and illegalities as contended by him cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
42. ADDL. ISSUE Nos. 12 and 14:-
12.Whether the plaint schedule property was allotted in favour of 1stdefendant as per the Procedure?
14.Whether the 1stdefendant obtained the sale deed for the schedule property in accordance with the procedure of the plaintiff?
For the sake of brevity and convenience in order to avoid repetition as the evidence that is to be appreciated in common, these two issues are an- swered together. The 2nd defendant submits that plaintiff authority itself never followed the rules and regulations issued in G.O.M.S.No.1183, dated 9.11.1981 not 40 only in Payakapuram scheme but also in other schemes such as Chenchupet and Tenali etc. The plots were allotted based on day to day arising situa- tions duly deviated the provisions of said G.O. since 1989. The plaintiff au- thority was allotted nearly 150 plots to Journalists without issuing notifica- tions against the provisions of said G.O. When the 2nd defendant further sub- mits that even the irregularities pointed out by the vigilance authorities are only deviation of the procedure followed by the higher authorities but the said irregularities are not illegal and this defendant acted as per directions of higher authorities. The plaintiff authority took a decision to allot and sell the plots whoever approached the plaintiff authority by deviating the norms and procedure. The majority of the employees of the plaintiff authority ob- tained 2 or 3 plots including P.W.1 either in their name or in the names of their family members in all the projects taken up by the plaintiff authority.
The 2nd defendant executed number of sale deeds on behalf of the plaintiff nearly 200 sale deeds in the year 2004 itself including one sale deed in favour of P.W.1. All those sale deeds were approved by the plaintiff accept- ing the authorization of 2nd defendant. If at all the above pleadings of 2nd defendant are true and correct, 2nd defendant has come forward to speak the same before this court by entering into witness box, but he did not do so. On the other hand he was remained exparte. Therefore, at any cost the plaintiff never committed any irregularities and illegalities. If really the con- tention of 2nd defendant that the sale deed in favour of 1st defendant cannot be illegal or that said document is supported by proper consideration and duly executed by Administrative Officer, was true and correct, there should be proper account books and amount was received by the plaintiff authority.
But the 1st defendant did not file proper account books to show that he paid consideration to the plaintiff authority. It is not the case of the 1st defendant that he paid total consideration of plot cost Rs.37,000/-, but he paid totally an amount of Rs.32,375/- once the plaintiff authority proved that 70 docu- 41 ments which are executed by 2nd defendant including to 1st defendant which are void and the same was also fraud clearly revealed in vigilance report.
The plaint schedule property was not allotted in favour 1st defendant as for procedure. Further 1st defendant never obtained sale deed of plaint sched- ule property in accordance with procedure of plaintiff authority.
43.Coming to the documents filed by 1st defendant i.e. Exs.B1 to B12 are concerned Ex.B1 is a letter of public information officer enclosing some in- formation sought by one Vuppala Samba Sivarao. It is pertinent to note that plot number which is subject matter of present suit covered under Ex.A11 in plot No.29 of Payakapuram, Vijayawada. The plot numbers referred in Ex.B1 is different one. Hence it is no way relevant to decide the transaction under
Ex.A14.
44. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.147/2008 on the file of III
Addl. District Judge’s Court, Guntur. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of terms of compromise in the said O.S.No.147/2008. Ex.B4 is the certified copy of
Award of Lok Adalat. Ex.B5 is certified copy of compromise and award copy in O.S.409/2008, whereas the subject matter covered under Ex.A14 is different. Therefore, those documents are no relevant to this case to say that Ex.A14 is valid and genuine. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of letter address to Prl. Secretary of Government for regularization of plots. Ex.B7 is certified copy of letter addressed to Prl. Secretary to UDA. Ex.B8 is the certified copy of sale deed in which he purchased the plot from the plaintiff.
Ex.B9 to B12 are the sale deeds of family members of one Sominayudu.
The contention of D.W.1 is that 2nd defendant executed the sale deeds in favour of the same family members and they are not valid. Here subject matter of those documents were not subject matter of present suit. As such, those documents are no way relevant to this present suit. Ex.B13 is the certified copy of information furnished by the plaintiff Authority, Ex.B14 is another copy of certified copy of information furnished by the plaintiff 42
Authority under R.T.I. Act, dated 20.10.2012. Ex.B15 and B16 are the certified copy of information furnished by the plaintiff Authority under R.T.I.
Act. This information is not pertaining to plaint schedule property covered under Ex.A14. Therefore, 1st defendant cannot claim rights as if Ex.A14 is valid. Ex.B17 is Photostat copy of information given by the plaintiff authority under RTI Act. Ex.B18 is the Photostat copy of lease deed executed by Chairman of UDA. Ex.B19 is the Photostat copy of sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of one B.T.V.Sastry. The transactions under sale deeds are not for the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant also failed to explain how those documents are useful to treat
Ex.A14 is genuine and valid document. Even for arguments says after 1st defendant has grievances against P.W.1 for the document executed by him he cannot approach the competent civil court for claiming necessary reliefs.
But he cannot claim that Ex.A14 is valid one.
45.From all these above, the plaintiff established that 2nd defendant unauthorized to register the original of Ex.A14. Therefore, 1st defendant never obtained sale deed in accordance with procedure. Hence, these issues are also answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.
46.ADDL. ISSUE No.13:
13.Whether the plaintiff authority passed the resolution proceedings Dt.15.02.1996 in favour of the 2nddefendant as alleged by 1stdefendant to execute suit sale deed in favour of 1stdefendant?
The 1st defendant stated in his written statement that the present Vice
Chairman may not aware that the 2nd defendant was authorized person for executing the sale deeds on behalf of the authority and the sale deed of this defendant clearly reveals that authority passed resolution proceedings
dated 15.2.1994 and further it is also recited in the sale deed that fixation
of value by vendor i.e. plaintiff vide proceedings No.A3/890/94, dated 14.8.1997 based on the board resolution No.308, dated 5.8.1997 and this 43 shows how the consciousness of the vendor while execution of the sale deed. So this clearly reveals that the plaintiff has not allotted plot to the 1st defendant is an utter lie and document in question spoken to the extent that the allotment of plot to this defendant and fixing of sale value and the said recital is conflicting the order of the plaintiff and the contents of the plaint are conflicting, and this type of pleading of plaintiff is contra to the
Sec. 91 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and whether the document is executed for valued consideration and is there any authorization to execute are pertaining to proof of document at this juncture it cannot be possible to come to a conclusion that the execution of document is proved as it can be proved or disproved only after elaborate enquiry and evidence. To prove the above pleadings though the burden heavily lies on 1st defendant, he failed to adduce cogent evidence in proving the said fact. Further the defendant also did not file resolution proceedings, dated 15.2.1994. further this court already discussed above P.W.1 categorically stated in his evidence the plaintiff did not authorized the then Secretary of the plaintiff authority to give authorization to 2nd defendant and the then Secretary exercised extra jurisdiction. In view of above since the defendants failed to file sufficient evidence on this aspect. Hence, this issued is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
47.ISSUE No.9
9)To what relief?
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by canceling sale deed vide Doc.No. 2506/2004, dated 25.2.2004 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant under Ex.A14 in respect of schedule property and also granting permanent injunction restraining 1st defendant, his men and followers from alienating the plaint schedule property covered under
Ex.A14 in favour of 3rd parties.
44
Dictated to the Typist directly on computer, transcribed and typed by
her, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 28th day of February, 2022.
VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. FAC IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR 1 st DEFENDANT:-
Pw.1 P.Simeon Dw.1 K.Venkateswara Rao Pw.2 G.Uma Maheswara Rao Pw.3 Y.Kameswari Srinivas Pw.4 M.Madhusudhan Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1:Authorization letter (Attested) 28.09.2010 Notification published in Hindu News Paper showing the Ex.A.2 procedure for allotment(Attested) G.O.Ms.No.1183 issued by the Govt. of A.P. Ex.A.3: (original) 09.11.1981 Letter from the Principal Secretary to Government, MA & Ex.A.4: UD Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad to the Vice Chairman, 08.10.2004 VGTM, UDA enclosing Vigilance and Enforcement Department Report(Attested). Form of Instructions to applicants for allotment of Ex.A5: plot(Attested). Fabricated allotment Ex.A6: order No. RC.A1.302/94.(Attested) Attested Copy of the F.I.R. Ex.A7: 05.02.2010 Letter addressed by the Secretary of UDA Rc.No. Ex.A.8: A3/1714/2004 to the Sub-Registrar Office.(Attested) 09.01.2004 Authorization letter issued to Mr.Semion vide Ex.A.9: Rc.A3/1714/01(Attested). 10.01.2002 Show cause notice issued by the plaintiff to the Ex.A10: defendant No.1(Original). 24.02.2005 Orders passed in pursuance of the show cause notice by Ex.A11: the plaintiff authority. (Original) 01.04.2006 Interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.9581/2006 in Ex.A12: W.P.No.7796/2006 by the Hon’ble Court of A.P.(original) 20.04.2006 Letter from Vigilance and Enforce Department while Ex.A13: taking over the records. (Attested) 30.11.2004 Certified copy of the Sale deed No.2506/2004 executed Ex.A14: by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant. 25.02.2004 45
Common order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Ex.A15: in batch writ petitions. (original) 24.03.2008 Challan Nos. 4 Ex.A16: Movement register maintained at Secretary Pashi for the Ex.A17: year 2004. G.O.R.T.No.832 of General Admn., Dept., Govt of A.P. Ex.A18: 27.02.1999 Letter addressed by VGTM UDA bearing No.A2/741/99 to Ex.A19: the Principal Secretary, Govt.of A.P., M.A.& U.D., 09.03.1999 Letter addressed by VGTM UDA bearing No.A2/741/99 to EX.A20: the Principal Secretary, Govt.of A.P., M.A.& U.D. 09.03.1999 G.O.R.T.No.786 M.A.Dept., Govt. of A.P. Ex.A21: 11.06.2003 FOR 1 st DEFENDANT: Certified copy of information furnished by plaintiff under Ex.B1: R.T.I act 15.12.2012 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.147/08 on the file Ex.B2: of III Addl. District Court, Guntur. Certified copy of terms of compromise in O.S.147/08. Ex.B3: Certified copy of award in O.S.147/08. Ex.B4: Copy of terms of compromise and award copy in EX.B5:
O.S.147/08 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
Certified copy of letter addressed to Principal Secretary Ex.B6: to Government. Certified copy of letter addressed by Principal Secretary Ex.B7: to VUDA. Certified copy of sale deed. Ex.B8: Certified copies of sale deeds. Ex.B9 to ExB12: Certified copy of information given by the plaintiff under Ex.B13: R.T.I. Act 20.12.2012 Certified copy of information given by plaintiff under Ex.B14: R.T.I.Act 20.12.2012 Certified copy of information given by plaintiff under Ex.B15: R.T.I.Act along with the proceedings of Vice Chairman showing internal transfers of plaintiff. Certified copy of information furnished by the plaintiff Ex.B16: under R.T.I Act along with five applications. Certified copy of information given by plaintiff under Ex.B17: R.T.I Act to D1. Certified copy of lease deed executed by Vice Chairman Ex.B18: of UDA presented by D2. Certified copy of sale deed executed by D2 in favour of Ex.B19: one D.T.V.Sastry.
Photostat copy of Authorization letter. Ex.X1: Cell phones of BSNL were introduced in Vijayawada in Ex.X2: October, 2002.
VI Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. FAC IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.