1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR
DIVISION), SRIKAKULAM
PRESENT:- Sri M. Sridhar,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
Friday, the 31st day of October, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.440/2010
Between:
1. Lade Suresh Babu, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 36years, business and cultivation, r/o Oppangi Vill., Sanivada PO, Srikakulam Rural Manda & Dist
2. Lade Sriramachandra Murty, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 40years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
3. Lade Nirmala, w/o late Appala Krishna Murty, Hindu, aged 40 (Forty) years household duties, r/o rest-do-
4. Lade Satish Kumar, s/o late Appala Krishna Murty, Hindu, aged 23 years, employee, r/o Door No 8-3-230/80, Flat No.6, II Floor, Venkatagiri, Opp Water Tank, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-45.
5. Potnuru Anusha, w/o P.V. Gireesh, Hindu, aged 21years, household duties, r/o Door No.9, First Floor, 12th Cross, 8th Main, B-Block, Vinayak Nagar, Konena Agrahara, Banglore City, Karnataka State
6. Lade Ashok Kumar, w/o Sampathirao, Hindu, aged 28 years, employee, r/o Door No 8-3-230/80, Flat No.6, II Floor, Venkatagiri, Opp: Water Tank, Yousufguda. Hyderabad-45
7. Lade Naveen Kumar, W/o Sampathirao, Hindu, aged 26 years, employee, r/o rest-do-
8. Lade Santosh Kumar, w/o Sampathirao, Hindu, aged 24 years. employee, r/o rest-do- 2
9. Lade Venkata Sachidananda, s/o Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged 20 years, student, r/o Oppangi Vill, Sanivada PO, Srikakulam Rural Mandal & Dist.
10. Lade Venkata Jayendra Kumar, s/o Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged 16 years, student, minor, being represented by his mother Narmada, w/o Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, r/o rest-do-, as his guardian and next friend, r/o rest-do- (10th Plaintiff is declared as major as per orders of the court dt.10-12-2015 in IA 120/2015)
11. Lade Mounika, d/o Chitti Babu, Hindu, aged 17 years, student, minor, being represented by her mother Manjula, w/o Chitti Babu, Hindu, aged 40 years, r/o rest-do- (11th Plaintiff is declared as major as per orders of the court dt.10-12-2015 in IA 369/2015)
12. Lade Dhruva Teja, s/o Chitti Babu, Hindu, aged 15 years, student, minor, being represented by his mother Manjula, w/o Chitti Babu, Hindu, aged 40 years, r/o rest-do- (12th Plaintiff is declared as major as per orders of the court dt. 10-12-2015 in IA 370/2015)
13. Lade Hima Teja, s/o Govinda Rao. Hindu, aged 15 years, student, minor being represented by his mother Bhavani, w/o Govinda Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, r/o rest-do- (13th Plaintiff is declared as major as per orders of the court dt. 10-12-2015 in LA 119/2015)
14. Lade Madhuri, d/o Govinda Rao, Hindu, aged 13 years, student, minor being represented by her mother Bhavani, w/o Govinda Rao, Hindu, aged 35 (Thirty five) years, r/o rest-do-
15. Lade Maneesha, d/o Hari Babu, Hindu, aged 13 years, student, minor being represented by her mother Sailaja, w/o Hari Babu, Hindu, aged 32 years, r/o rest-do-.
16. Lade Bindu Manasa, D/o Hari Babu, Hindu, aged 11 years, student, minor being represented by her mother Sailaja, w/o Hari Babu, Hindu, aged 32 (Thirty two) years, r/o rest-do- … Plaintiffs And:
3
1. Lade Chinna Gurunadham, s/o late Narsimha Murty, Hindu, aged 47 years, business and cultivation, r/o Oppangi Vill., Sanivada PO, Srikakulam Rural Mandal & Dist.
2. Lade Gurunadham, s/o late Krishna Murty, Hindu, aged 65 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do- (Died)
3. Lade Muriki Ramalingam, s/o late Krishna Murty, Hindu, aged 63 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
4. Lade Eswara Rao, s/o Gurunadham, Hindu, aged 46 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-.
5. Lade Madhu, s/o Gurunadham, Hindu, aged 44 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
6. Lade Ramesh, s/o Gurunadham, Hindu, aged 40 years, LIC agent, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-.
7. Lade Amarnath, s/o Muriki Ramalingam, Hindu, aged 40 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
8. Perla Santosh Kumar, s/o late Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, business, owner of Srinivasa Lodge, Gavara Street. Srikakulam Town, PO & Dist.
9. Pradeep Kumar Padhi, s/o late Kaivalya Chandra Padhi, Hindu, aged about 38 years, business, r/o D.No 6-2-36/6, Chinna Bazaar Street, Srikakulam Town, PO & Dist.
10. Lade Lakshmana Murty, s/o late Krishna Murty, Hindu, aged 82, business and cultivation, r/o Oppangi Vill, Sanivada PO, Srikakulam Rural Mandal & Dist.
11. Lade Sampathirao, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 54 years, Dy. Statistical Officer and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
12. Lade Vasudeva Rao, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 49 years, Chartered Accountant and cultivation, r/o D.No.4-1-28, Venkateswara Colony, Srikakulam Town, PO & Dist.
4
13. Lade Chitti Babu, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 47 years, business and cultivation, r/o Oppangi Vill, Sanivada PO, Srikakulam Rural Mandal & Dist.
14. Lade Govinda Rao, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 45 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
15. Lade Hari Babu, s/o Lakshmana Murty, Hindu, aged 43 years, business and cultivation, r/o rest-do-
16. Jami Bhavani, w/o Ramana Murty, Hindu, aged 38 years, household duties, r/o Chepala Veedhi, Srikakulam Town, PO & Dist. … Defendants
This suit is coming on 14-10-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri N.V. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the Defendant No.1, Sri B.MadanamohanaRao, Advocate for Defendants No.3 to 7; SriN. Vijayakumar, Advocate for defendants No.8 and 9, Sri A. Govindarajulu, Advocate for Defendant No.16, and the defendant No.11 to 15 remained exparte, and the suit against defendant No.2 and 10 abated as died and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, to pass decree in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants for declaration that the registered sale deed dt.30-3-2003 in the name of 1st defendant said to have been executed by 10th de- fendant and of which the defendants 11 to 15 said to have at- tested, is a sham and nominal one and not binding on the plain- 5 tiffs; and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from separating the extent of Ac.3.03 cents by metes and bounds covered under sale deed from out of total extent of Ac.10-72 cents by raising bunds until total extent is partitioned among plaintiffs and defendants and for costs of the suit.
02. The material averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :-
One Lade Krishna Murty, S/o Rama Swamy got five sons viz., 1) Narsimha Murty, 2) Lakshmana Murty, 3) Rama Swamy,
4) Gurunadham and 5) Muriki Ramalingam. They divided their joint family properties under registered partition deed dt.29-03- 1972. In that partition the father Krishna Murty got the properties covered by 'A' schedule of the said partition deed, the eldest son Narsimha Murty got 'B' schedule, the 2nd son
Lakshmana Murty got 'C' schedule, the 3rd son Rama Swamy got 'D' schedule. The 4th son Gurunadham got 'E' schedule whereas the youngest son Muriki Ramalingam got "F" schedule properties towards their share and since then each sharer is in separate possession and enjoyment of his respective share of 6 properties. Appalanarasamma, wife of Krishna Murty, pre- deceased him and subsequently Krishna Murty also died in or about 1981 and both died intestate and after the death of
Krishna Murty, his share of properties were partitioned in mutual oral family arrangement by his sons. The above named
Lakshmana Murty is the 10th defendant and 2nd and 3rd defendants and father of the 1st defendant, are brothers. The sons of the 10th defendant are the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and husband of the 3rd plaintiff, the 11th to 15th defendants and his daughter is the 16th defendant. The 4th and 5th plaintiffs are the children of the 3rd plaintiff, the 6th to 8th plaintiffs are the children of the 11th defendant, the 9th and 10th plaintiffs are the children of the 12th defendant, the 11 and 12th plaintiffs are the children of the 13th defendant, the 13th and 14 plaintiffs are the children of the 14th defendant and the 15th and 16th plaintiffs are the children of 15th defendant. The 4th to 6th defendants are the sons of the 2nd defendant whereas the 7th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. The father- the 10th defendant and his sons-1st and 2nd plaintiffs, 11th to 15th defendants and sister-the 16th defendant and husband of the 3d plaintiff constitute Hindu undivided joint family members having the plaint schedule described and other properties, 7 which are joint and undivided coparcenary properties and the 10th defendant is the eldest joint family member and manager of the undivided joint family, managing the joint family properties and 1st, 2nd 3rd to 5th plaintiffs, 11th to 15th defendants are having their separate cooking and the 16th defendant is living with her husband at her in-laws house in
Srikakulam and though there are different kinds of business being run by the individuals separately.
The husband of the 3rd plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 4 and 5 viz., Appala Krishna Murty died intestate in or about 2004 leaving the plaintiffs 3 to 5 as his successors legal heirs, in joint and undivided status along with his father-the 10th defendant, brothers the 1 and 2nd plaintiffs, 11 to 15th defendants and sister-the 16th defendant. The 8th and 9th defendants are the prospective purchasers of the suit schedule described land from 1 to 7th defendants. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and husband of the 3rd plaintiff are not so educated and not well versed with the day to day affairs and after the death of her husband, the 3rd plaintiff and her children are continuing as undivided joint family members, but by separate cooking. In the 3rd week of
October, 2010, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs received summons in 8
OS 329/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's court,
Srikakulam, filed by the 1st defendant herein for grant of permanent injunction against them and 10th to 15th defendants herein this suit, with respect to dry land of Ac.0.81 cents covered by Sy.Nos.72-1, Ac.2.22 cents bearing Sy. No.72- 3, totaling of Ac.3.03 cents of Oppangi Revenue Village, by contending that the 1st defendant herein-the plaintiff in that suit is the absolute owner of the same and that he had purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.30-03-2003 and the Photostat copy of the said sale deed is enclosed along with the copies of the plaint and served on the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs herein and after perusing the same, for the first time, the 1 and 2nd plaintiffs came to know about the existence of the said registered sale deed dt.30-03-2003 as if the 10th defendant herein had sold away the said land of Ac.3.03 cents in favour of the 1st defendant herein and for which, the 11th to 15th defendants have subscribed their signatures as attesters of the said document and that the 1st defendant by claiming title and ownership and possession over the said land by virtue of the said sale deed.
9
Immediately thereafter the receipt of the summons and the copies of the plaint and the said sale deed etc., the lst and 2nd plaintiffs approached the 1st, 10th and 11th to 15th defendants and questioned them as to how such registered sale deed was brought into existence when the said property of
Ac.3.03 cents is the joint and undivided property belonging to the joint family of the 10th to 16th defendants and that of the 1st to 16th plaintiffs herein and also that when the said Ac 3.03 cents which is part and parcel of total extent of Ac. 10.72 cents physically existing on ground as a single plot, bounded on
East: Road leading to Sanivada Vill., South Dry land of Etcherla
Krishna and others, West: Cart track gorja to Ampolu and North:
ditto- and that said entire extent of Ac. 10.72 cents is in joint and undivided possession and enjoyment of the joint family members of the 10th defendant, 2nd defendant and 3d defendant and of their other brother late Narsimha Murty being represented by the 1st defendant herein. The 10th to 15th defendants replied that the 1st defendant requested them to execute such sale deed dt.30-03-2003, for the purpose of showing the same as security for the loan obtained by the 1st defendant for his "Venkata Ramana Rice Mill" and as such they have executed the said sale deed for that purpose and the 1st 10 defendant had also asserted the same fact. But the 10th to 15th defendants came up with a new theory that though in fact the said sale deed is a sham and nominal one and due to the political and other business differences arose in between them and the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant by creating pattadar pass book and title deed and other revenue records in his favour and had filed the said suit OS.329/2010 claiming independent rights and possession over the land covered under the said sale deed and that they are negotiating with them and the matter would be settled, but the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd plaintiffs reliably learnt that the 1st defendant in collusion with the 10th to 15th defendants had created the said registered sale deed dt.30-03-2003 in order to deprive the legitimate rights of the remaining undivided joint family members i.e., the plaintiffs herein.
The sale deed dt.30-03-2003 is a sham and nominal one and not acted upon at any time, not duly executed to the family necessity or benefit of the family of the plaintiffs and 10th to 16 defendants and the land of an extent of Ac.3.03 cents covered under the said sale deed is not separated by metes and bounds at any time and even on this day the total extent of Ac.10.72 11 cents of which the said extent of Ac.3.03 cents is a part and parcel of the same, is physically existing on ground as a single lot and as such the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs since they are all not at all parties to the same and the same was not duly executed and not supported by any valid consideration and the consideration mentioned therein was mentioned only for the purpose of showing the value of the land covered under the said sale deed for the purpose of securing the said document by the 1st defendant for obtaining loan for his rice milling business. Since 25-09-2010, the 1st defendant by filing the suit OS 329/2010 on the file of Hon'ble
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, and by claiming
independent title, ownership, possession and enjoyment over the land of Ac.3.03 cents covered under the above said registered sale deed dt. 30-03-2003, is proclaiming that he would separate the extent of Ac.3.03 cents by formulating the bunds as per the boundaries mentioned there in that sale deed and would occupy the same.
The plaintiffs have united together in of this single suit with respect to the plaint schedule described lands of Ac.3.03 cents which is part and parcel of total extent of Ac.10.72 cents 12 physically existing on ground as a single plot in their common possession and enjoyment with that of the defendants one to fourteen and as such the plaintiffs have united in this single suit because of having single cause of action against the defendants of which they are commonly aggrieved against all the defendants and in order to avoid filing of the multiplicity of the suits and of conflict of decisions and to save litigation expenses, this single suit is maintainable by all the plaintiffs against all the defendants, who are having common and joint interest of causes of action. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for a declaration that the registered sale deed dt.30- 03-2003 in the name of the 1 st defendant said to have been executed by the 10 th defendant and of which the 11th to 15 th defendants said to have attested, is a sham and nominal one and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from separating the said extent of Ac 3.03 cents covered under the said sale deed from out of the total extent of Ac. 10.72 cents by raising bunds until the said total extent is duly partitioned among the plaintiffs and the defendants. Hence the suit.
13
3.D1 filed the written statement by denying the material allegations of the plaint and contested that the plaintiffs, and defendant Nos. 10 to 16 are colluded with each other and got file the present suit. D1 is the bonafide purchaser of the Plaint
Schedule Property, as the same was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 30-03-2003 for a valuable consideration from the 10th defendant, who is no other than his junior paternal uncle, under a good faith, as the 10th defendant is the manager of the Joint family and the same was also sold by the 10th defendant for the benefit of their joint family only, moreover the sons of 10th defendant also signed as attestors of the above said sale deed, so all the Joint family members of 10th defendant are having full knowledge and information about the sale transaction, and because of the close relationship in between their family and family of 10th defendant he has purchased and obtained the sale deed from him and now because of the strained relationship between this defendant and 10th defendant's family, the 10th defendant got filed the present suit through his grand children and others to grab the plaint schedule property from this defendant because of the hike of the rates of the plaint schedule property, as due to recent disputes between themselves also and after purchase 14 of the plaint schedule property by him from the 10th defendant the revenue authorities have mutated the same in his favour, after due and proper enquiries and subsequently issued
Pattadar Pass Book, Title deed and No.3 Adangal in his favour, by collecting the Land Revenue also from him for the same, moreover the Defendant Nos. 10 to 16 are highly educated persons and they know everything about the sale transaction of the present subject matter of the property in question. Himself,
Defendant 3, 4 and 6 are intend to sell the plaint schedule property and other properties to defendant No. 8 and defendant No. 9 at that time the 10th defendant and his sons asked and demand this defendant to give an extent of Ac 0.10 cents of land out of the property covered under sale deed dt.
30-3-2003 without any consideration ie., freely, as this defendant is getting considerable amount for the sale of plaint schedule property to defendant no.8 and defendant no.9 as the same was sold by the defendant No. 10 at the prevailing rate at that time and they have also threatened him that if this defendant did not give the extent of Ac 0.10 Cents as demanded by them freely, they will create problem to him, and this defendant raised dispute before the elders by name 1.
Challa Ramana, and 2. Yagati Ganesh for unlawful demand of 15 the 10th defendant and his sons, then the above said elders also advised to the 10th defendant and his sons that it is not correct and proper on their part, to again demand Ac. 0 10 cents of land, out of the property which was sold by them to this defendant, for that the 10th defendant and his sons replied that this defendant is getting substantial amount on the plaint schedule property, which was sold by them. The plaintiff and other defendants that is, plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 11 to 16 are colluded with each other and filed the present suit against him with an intention to cause loss and in convenience to him. He has perfected his title by way of adverse possession also, as such the plaintiffs cannot question his title with regard to the
Plaint Schedule Properties.
The sale deed dated 30-03-2003 is not sham and nominal one and it is binding on the plaintiffs and the remaining defendants. He has filed suit in O.S. 329/2010 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge Court in Srikakulam against the
defendant Nos. 10 to 15 for a permanent injunction restraining them to interfere with the peaceful possession enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and accordingly the Principal Junior
Civil Judge Court was pleased to grant injunction against them,
16 after filing of this suit and injunction orders only, the defendant
Nos. 10 to 16 got filed the present suit before the Court through the plaintiffs who are no other than their children, as a counter case only. The plaintiffs have no right, interest, title and possession over plaint scheduled property at any point of time.
The plaintiffs are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Even though the plaintiffs have knowledge with regard to the purchase the plaintiff property by the 1st defendant they never questioned and objected with regard to the said sale transaction in question. The plaintiffs have no right to ask for declaration and injunction with regard to plaint scheduled properties against him, as he is the absolute owner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of his purchase to till the date, with title and interest.
There is no cause of action to the plaintiff against him in the above suit. The plaint scheduled is not correct. the Court Fees paid is not correct. The suit is bad for non- joinder and miss- joinder of necessary parties. The suit is barred by limitation.
The above suit is not maintainable under law and therefore prays to dismiss the suit.
3.D3 filed written statement which was adopted by D2, 4 to 7 by denying the material allegations of the plaint and 17 contested that, the relationship stated to by the plaintiffs is true but it is not true that after the death of Krishnamurty his share of properties were partitioned in mutual oral family arrangement by the plaintiffs and defendants as stated. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof that the 10th defendant and his sons 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and 11th to 15th defendants and 16 defendant constitute Hindu undivided joint family having the plaint schedule property and the property is undivided co- parcenary property and 10th defendant is manager and managing the same and the said allegations for the purpose of the suit. The document was executed on 30-3-2003 and the suit has got to be filed within 3 years and no suit was filed within the period of limitation and as such the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 30-3-2003 is shame and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs, is not maintainable as the claim is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are quite aware of the execution of sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant he having purchased from the 10th defendant under sale deed dated 30-3-2003 who is no other than his junior paternal uncle and that the 10th defendant executed the document as Kartha of the family and the same is for the benefit of the family and in token thereof the sons of 18 10th defendant attested the document and as such the plaintiffs who are the agnates and residing in the same village having their respective properties are quite aware of the execution of sale deed and they are also aware of the fact that ever since the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. It is not correct to say that the said sale deed was never acted upon. After due execution of the sale deed dated 30-3-2003 the revenue authorities made enquiries about the sale deed and issued pattadar pass book, title deeds and No.3 Adangals and also collecting land revenue from the 1st defendant and moreover the defendants 10 to 16 are highly educated persons and they are quite aware of the sale transactions.
In the partition effected in the year 1972 each sharer is in possession of respective shares and as per the partition deed the names were mutated by the revenue authorities and pattadar pass book and title deeds have also issued besides
Adangals. The defendant got the lands under title deed No.161 issued by the MR.O. Srikakulam and also pattadar pass book
No.161 bearing No.206505. The 3rd defendant got an extent of
Ac. 1-12 cents in S.No 72/3, an extent of Ac 1-75 cents in S.
19
No.72/2 in respect of the above referred property. The 2nd defendant also got title deed No.331 bearing No. 89848 issued by the MR.O, Srikakulam and also got pattadar pass book patta
No.331 bearing No. 206506 and as per the revenue record he got Ac 1-12 cents in S.No.72/3 and Ac.1-75 cents in S.No.72/1 besides other lands which is nothing to do with the present dispute. Thus there is no jointness as alleged and each sharer is in possession of his respective shares and as such the 1st defendant purchased the property which is given under the partition and in possession of the vendors of the 1st defendant.
The plaintiffs with a malafide intention knowing fully well that they are not concerned with sale transaction have impleaded the defendants 2, 4 to 7 as parties to the suit and as such the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and unnecessarily dragged this defendant and other defendants 2, 4 to 7 and as such the plaintiffs are liable to pay exemplanary costs to the defendant and other defendants 2, 4 to 7 and the suit is not maintainable.
4.D8 filed the written statement which was adopted by D9 by denying the material allegations of the plaint and contested that, the sale deed dt:30.3 2003 property is separate property with individual bunds and only to file the suit the plaintiffs and 20 1 to 7 and 10 to 16 defendants colluded and got filed the suit. 1 to 7 defendants who are the absolute owners of Ac 10.72 cents in S.No.72/1, 72/2, 72/3, 74/3, 74/4, 74/6 situated in Voppangi village in Srikakulam rural mandal agreeing to sell the Ac 10.72 cents to this defendant and 8 defendant at the rate of
Rs.14.000/-per cent and accordingly the 1 to 7 defendants executed an agreement of sale in favour of this defendant and 8th defendant on 26.7.2010 after receiving the Rs.35,00,000/- as an advance before the attestors and scribe and stipulated period for execution of registered sale deed fixed as 6 months and further condition that this defendant and 8th defendant had to pay another Rs.35,00,000/- within three months from date of agreement on 26.7.2010 and when this defendant and 8th defendant approached 1 to 7 defendants for payment of
Rs.35,00,000/- this defendant and 8th defendant came to know about the filing of the suit O.S.329/2010 by the first defendant against plaintiffs and others for permanent injunction and thereafter this defendant and 8th defendant came to know about this suit filed by the plaintiffs. 10th defendant who is manager and kartha of family sold away Ac 3.03 cents under registered sale deed dt,30.3.2003 in favour of first defendant and the plaintiffs 1 and 2, 3rd plaintiff, 11 to 16 defendants well 21 aware about the sale transaction which is happened for the welfare of joint family. As the 1 to 7 defendants who are not interested to execute the sale deed infavour of this defendant and 8th defendant under guise of agreement of sale dt 26.7.2010 colluded together with plaintiffs who are all joint family members got filed this suit only to avoid registration of sale deed by creating pending litigation.
They filed O.S.No.69/2012 on the file of Principal District
Judge, srikakulam against 1 to 7 defendants for specific
performance of agreement of sale dt 26.7.2010 which is pending. Plaintiffs and 1to 7 defendants and 10 to 16 defendants got colluded and filed this suit and O.S.329/2010 only to deprive the agreement of sale dt 26.7.2010. 6 to 8 plaintiffs who are majors and they are well aware about the sale transaction 30.3.2003 ie., sale deed executed by their grandfather 10 th defendant for the welfare of joint family got filed this suit after lapse of seven years of sale deed. The 9 th and 10 th plaintiffs are residing with their father 12th defendant and the guardian of 10 th plaintiff viz., Narmada are jointly residing at srikakulam and no reason is mentioned for showing the mother as a guardian instead of his father even though 22 they are jointly living. The 11 to 16 plaintiffs and their guardians who are living with their husbands wisely shown as guardians to minor children instead of father only to avoid the liability of 12 to 15 defendants as they signed as attestors on the sale deed dt 30.3.2003.
The malafide intention of the plaintiffs clinchingly established in para (m) of the plaint that the plaintiffs are not interested over their share and they are not claiming their share but they only filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dt.30.3.2003 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs only to create litigation to prevent registration of sale deed by 1 to 7 defendants in favour of this defendant and 8th defendant, if at all the plaintiffs are really interested to claim the property they will file a suit declaration as well as partition of properties and for allotment of their shares without seeking such reliefs got filed the suit only to cause wrongful loss to this defendant and 8th defendant by colluding with the 1 to 7 defendants. The suit is not maintainable as the court fees jointly paid is not correct and therefore prays to dismiss the suit.
23
5.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the Defendant NO.1 is a bonafide purchaser of plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the registered sale deed, dated 30.03.2003 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. Whether the suit is bad or non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Whether the Defendant No.1 has perfected his title by way of adverse possession?
6. Whether the suit schedule is not correct?
7. Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
9. To what relief?
6.In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, 1st plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and examined Pw2/ Ganteti
Ramarao and Ex.A1 to A10 got marked. On behalf of the defendants, 1st defendant himself examined as Dw1 and also examined DW2 /Chalala Ramana and Ex.B1 to B8 got marked.
7.Heard both sides.
24
8.The case of the plaintiffs was that one Lade Krishnamurty s/o. Ramaswamy got 5 sons i.e., Narasimhamurty, Lakshmana
Murty, Ramaswamy, Gurunadham and Muriki Ramalingam and they have divided and partitioned the joint family properties under registered partition deed/ Ex.A4 dt.29-3-1972 executed in between Krishnamurty and his sons and A schedule property fell to the share of lade Krishnamurty, B schedule property fell to the share of eldest son Narasimhamuty who is the father of
D1, the 2nd son of Lakshmanamurty got C schedule property who is D10 and father of 1st and 2nd plaintiff and D11 to D16, D schedule property fell to the share of 3rd son Ramaswamy, the 4th son Gurunadham got E schedule property who is the father of D4 to D6, whereas the youngest son Muruki Ramalingam got
F- schedule property who is father of D7 and since then each sharer is in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares to the properpties covered in Ex.A4. the further case of plaintiff was Appalanarasamma w/o.
Krishnamurty,pre-deceasedhimandsubsequently
Krishnamurty also died in or about 1981 and after the death of
Krishnamurty the schedule properties was partitioned in mutual and oral family arrangements by his sons. The further case of the plaintiffs was that the D10 and D2 and D3 and father of D1 25 are own brothers. The sons of D10 are plaintiffs 1 and 2. The husband of Plaintiff No.3, D11 to D16, Plaintiff No.4 and 5 are children of plaintiff -3. Plaintiff No.6 to Plaintiff No.8 are the children of D11. Plaintiff No.9 and Plaintiff No.10 are children of
D12, P11 and P12 are the children of D13, Plaintiff No.13 and 14 are children of D14, Plaintiff No.15 and Plaintiff No.16 are children of D15, D4 to D6 are the sons of D2 whereas D7 is the son of D3.
9.The further case of plaintiff was that D10 and his sons
Plaintiff No.1 and 2, D11 to 16 and husband of Plaintiff No.3 constitute Hindu undivided joint family members having the plaint schedule described and other properties, which are joint and undivided coparcenary properties and D10 is the eldest one and he used to manage the undivided joint family properties and Plaintiff No.1 to 5 and D11 to D15 are having their separate cooking and D16 is living with her husband and in laws house in Srikakulam and are doing different kinds of business separately.
10.The further case of the plaintiff that the husband of P3 that is Appalakrishnamurty died intestate in or about 2004 leaving behind P4 and P5 as his successors and leaving the plaintiffs 3 to 5 as his successors legal heirs, in joint and 26 undivided status along with his father-the 10th defendant, brothers the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, 11 to 15th defendants and sister-the 16th defendant. The said sale deed dt.30-03-2003 is a sham and nominal one and not acted upon at any time, not duly executed to the family necessity or benefit of the family of the plaintiffs and 10th to 16 defendants and the land of an extent of Ac.3.03 cents covered under the said sale deed is not separated by metes and bounds at any time and even on this day the total extent of Ac.10.72 cents of which the said extent of Ac.3.03 cents is a part and parcel of the same, is physically existing on ground as a single lot and as such the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs since they are all not at all parties to the same and the same was not duly executed and not supported by any valid consideration. Since 25-09-2010, the 1st defendant by filing the suit OS 329/2010 on the file of
Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, and by claiming
independent title, ownership, possession and enjoyment over the land of Ac.3.03 cents covered under the above said registered sale deed dt. 30-03-2003, is proclaiming that he would separate the extent of Ac.3.03 cents by formulating the bunds as per the boundaries mentioned there in that sale deed and would occupy the same.
27
ISSUE NO.1:-
1. Whether the Defendant NO.1 is a bonafide purchaser of plaint schedule property?
11.The plaint schedule property is an ancestral property of
Lade Krishnamurty and Ramaswamy who had 5 sons and his property was partitioned among himself and his five sons under
Ex.A4 partition deed dt.29-3-1972 and the 2nd son of lade
Krishnamurty who is D10 got C schedule property and others also got properties through the said document and they have been enjoying the respective shares independently.
12.It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the wife of
Krishnamurty namely Appalanarasamma pre deceased him and
Krishnamurty also died in or about 1981 and his share was also partitioned among the 5 sons. It is the further case of plaintiff that the father of D1 and D10 and D2 and 3 are own brothers.
Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to D15 and daughter D16 are brothers and sister and children of D10, Plaintiff No.4 and 5 are children of Plaintiff No.3, Plaintiff No.6 to 8 are the children of
D11; Plaintiff No.9 and 10 are children of D12,; Plaintiff No.11 and 12 are the children of D14; Plaintiff No.15 and 16 are the 28 children of D15; D4 to 6 are the sons of D2 and whereas D7 is the son of D3.
13.It is the contention of the plaintiff that having received the summons from the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikakulam in O.S.329/2010, in which the D1 claiming the independent right and possession over the land an extent of
Ac.3-03 cents covered by sy.no.72/1; an extent of Ac.0-81 cents of land an extent of Ac.2-22 cents covered by sy.no.72/3 through a registered sale deed under Ex.A3 which is part and parcel of total extent of Ac.10-72 cents in which the D10 has no exclusive right to alienate the suit property and D11 to 16 has no right to attest the said document without the consent of
Plaintiff no.1 and 2. The other contention of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and other plaintiffs that on coming to know about the Ex.A3, they approached D10 to D16 and questioned D10 has no authority to execute Ex.A3; D10 to D15 replied that on the request of D1 they executed Ex.A3 sale deed for the purpose of obtaining the loan by D1 for his Venkataramana Rice Mill and the said document is nominal and without their being any consideration and the D1 accepted to reconvey the said document soon after the completion of loan amount, however, 29
D1 failed to do so. It is further contention that the suit property is part and parcel of land an extent of Ac.10-72 cents covered by various survey numbers and though the partition takes place under Ex.A4, virtually there is no dividing of the suit property.
Therefore it is joint property and all the plaintiffs are entitled equal share and that the D10 to D16 has no independent right, title, ownership and possession over the land an extent of Ac.3- 03 cents covered under Ex.A3 sale deed. It is further contention of the plaintiff that Ex.A3 is sham and nominal one and it is not binding on the plaintiffs.
14.The contention of D1 that Lade Krishnamurty son of
Ramaswamy got 5 sons. D10 is one of his sons. The property of
Lade Krishnamurty partitioned among himself and his five sons.
The father of D1 is one of his sons who got B-Schedule property as per Ex.A4, the vendor of D1 who is D10 and junior paternal uncle of D1 who got C-Schedule property an extent of Ac.3-03 cents covered by sy.no.72/1, 72/3 with described boundaries in turn D10 executed registered sale deed Ex.A3 under file of Joint
Sub Registrar, Srikakulam for a valid consideration of
Rs.97,000/- and D11 to D15 are the sons of D10 who attested
Ex.A3 document. The further contention of D1 is that recitals of 30
Ex.A3 goes to show D10 received the sale consideration in the presence of his sons D11 to D15 and the sale is completed under sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is further case of defendant no.1 that, there is no recital in Ex.A3 regarding the condition to reconvey the sale deed in favour of D10 soon after discharge of the loan for Sri Venkataramana Rice Mill towards security for the loan. It is further contention of D1 that after obtaining Ex.A3 he applied to revenue authorities to mutate his name in the revenue records, after due enquiry under ROR Act, the name of D1 mutated in Revenue records and revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book Ex.B4, title deed Ex.B3 and possession certificate Ex.B5 and also issued revenue authorities collected land revenue under Ex.B2. D1 further contended that while things stood thus, D10 and his sons demanded him to give a land an extent of Ac.0-10 cents with free of cost, in which D1 refused, boring grudge against this defendant, D10 instigated the plaintiff 1 and 2 and others to file the present suit claiming the document under Ex.A3 is sham and nominal and no consideration is passed and therefore they are not binding on it which is out and out false. It is further case of D1 that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and other plaintiffs, D10 to D16 are invaded and try to dispossess the D1 from the lawful 31 possession of the suit property against which the D1 constrained to file a suit in O.S.329/2010 on the file of Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for perpetual injunction in which the plaintiff no.1 herein deposed evidence and after concluding the proceedings the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikakulam was pleased to allow the claim of D1 herein and granted perpetual injunction against D10 to D15 and P1 and 2 herein vide order dated 27-6-2018, assailing the above impugned order Plaintiff No.1 and 2 herein preferred an Appeal in A.S.81/2018 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge,
Srikakualm against D1, D10, D11 to 15 and after hearing both sides, the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge Court, Srikakulam dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court in O.S.329/2010 dt.27-6-2018. It is further case of the defendant that the Hon’ble I Addl. District
Court, Srikakulam while dismissing the appeal observed that specific boundaries were given in Ex.A1 /registered sale deed
Ex.A3 herein for the schedule property and further observed that Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D10 to D16 had knowledge about the sale of suit property herein (Ex.A3). The Hon’ble I Addl.
District Judge, Srikakulam also observed that D10 herein has
given the suit property to Plaintiff in O.S. 329/2010 on the file of 32
Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam towards security
for his rice mill at the request of plaintiff herein. D10 executed
Ex.A1 (Ex.A3 sale deed as a nominal document) is true and correct, there should be given an explanation why they should not have executed a mortgage deed in favour of bank instead of sale deed in favour of D1 herein. In other words D10 is freely wants to give the plaint schedule property as a security for the bank loan to be taken by D1 herein he should created an equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property in
O.S.329/2010 in favour of the Bank instead of executing Ex.A3
sale deed. Therefore the contention raised by the plaintiff that the suit property is Hindu undivided joint family and coparcenary properties cannot be acceptable. The further contention of D1 that father of D10 had got share of C- schedule property an extent of Ac.3-03 cents which becomes a self acquired property and no need to obtain permission from anybody including the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to D16 and the sale allotted to D10 and his brothers who are coparcenaries become their self acquired property. The other contention of D1 that Plaintiff No.1 himself admitted in his cross examination that his father D10 sold the suit property to D1 under Ex.A3 sale deed. The recital of the sale deed indicates that D10 got 33 the property in family partition under Ex.A4 partition deed. PW1 also admitted since Ex.A3 transaction the property covered under Ex.A3 is under possession and enjoyment of D1 and revenue authorities issued Ex.B2 to B6 pattadar pass books, title deeds and other documents in the name of D1 and further admitted that he did not question D1 from 2003 to till the present suit is filed in the year 2010 about the schedule property under Ex.A3 transaction. Therefore the own admission of PW1 is sufficient to reject the prayer of the plaint as the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation under Article 58 of
Limitation Act, 1963. The further contention of D1 that D8 and 9 filed suit in O.S.69/2012 filed against D1 and other for specific performance of an agreement of sale on the file of Hon’ble
Principal District Judge, Srikakualm against D1 to D7 in which
Plaintiff No.1 to 3 filed a petition in I.A.1059/2019 to implead them as defendants. The said application under Ex.A8 dismissed on merits. It all goes to show that the plaintiff failed to file any iota of documents to prove that the suit property is
Hindu undivided joint property and Plaintiff No.1 and 2 have rights over the suit property and D10 has no exclusive right to alienate the suit property, except the plaintiff depends upon 34 the documents Ex.A5 and A6 which don’t establish the case of the plaintiff.
15.After hearing the contentions of the plaintiff as well as the rival contentions of the contesting D1, 3 to 7 and 8 and 9, having perused the oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A10 and the evidence of Dw1 and Dw2 and Ex.B1 to B8, the contents of evidence affidavit of PW1 replica to the contents of plaint averments, so also Dw1 and 2 is an independent witnesses who deposed as to the possession of D1 and the sale transactions of the suit property.
16.The contention of the plaintiffs that D10 is the father of
D1 and 2, D11 to D16. Plaintiff No.1 and P2 and D11 to D16 are own brothers and D16 is their sister. The entire case of the plaintiffs rests that the grandfather of Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and father of D10 had landed properties an extent of Ac.10-72 cents covered by sy.no.72/1 and 72/3 and other survey numbers within the described boundaries as mentioned in para –H of the plaint and grandfather Lade Krishnamurty had 5 sons, they are dividing their joint family properties under Ex.A4 registered partitioned deed dated 29-3-1972 and the C-schedule property fell to the share of D10 who is the father of Plaintiff No.1 and 2 35 and D11 to D16, without any manner of right and without obtaining permission from Plaintiff No.P1 and Plaintiff No.2 and
D10 alienated the suit property an extent of Ac.0-81 cents covered by sy.no.72/1 and Ac.2-22 cents covered by sy.no.72/3 in total 3-03 cents in favour of D1 under Ex.A3 registered sale deed without consideration for the purpose of obtaining loan for developing Venkataramana Rice Mill with a condition to reconvey the said property in favour of D10. However, D10 failed to reconvey the suit property in favour of D10 and sale deed under Ex.A3 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs.
17.The contention of D1 and other contesting defendants that the father of D10 Lade krishnamurty had landed property an extent of Ac.10-72 cents covered by sy.nos. 72/1, 72/3;
Krishnamurty had 5 sons and he divided the property under
Ex.A4 partition deed dated 29-3-1972, the father of D1 and D10 are own brothers and father of D1 got B-schedule property and
D10 got C-schedule property during the partition and all the sons of Krishnamurty are enjoying their respective shares. The contention of the contesting defendants that when the property was divided and partition among the son of Krishnamurty, the 36 share allotted to each coparcener becomes their self acquired property by virtue of registered partition deed. The share allotted to D10 becomes his self acquired property and no need to obtain any permission from anybody including Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to D16. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that there is no boundaries under Ex.A3 as a total extent of Ac.10- 72 cents which is one unit is the subject property is part and parcel of Ac.10-72 cents which is out and out false. The document under Ex.A3 registered sale deed dt.30-3-2003 describes the boundaries East remaining property of D10.
South: property of D10 and others. West: property of D10 and others not the property of D10 and others, the contention of
Plaintiff No.1 and 2 that they are not party to Ex.A3 document.
Ex.A3 document is sham and nominal one and no consideration is passed and therefore they are not binding on Ex.A3 which is out and out false. The other contention that the suit property undivided into joint family property and as per Hindu
Succession Act Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are coparceners and they are entitled for the share is also false.
18.Having perused the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to A10 and the evidence of Dw1 and 2 and Ex.B1 to B8, though the 37 averments of plaint indicates that the suit property is joint and undivided coparcenery property and D10 is the father of
Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to D16 and he is karta of the family who used to manage his joint family properties. The pliant averments further reveals D10 sold out the land an extent of
Ac.0-03 cents under registered sale deed covered by sy.no.72/1, 72/3 of Voppangi village, Srikakulam District and
D10 has no exclusive right to alienate the suit property and the registered sale deed said to have been executed by D10 in favour of D1 is sham and nominal without consideration and binding on the plaintiffs 1 and 2. Contrary to the pleadings, the plaintiff no.1 deposed as PW1 on his evidence affidavit and reiterating the contents of plaint averments. During his cross examination he deposed that D11 to D15 are his brothers and
D16 is his sister and they remained exparte. He is graduate and running Yamaha showroom in Srikakulam District, D15 is chartered Accountant by profession. D11 worked as a statistical officer who retired from service. He further deposed that they are still in joint family but residing separately. He further deposed that D10 and father of D1 are own brothers. D1 filed a suit for permanent injunction vide O.S.329/10 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. He and his brothers
38 contested the matter and he himself examined as witness in the above said case and the D11 to D15 are shown as parties to the above suit. Though he deposed that he do not know whether the O.S.329/10 was decreed in favour of D1 herein, he admitted that he is plaintiff no.2 obtained the certified copy of decree and judgment filed and appeared before the Hon’ble I
Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam vide A.S.81/2018. Though he denied the suggestion that the result of A.S.81/2018 the fact that Ex.A7 is a decree and judgment in A.S.81/2018 it was dismissed and uphold the judgment passed by the trial court in
O.S.329/2010. He further admitted that he along with his
brothers (7) are residing in 8 separate houses in Voppangi village in a single row. He and his brothers are residing separately since in the year 2000. By the date of filing of suit his father was alive. He admitted that no documentary evidence to show that he and his brothers are separated and doing business. He admitted that the father of D1 and his father and other brothers partitioned their properties under Ex.A4 partition deed dt.29-3-1972. He further admitted that his father sold the suit property to D1 under Ex.A3 registered sale deed, the said property devolves to his father through partition deed.
He further admitted that since Ex.A3 transaction, the D1 is 39 under possession and enjoyment and revenue authorities also issued Ex.B2 to B6. He further admitted that suit schedule property situated nearer to his house in Voppangi village. He further admitted that his age is about 30 years by the date of
Ex.A3 transaction. He admitted that his brother who did not sign on Ex.A3 filed the present suit after D1 obtained an injunction order in his favour. He further admitted from 2003 till present suit is filed in the year 2010 neither himself nor some other brothers did not question the D1 about the suit schedule property or Ex.A3 transaction not to issue any legal notice to
D1 within the said period. Further deposed that they are not paying the land revenue to the suit property and D1 is paying the land revenue to the suit property. He admitted that he along with brothers doing different business like running
Yamaha show room, petrol bunk, rice mill, fertilizer shop and
Kirana shop respectively and he is dealing the bank transactions relating to his businesses and their brother obtaining the loans. He denied the suggestion that his fathermade D1 believe that being karta of the family, sold away the property to D1 and there is no necessity for the signatures of other family member. To substantiate the above suggestion, the plaintiffs failed to produce both oral and documentary 40 evidence that D10 made D1 to believe and executed Ex.A3 sale deed for obtaining the loan and for developing Venkataraman
Rice Mill, therefore the suggestions remains unsubstantiated and lack of evidence. He further admitted that if he had interested to stand surety he can mortgage his property towards surety at the time of obtaining loan for that there is no necessity to transfer the property in the name of that person.
The above said admission goes to show that contention of the plaintiff that D10 has given suit property to D1 only to show the same as security for his rice mill and for that purpose only at the request of D1, D2 executed Ex.A3 sale deed as a nominal document is true and correct, they should have given an expression as to why they should not have executed mortgage deed in favour of the bank instead of sale deed in favour of D1 and in other words D10 should have created equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property in favour of the bank instead of executing Ex.A3 sale deed. Further D12 is a chartered accountant, knows very well about the rights to be commit under registered sale deed and under mortgage deed.
No expression offered by any of the plaintiffs as why they have mortgaged the schedule property by creating 3rd party security for the loan to be taken by D1 instead of executing Ex.A3 sale 41 deed by conveying the title and delivered the possession, thus the plaintiffs miserably failed to explain aforesaid aspect.
19.PW1 also admitted during his cross examination that as per the contents of Ex.A3, his father received an amount of
Rs.93,000/- towards sale consideration. Further admitted that there is no recital in Ex.A3 that it was executed nominally and without receiving any sale consideration. He further admitted that during the lifetime of his father he never issued any notice to D1 nor requested him to reconvey the property covered in
Ex.A3 by cancelling Ex.A3 document. The admission made by
PW1 clinchingly goes to show that D10 received the sale consideration of Rs.93,000/- and then executed Ex.A3 sale deed dt.30-3-2003 duly attested by D11 to D15 who are own brothers of PW1.
20.Therefore the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on a decision reported inChalasani
Venkateswara Rao vs. Kanagala Venkateswara Rao
dated 5-12-2024, of the Hon’ble High Court of AP at
Amravati. It was held in …
23. As per the case of the appellant in the written statement, he lent money to the defendants 1, 2 and 4 under a registered mortgage deed in his favour as a security for the 42 amounts lent by him and subsequently demanded them to discharge the mortgage and they expressed their inability and offered to execute a sale deed in his favour and the 5th defendant paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards additional amount to them on the date of registered sale deed and they executed a sale deed in his favour. It is relevant to say about own admissions of the 5th defendant i.e. D.W.1. The appellant/ 5th defendant i.e. D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself before the trial Court that he did not pay any consideration in the form of cash under Ex.A-7. Therefore, the aforesaid clear admission made by the appellant herein clearly goes to show that no sale consideration is passed under Ex.A-7 on the date of Ex.A-7. It is also relevant to say that there is no whisper either in oral evidence or in documentary evidence as to how much amount was advanced by the appellant to the 4th defendant.
25. The appellant herein failed to prove that sale consideration was passed under Ex.A-10 registered sale deed. To prove the sale deed under Ex.A-10, the 5th defendant did not choose to examine attestors in the sale deed. The own admissions of the appellant herein/5th defendant clearly go to show that no consideration is passed on the date of Ex.A-7. Further, the plaintiff has also cancelled the registered General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the 1st defendant in the year 2013, much prior to the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the appellant in the year 2014. Therefore, the said sale deed is null and void and the same has to be cancelled. Therefore, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that no sale consideration was passed under the alleged sale deed and mortgage deed. I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by both the Courts below in respect of the cancellation of sale deed is concerned.
27. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed. Both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit for declaration of title and both the Courts are rightly came to the conclusion that the sale deed has to be cancelled. The finding of the fact recorded by both the Courts below in granting declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff and cancellation of registered sale deed are found correct.
43
With great respects to the above judgment, the facts of the judgments is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case.
21.Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act defines “Sale”.
"Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. It specifies that such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
22.Therefore, section 54 of Transfer of property Act, 1882, the same refers the transfer of ownership in a sense for a price and for properties valued at Rs.100/- or more, this is only legally valid if completed a true registered sale deed.
44
23.The contention raised by the plaintiff the pleadings as well as written arguments, the D10 executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of D1 for the purpose of obtaining loan as security for D1
Rice Mill is found to be not correct and is ruled out. As the sale transaction done in between D10 and D1 in accordance with transfer of property Act, 1882 and the consideration is also received by D10. If really D10 is not received consideration he would have stepped into the witness box in O.S.329/2010 filed by D1 herein and the plaintiff in the said suit to depose that he executed Ex.A3 in favour of D1 is nominal without consideration. Therefore in the absence of legal and plausible evidence, the version of plaintiff regarding the transaction under Ex.A3 is sham and nominal dis-believable.
24.The evidence of PW1 also goes to show the properties are only joint and he along with his brothers are residing separately since 2000. The averments of the plaint in para-K that all the plaintiffs have united together in filing the single suit with respect to the plaint schedule lands which is part and parcel of total extent of Ac.10-72 cents physically existing on ground as single plot in their common possession and enjoyment with that of defendants 1 to 14 and as such the plaintiffs have united in 45 the single suit because of having single cause of action. The evidence of PW1 which is totally contrary to the pleadings in the above aspect, as PW1 categorically deposed before the court that his father and his paternal uncle along with grandfather partitioned their properties under Ex.A4 partition deed. The said partition deed, C-schedule property fell to the share of his father, his father sold the suit property to D1 under
Ex.A3 sale deed dt.30-3-2003, eversince D1 has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property,
D1 possession was threatened by Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D10 to D15. Against such acts, the D1 filed a suit in O.S.329/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. In which the plaintiff no.1 herein examined as witness and finally the said suit was decreed and granting permanent injunction restraining Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D10 to D15 from interfering with D1 peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property, against the impugned judgment dated 27-6-2018, D7 and D8 who are plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein filed appeal in
A.S.81/2018 on the file of Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge Court,
Srikakulam. The Hon’ble I Addl. District Court, Srikakulam dismissed the appeal and passed the decree and judgment under Ex.A7 dated 4-11-2019. In Ex.A7 it is specifically 46 observed that the specific boundaries were given in Ex.A3 registered sale deed for the schedule property and as such now the Plaintiff No.1 and 2, D11 to 15 cannot claim that there was no specific boundaries to the schedule property and that it is undivided part and parcel of total extent of Ac.10-73 cents and they have not handed over possession to D1, further plaintiff 1 and 2 in the appeal in A.S.81/2018 now cannot claim that Ex.A3 is a nominal document.
25.The Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam also observed that when D10 herein executed Ex.A3 (Ex.A1 in the said suit) in favour of D1 having receiving the consideration mentioned in the recital and D11 to 15 attested the said document. Now the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and others claiming through them are stopped from claiming that said Ex.A3 is a nominal document. Therefore the finding given by the Hon’ble I
Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam in A.S.81/2018 dated 4-11-2019 is binding on P1 and 2 and sons of D1, D2 who are parties to the present suit. Admittedly Plaintiff No.1 and 2 who are appellants in AS 81/2018 did not prefer any appeal against decree and judgment in A.S.81/2018. The pleadings and evidence of PW1 though contrary in respect of common cause 47 of action. The evidence on record that D10 executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of D1, the same is admitted by PW1 during his cross examination. Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to D16 who are brothers and sisters and D10 is their father. It is not the property of ancestral or inherited by D10 to Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to 16. The pleadings in para no.3 (A) it is mentioned that Lade Krishnamurty had 5 sons and second son is D10, who got C-schedule property through Ex.A4 partition deed. When joint family property is partitioned, each individuals shares becomes self acquired property and they have absolute rights to sell, transfer or bequeath without the consent of the other true owners. Since Plaintiff 1 and 2 and their sons, defendants 11 to 15 and D16 had full knowledge regarding the execution of
Ex.A3, therefore the sons of Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and sons of
D11 to 15 and others have no common interest in the subject matter of suit property.
26.The admission made by PW1 in his cross examination that his father D10 acquired the suit schedule property through registered partition deed and executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of D1 received the sale consideration which is not disputed by any of the parties. The contention of plaintiffs that 48 no consideration was passed through Ex.A3, therefore Ex.A3 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs. The prayer of the plaintiffs in the present suit “for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 13-3-2003 in the name of D1 said to have been executed by D10 and on which D11 to D15 said to have attested is sham and nominal one and not binding on the plaintiffs” whereas Ex.A7 is a certified copy of decree and judgment. There is a finding regarding Ex.A1 registered sale deed at page no.10 of the judgment in A.S.81/2018. It is stated that “When the Defendant No.1 executed Ex.A1 registered sale deed having received the consideration mentioned in it and when the Defendants No.2 to 6 attested the said document, now the appellants and other defendantsare estopped from claiming that the said document is nominal document”.
Therefore when this lis is inter partes and has paid penalty of the issues involving u/sec.11 of CPC (resjudicata). It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the suit is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In such case, Sec.11 CPC is applicable to the present case with the judgment in A.S.81/2018 is finality.
27.The plaint averments in para no.3-A it indicates that after partition under Ex.A4 the properties fell to the share of 49 respective holders are enjoying the respective property independently that itself is sufficient to establish that D10 enjoying the C-schedule property independently and he executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of DW1 after receiving consideration, therefore the question of execution of Ex.A3 without receiving consideration is away from the truth and the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to hold that D10 executed Ex.A3 registered sale deed dt.13-3-2003 is after receiving consideration duly attested by D11 to 15.
28.The present suit is filed for declaration that the sale deed dt.30-3-2003 is sham and nominal and not binding on Plaintiff
No.1 and 2 and D11 to15. Admittedly D1 is in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit property having granting perpetual injunction in O.S.329/2010 vide order dated 26-6-2018 the sale is confirmed by Hon’ble 1st appellate court under Ex.A7 decree and judgment. When Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D11 to D15 are out of possession over the suit property by the time, the suit was filed in the month of November, 2010 the relief sought seeking declaration of sale deed dt.30-3-2003 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs without seeking of relief of possession may not be maintainable under sec.34 of 50 specific relief Act, 1963. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff failed to attempt amending the plaint to seek recovery of possession, knowingly neither D10 nor legal heirs of D11 to 15 and Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit. On the sole ground, suit is not maintainable. To substantiate the same, the ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court inbetween Venkataraja & Ors. vs. Vidyane
Doureradjaperumal (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors. reported on 10-4- 2023; wherein it was held…
The courts below have recorded a finding that Thayanayagy Ammalle was only a life estate holder and thus, had not acquired an absolute title. The High Court has not given any reason whatsoever, for reversing the said finding of fact. The said finding is perverse being based on no evidence. In case such a finding goes, the sale deed dated 16.7.1959 could not confer any title on the purchaser, Vedavalliammalle. More so, the High Court had not correctly framed the substantial question of law, rather it had framed entirely irrelevant issues, such as, the prescription and issue of limitation. The High Court had committed an error by holding that the suit for declaration was not maintainable without seeking any consequential relief, when the First Appellate Court has rightly held, that in a case where the property had been in the possession of the tenants, and where there were other means to recover the possession, there was no need for seeking any consequential relief in that aspect. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
7. The trial court held, that Thayanayagy Ammalle had not acquired absolute right and that the plaintiff therein was thus, the reversioner. The sale deed dated 16.7.1959 was void. However, as the property was in the possession of the respondents/defendants, and consequential relief of delivery 51 of possession was not asked for, the suit was not maintainable. In Deo Kuer & Anr. v. Sheo Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1966 SC 359, this Court dealt with a similar issue, and considered the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, (analogous to Section 34 of the Act 1963), and held, that where the defendant was not in physical possession, and not in a position to deliver possession to the plaintiff, it was not necessary for the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title to property, to claim the possession. While laying down such a proposition, this Court placed reliance upon the judgments of Privy Council in Sunder Singh Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharam High School Trust v. Managing Committee, Sunder Singh Mullah Singh Rajput High School, AIR 1938 PC 73; and Humayun Begam v. Shah Mohammad Khan, AIR 1943 PC 94.
29.With great respects to the aforesaid decision, it has been held that, when the plaintiffs are out of possession onwards in mere suit for declaration that the document is sham and not binding without seeking relief of recovery of possession. Now at this juncture it is apt to read the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, Venkataraja & Ors. vs. Vidyane
Doureradjaperumal (D) Thr.Lrs. & Ors.,that when the plaintiffs are out of possession in mere suit for declaration that the document is sham and not binding without seeking relief of recovery of possession.
30.With great respects to the aforesaid decision, it is very much applicable to the present case on hand. It isalso apt to read the case in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) 52 by LRs. & Ors. [(2008) 4 SSC 594],wherein it has been held that “a cloud is raised over the plaintiff side and they does not have the possession a suit for declaration and possession without seeking consequential injunction, the suit is not maintainable”. In this case, the title of Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and
D11 to 15 was not established and D10 is the title holder before
Ex.A3 and Ex.B1 documents and thereafter D10 executed Ex.A3 registered sale deed in favour of D1 by delivering the subject property. The plaintiffs sought declaration under section 34 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiffs must explain his legal right of status in dispute. The lack of an adequate alternative remedy ensured that complaints complied with procedural limitation requirements. The evidence on record that Pw1 and
Plaintiff no.2 had full of knowledge regarding the sale transaction under Ex.A3 dated 30-3-2003, the limitation begins when D10 executed Ex.A3 sale deed in favour of D1. Therefore the period of limitation begins from the date of knowledge i.e., on 30-3-2003. Therefore the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the month of November, 2010 for declaration that the sale deed dt.30-3-2003 is sham and nominal which is hit by Article 58 of
Limitation Act, 1963 even on this ground the suit is not maintainable.
53
31.At this juncture, it is apt to read the decision reported in
Vasanta (Dead) through LRs vs. V.Rajalakshmi @ Rajam
(Dead) through LRs in Civil. Appeal.No. 3854 of 2014 of
Hon’ble Apex Court.
InHemaji Waghaji Jatv.Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2-Judge Bench)25, reiterating the observations made in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2-Judge Bench)26 in respect of the concept of adverse possession observed that efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depends on strong limitation statutes by operation of which, right to access the court expires through efflux of time. As against the rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title.
As submitted by the learned senior counsel for the Appellant, in Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra (2-Judge Bench)29, this Court while considering Section 42 of the erstwhile Specific Relief Act, 1877 to be pari materia with Section 34 of SRA, 1963 observed that the plaintiff’s not being in possession of the property in that case ought to have amended the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession in view of the bar included by the proviso.
It was observed that the purpose behind the inclusion of the proviso is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It was further expounded that a mere declaratory decree remains non-executable in most cases. This Court noted that the suit was never amended, even at a later stage to seek 54 the consequential relief and therefore, it was held to be not maintainable.
With great respects to the aforesaid rulings, wherein it has been held that period of limitation begins from the date of execution of sale deed. Therefore the facts in the judgment are very much applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
32.When the partition is opened and C-schedule property under Ex.A4 fell to the share of D10, is become absolute owner and he has right to sell, transfer or bequeath if without the consent of other co-owners. Therefore issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant no.1, holding that the D1 is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property.
ISSUE NO.2:
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the registered sale deed, dated 30.03.2003 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs?
33.It is already discussed supra, that the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A10 and evidence of DW1 coupled with
Ex.B1 to B8 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid citations to file a suit for declaration the limitation 55 is 3 years from the date of knowledge. Article 58 of Limitation
Act, to obtain any other declaration, the limitation is 3 years in the right to sue first accrues. On perusal of the plaint that there is no limitation paragraph under which the article of limitation the suit is filed. The evidence on record that PW1 had knowledge about execution of Ex.B1 and Ex.A3 sale deed dt.30- 3-2003 therefore the limitation started as on 30-3-2003 and that the suit is even otherwise and not maintainable. In view of the issue no.1 which was held against the plaintiff, issue no.2 accordingly decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of D1, as the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration that the registered sale deed dt.30-3-2003 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO.3:
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
34.After perusal of both oral and documentary evidence, admittedly the suit in O.S.329/2010 filed by D1 herein against
Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D10 to 15, the suit was decreed, assailing the same, plaintiff no.1 and 2 herein and D7 and D8 in the above suit filed appeal in AS.81/2018 on the file of I Addl.
District Judge, Srikakulam and it was also dismissed and the
56 same is Ex.A7. Therefore DW1 is in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit property since from the date of its purchase with valid title. It is needless to say that Tahsildar,
Srikakulam had no power to issue Ex.B6 possession certificate.
The possession certificate can only issued by the competent civil court having jurisdiction. However the possession of D1 is already established. Accordingly issue no.3 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favor of D1.
ISSUE NO.4:
4. Whether the suit is bad or non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
35.Since it is not a suit for partition and separate possession, admittedly D2 is no more as deposed by PW1. The plaintiff did not implead the wife and daughters of D2 as parties in the suit.
The plaintiff did not implead the wife and daughters of D2 as parties in the suit. The suit is for declaration that the sale deed dt.30-3-2003/Ex.A3 is null and void, therefore there is no non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly issue no.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against D1.
ISSUE NO.5:
5. Whether the Defendant No.1 has perfected his title by way of adverse possession?
57
36.Having gone through the entire evidence of both oral and documentary and the pleadings of both parties and the contentions of plaintiffs. The evidence of PW1 during his cross examination he categorically stated that since Ex.A3 transaction the suit schedule property is under possession and enjoyment of D1 and D1 name was mutated in the revenue records and revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deed and adangal. He further admitted that he filed the present suit after D1 got relief of injunction in
O.S.329/2010. He further admitted that his father sold the suit
property to D1 on 30-3-2003. Therefore PW1 had knowledge right from the date of execution fo Ex.A3, but the plaintiff has not made any efforts to file the suit for cancellation of sale deed Ex.A3 within the period of limitation and filed the present suit in the month of November, 2010. The evidence further shows that defendant no.1 is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of schedule property within the knowledge of
Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and D10 to 15 for more than statutory period of 12 years. The D1 be actual exclusive open and hostile to the true owner of D10 besides sale deed under Ex.A3.
Therefore even otherwise D1 has perfectly cited by way fo 58 adverse possession. In view of the above discussion, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant no.1.
ISSUE NO.6:
6. Whether the suit schedule is not correct?
37.As it is already discussed supra, regarding the schedule of the plaint, the evidence available on record that the suit property though part and parcel of total extent of Ac.10-72 cents of Voppangi village, after partition under Ex.A4, the C-
Schedule property fell to the share of D10. D10 inturn executed
Ex.A3 with described boundaries, the same is also observed by the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam in its judgment under Ex.A7. Therefore the plaint schedule is correct and D1 is in possession and enjoyment in the prescribed boundaries.
Accordingly issue no.6 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of D1.
ISSUE NO.7 and 8 :
7. Whether the court fee paid is not correct?
8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
38.On perusal of the court fee para of the plaint, in which the plaintiff paid court fee of Rs.5826/- basing on the half of the market value of the paint schedule property, the total cost of 59 the plaint schedule property as per the market value is
Rs.6,66,600/- and the plaintiffs be paid court fee of under sec.18 of Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 to the extent of declaration that the sale deed dt.30-3-2003 executed in favor of D1 is sham and nominal and not binding on the plaintiffs. Whereas the ancillary relief sought by the plaintiffs is permanent injunction restraining the defendants from separate and said extent of Ac.0-03 cents by metes and bounds.
However, the plaintiff did not pay a separate court fee for the consequential relief to the main relief of the declaration and averred that no separate court needs to paid. On perusal of sec.24B of the Act “where the prayer is for declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought with reference to any immovable property it shall be computed on one half of the market value of the property or on Rs.300/- whichever is higher”. Whereas Sub clause –D of section 24 of the Act in other cases whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuable or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or a which such relief is valued by the court whichever is higher. Therefore the plaintiff has to pay the court fee for consequential relief of permanent injunction dealing with intangible rights, as valued by the court.
60
Therefore issue no.7 is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of D1.
ISSUE NO.9: To what relief?
39.As discussed supra, the suit is also barred by limitation under Article 58 of Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the firm opinion that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the aforesaid relieves.
Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of October,
2025.
Sd/-M.Sridhar,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Srikakulam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:
PW1: Lade Suresh BabuDW1: Lade China Gurunadham PW2: Ganteti RamaraoDW2: Challa Ramana 61
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A1: Served copy of plaint in O.S. 329/2010 on the file of Prl. Junior civil Judge, Srikakulam.
Ex.A2: Suit summons of DB in O.S. 329/2010 (2nd plaintiff) on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam.
Ex A3: Certified copy of Sale deed, dated: 30-03-2003 executed by Lade Lakshmanamurthy/D10, in favour of 1st defendant.
Ex A4: Certified copy of Registered Partition Dead dated: 29-03- 1972 executed in between Lade Krishnamurthy and his sons.
Ex.A5: 1-B ROR dt.06-10 2018 issued by Thasildar, Srikakualm obtained under Mee-seva service
Ex.A6 : Adangals copy three in number for fasali 1428 relating to Sy.no.73-3/1 and 72-1 dt.06-10-2018 issued by the Thasildar, Srikakulam, obtained from Mee-seva Service.
Ex.A7 : Certified copy of Judgment and Decree, dt. 04.11.2019 in AS 81/2018 on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge's Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A8 :Certified copy of the petition in IA.1059/2019 in OS 69/2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. District Judge's Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A9 : Certified copy of counter filed by the respondents 4 to 9/defendants 2 to 7 filed in IA 1059/2019 in OS 69/2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Prl. District Judge's Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.A10: Certified copy of order and decreetal order, dt. 31.07.2019 in IA 1059/2019 in OS 69/2012 on the file of the
Hon'ble Prl. District Judge's Court, Srikakulam.
For Defendants:- Ex B1: Certified copy of registered sale deed, dt. 30.03.2003 executed by Lade Laxmana Murty in favour of DW1.
62
Ex.B2: Certified copy of Revenue receipt No. 1279200 issued by the Village revenue officer, Voppangi in favour of DW1.
Ex.B3: Certified copy of A.P. Government land title deed book, bearing No.317781 issued by the Revenue authorities in favour of DW1.
Ex, B4: Certified copy of A.P. Government pattadar pass book bearing No.206528 issued by the Revenue authorities in favour of DW1.
Ex B5: Certified copy of the possession and enjoyment certifi- cate bearing RC No.1297/2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Srikaku- lam in favour of DW1.
Ex.B6: Certified copy of certificate dt. 12.10.2004 issued by the Tahsildar, Srikakulam in favour of DW1.
Ex.B7: Certified copy of deposition of PW.4 in OS 329/2010 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Srikakulam.
Ex.B8: Original Death Certificate of Kunchala Satyam.
Sd/- M.Sridhar,
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Srikakulam