1 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE:
SANGAREDDY
Present: Dr. P.P. Krishna Arjun II Addl. District and Sessions Judge Sangareddy.
MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF MARCH, 2025
AS. No. 2 of 2018
Between:
Ch. Renuka, W/o. C. Prabhakar Reddy, Age: 34 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.2-68, Tellapur (V), Ramachandrapuram (M),
Sangareddy District. ... Appellant
And
1. Ch. Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: Employee, R/o: Tellapur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Medak District.
2. J.Aruna, W/o. J.Vasanth Reddy, Age: 54 Years, R/o: Shanthinagar, Sangareddy.
3. Kranthi Devi, W/o. Ravindra Nath Reddy, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. BDL Bhanoor, Patancheru
4. Ch.Laxminarsamma, W/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: House wife, R/o: Poosal Basthi, Jambagh, Hyderabad.
5. Ch.Malla Reddy, S/o.Late Narsimha Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: Advocate, R/o: Chandra Towers, Sangareddy.
6. Ch.Veera Reddy, S/o. Late Linga Reddy, Age: 80Years, Occ: Agriculture.
7. K.Dayanand Goud, S/o. Late Nagaiah Goud, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o: Kollur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District.
8. Ch. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: Advocate, R/o: Barkathpura, Hyderabad.
9. B.Penta Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture, Tellapur, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District. 10.Ch.Laxmamma, W/o. Late Mukund Reddy, Age: 75Years, Occ: House wife.
11. Ch.Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o. Late Mukund Reddy, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture.
2 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
12. Ch. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late Mukund Reddy, Age: 40Years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o: Tellapur (V), RC.Puram (M), Medak District.
13. M.Suvarna, W/o. Ananth Reddy, Age: 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Kollur (V), R.C.puram (M), Medak District.
14. K.Aruna, W/o. Sudarshan Reddy, Age: 46Years, Occ: Household, R/o: MIG, BHEL, RC.Puram, Medak District.
15. C.Padmamma, W/o. Late Veera Reddy, Age: 73 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Tellapur (V), R.C. Puram Mandal, Sangareddy District.
16. Smt.P.Sakku Bai, W/o. Madhava Reddy, Age: 58 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Ethemarpally Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District.
17. Smt. Vanaja, W/o. K.Janardhan Reddy, Age: 56 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Srinagar Colony, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.
18. D.Viroja, W/o. D.Prathap Reddy, Age: 54 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Tellapur (V), RC.Puram (M), Sangareddy District.
19. Smt. Soundarya, W/o. Krishna Reddy, Age: 48 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Mulugu (V & M), Sangareddy District.
20. Kum. Divya Sree Reddy, D/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Student, C/o: B.Janardhan Reddy, R/o. MIG, Vidyuthnagar, BHEL, RC.Puram.
21. Kum. Sameeksha Reddy, D/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Student, C/o: B.Janardhan Reddy, R/o. MIG,Vidyuthnagar, BHEL, R.C.Puram.
22. Smt. C. Aruna W/o. Late C. Gopal Reddy Age: 55 Years Occ: Household, R/o.H.No. 3-4-512/36, G1, Ground Floor, Barkatpura, Venkatadri Apartment, Hyderabad.
23. Kum. C. Keerthi Reddy D/o. C. Gopal Reddy, Age: 33 Years Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 3-4-512/36, G1, Ground Floor, Barkatpura, Venkatadri Apartment, Hyderabad.
24. C. Sai Kiran Reddy S/o. C. Gopal Reddy Age: 31 Years Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-4-512/36 G1, Ground Floor, Barkatpura, Venkatadri Apartment, Hyderabad. (Respondents No.22 to 24 were brought on record being LR’s of Respondent No.8 as per orders dated 25-11-2024 passed in I.A. No. 346 of 2023)
... Respondents
3 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Appeal suit filed against the Judgment and Decree in OS. No. 231 of 2006 dated 03.11.2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy
O.S. No. 231 of 2006
Between:
1. Ch.Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: Employee, R/o: Tellapur Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Medak District.
2. J.Aruna, W/o. J.Vasanth Reddy, Age: 54 years, R/o: Shanthinagar, Sangareddy.
3. Kranthi Devi, W/o. Ravindra Nath Reddy, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Household, R/o. BDL Bhanoor, Patancheru
4. Ch.Laxminarsamma, W/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: House wife, R/o. Poosal Basthi
Jambagh, Hyderabad. ... Plaintiff
And
1. Ch. Malla Reddy, S/o.Late Narsimha Reddy, Age Major, Occ: Advocate, R/o: Chandra Towers, Sangareddy,
2. Ch. Mukunda Reddy (died) L.Rs.
3. Ch.Veera Reddy, S/o. Late Linga Reddy, Age: 80Years, Occ: Agriculture.
4. K.Dayanand Goud, S/o. Late Nagaiah Goud, Age Major, Occ: Business, R/o: Kollur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District.
5. Ch. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Age: Major, Occ: Advocate, R/o: Barkathpura, Hyderabad.
6. B.Penta Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Age Major, Occ: Agriculture, Tellapur, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District.
7. Ch.Laxmamma, W/o. Late Mukund Reddy, Aged: 75Years, Occ: House wife.
8. Ch.Venkateshwar Reddy, S/o. Late Mukund Reddy, Age: 45Years, Occ: Agriculture.
9. Ch. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Late Mukund Reddy, Age: 40Years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o: Tellapur (V), R.CPuram (M), Medak District.
10. M.Suvarna, W/o. Ananth Reddy, Age: 47Years, Occ: Household, R/o: Kollur (V), RC.Puram (M), Medak District.
12. K.Aruna, W/o. Sudarshan Reddy, Age: 46Years, Occ: Household, R/o: MIG, BHEL, R.C. Puram, Medak District.
4 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
13. C.Padmamma, W/o. Late Veera Reddy, Age: 73 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o.Tellapur Village, R.C. Puram Mandal, Sangareddy District.
14. Smt.P.Sakku Bai, W/o. Madhava Reddy, Age: 58 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Ethemarpally Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District.
15. Smt. Vanaja, W/o. K.Janardhan Reddy, Age: 56 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Srinagar Colony, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.
16. D.Viroja, W/o.D.Prathap Reddy, Age: 54 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Tellapur (V), R.C.Puram (M), Sangareddy District.
17. Smt. Soundarya, W/o. Krishna Reddy, Age: 48 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Mulugu (V & M), Sangareddy District.
18. Kum. Divya Sree Reddy, D/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Student, C/o: B.Janardhan Reddy, R/o. MIG,Vidyuthnagar, BHEL, RC.Puram.
19. Kum. Sameeksha Reddy, D/o. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Student, C/o: B.Janardhan Reddy, R/o. MIG, Vidyuthnagar, BHEL, RC.Puram.
20. Ch.Renuka, W/o. C.Prabhakar Reddy, Age: 34Years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.2-68, Tellapur (V), RC.Puram (M), Sangareddy District. … Defendants
This Appeal Suit is coming before me of the final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants and
Sri. P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3,
Respondent No.4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 are set ex-parte, Sri.K.Srinivasa Rao, Learned counsel for Respondent No.16,
Sri.C.Vittal Reddy, Learned counsel for Respondent No.17 & 18,
Sri.U.Sharvan Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.22 to 24, upon perusing the grounds of appeal and material records of lower court 5 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 and hearing the oral argument and Written Arguments of the said
Advocates, the matter is having stood over for consideration till the day this court has delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is filed by appellants under Section 41,
Rule-1, R/w.Sec.151 of Civil Procedure code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2017 In OS.No. 231 of 2006 on the file of
Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in the interest of justice.
The brief facts of the plaints are as follows:
1.That Plaintiffs are that Late Chilkamarri Linga Reddy, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs, and Chilkamarri Narsimha Reddy, the father of defendant No.1 were brothers. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 was the real brothers of defendants No.2 and 3 are sons of Late Linga Reddy. Late Chilkamarri Linga Reddy, Chilkamarri
Narsimha Reddy, Chilkamarri Ranga Reddy and Chilkamarri Hanmanth
Reddy owned their ancestral agricultural lands bearing survey No.187 total admeasuring 6 acres 31 Guntas, apart from other lands. The defendant No.4 as no alienable right in the suit land and having falsely cancelled the earlier sale deed, in Document No.24715 of 2006, and a new sale deed is created, registered in document No.20808 of 2015,
dated: 20.11.2015, is void, illegal document and it is not binding on the
plaintiff as it is created during the pendency of the suit.
6 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
2.In the partition of survey No.187, among original four shares,
Linga Reddy got 1 acre 27 Guntas, Narsimha Reddy, the father of defendant no.1 got 1 acre 28 Guntas, Ranga Reddy got 1 acre 28
Guntas and Hanumanth Reddy got 1 acre 28 Guntas and they were enjoying their respective shares, but for some years the revenue entries are shown in joint possession. The land allotted to the share of Late
C.Linga Reddy and Narsimha Reddy is assigned as survey No.187/A, admeasuring 3 acres 15 Guntas in the revenue records in which Linga
Reddy to his share of 1 Acre 27 Guntas. After the death of Linga Reddy his sons late Narayana Reddy, Mukund Reddy, died as per defendant
No.7 to 11 as such his interest is devolved in his L.Rs, therefore they are also are bound by the Decree of cancellation of suit deeds and Veera
Reddy, died as per defendants No.12 to 18 as such his interest is devolved in his L.Rs therefore they are also bound by the decree of cancellation of suit deeds, in survey No.187/A admeasuring 1 acre 27
Guntas, with other properties and in the partition among these three brothers the land in survey No.187/A, admeasuring 1 acre 27 Guntas, which is schedule land is allotted to the share of Late Narayana Reddy, the father of plaintiffs and defendant No.5.
3.It is contended that, C.Pratap Reddy one of the brothers of defendant No.1 filed a suit for partition, against his three brothers and their mother in O.S. No. 31 of 1981 on the file of this Court, to partition 7 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 the suit schedule properties therein, including the share of his father in survey No.187 to an extent of 1 acre 28 Guntas of Tellapur Village with its boundaries. Finally, that suit was compromised among their four brothers and the mother. As compromise Decree dated: 29.04.1988, passed by this Hon’ble Court, the land in survey No.187, admeasuring 1 acre 28 Guntas which was originally fell to the share of their father
Narsimha Reddy is allotted to the share of C.Rajender Reddy, as per boundaries in the plaint and possession was given to him on dated:
03.09.1986. Thus, no land in survey No.187 of Tellapur Village was allotted to the share of defendant No.1 herein.
4.Subsequently defendant No.1 and Advocate by profession, colluded with the revenue officials, got his name falsely recorded as the
Pattedar of the land in survey No.187/A, admeasuring 1 acre 27 Guntas, without any title of interest and obtained a Pattedar pass book and title deed pass book from the revenue officers, behind the back and without any notice to Late Narayana Reddy, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.5.
5.That, having learnt about the mischief of defendant No.1 in getting the land in survey No.187/A in his name recorded, late Narayana
Reddy filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Ramachandrapuram on dated: 12.12.2002, with a request to delete the name of C.Malla Reddy, in respect of survey No.187/A, admeasuring 1 8 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 acre 27 Guntas, and the same may be recorded in his name. Notices were issued to C.Malla Reddy, defendant No.1 in that respect. On receiving notice, C.Malla Reddy, defendant No.1 appeared before the
Mandal Revenue Officer and voluntarily gave a statement which was recorded by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram on dated:
18.12.2002, in which he has admitted that the land in survey No.187/A, admeasuring 1 acre 27 Guntas is the Patta land of Narayana Reddy and he is the Pattedar and it is in his possession.
6.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram, passed an order in the file No.B1/4350/2002, on dated: 31.12.2002, directing to delete the name of C.Malla Reddy. Defendant No.1 as Pattedar and possessor in respect of survey No.187/A, admeasuring 1 acre 27 Guntas of Tellapur Village and recorded the name of C.Narayana Reddy.
C.Narayana Reddy his sons, plaintiff and defendant no.5 constitute Joint
Hindu Family. The properties are not partitioned. The plaintiffs, daughters and Narayana Reddy are co-parceners, who are continuing the undivided Joint Hindu family of Chilkamarri Narayana Reddy, the
Karta of the family. That the said Narayana Reddy, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 died as his heirs to succeed his properties.
The defendant No.1 is not stopped with the execution of the above referred gift deeds and making an attempt to transfer of 1 acre 10
Guntas of land in survey No.187/A in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, 9 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 but he also sold remaining land of 0.17 Guntas, in survey No.187/A to defendant No.4 for the total consideration of Rs.1,59,500/- and he has received the same and executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-General-
Power of Attorney and got it registered in document No. 10489 of 2006,
dated: 13.04.2006.
7.Having obtained the copies, the plaintiffs found that, defendant No.1 has executed gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3 showing that he is most affectionate to him, hence executed donating 0.25 Guntas, of land to defendant no.3 vide document No. 10642/2003 in survey No.187/A out of 1 acre 27 Guntas and he also executed another gift deed and got it registered in favour of defendant No.2 under document No.10642/2003, dated: 15.11.2003, in survey No.187/A out of 1 acre 27 Guntas. In both the documents, imaginary boundaries are mentioned. After the death of C.Narayana Reddy, the plaintiff and defendant No.5 are in joint possession of his class heirs.
8.Plaintiff respectfully contended that, defendant No.1 has no alienable title to the suit schedule land, he is not possession on any part of the land in survey No.187/A. But existence of these three documents,
1) 10642/2003, 10643/2003, Dt: 15-11-2003 and agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney vide Document No.10487/2006, Dated:
13-04-2006 and sale deed, Document No.24715/2006 is creating a cloud and dust on the title of the plaintiff, it is necessary that the three 10 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 documents are liable to be cancelled by the Court of Law. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for cancellation of the illegal, void documents executed by the defendant No.1 without any alienable title or interest.
9.The learned counsel for the Defendant No. 2 & 3 filed written statement stating that, the suit filed for the cancellation of the registered gift deeds bearing documents No.10642 of 2003, dated: 15.11.2003 and gift deed bearing document No.10643 of 2003, dated: 15.11.2003 and
Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated: 13.04.2006 to which the plaintiffs are not parties and without seeking the relief of
Declaration and Recovery of possession of the suit land is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
10.The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant No.5 are the children of
Narasimha Reddy and plaintiff No.4 is the wife of Narsimha Reddy and the plaintiff No.4 died during the pendency of suit. The agricultural land bearing survey No.187 of Mallapur Village and other lands and other properties are the joint family properties in which all the joint family members had a share therein.
11.There is no documentary evidence signed by the members of joint family namely Linga Reddy, Narsimha Reddy, Ranga Reddy and
Hanumanth Reddy to show that the land in survey No.187/A area 1 acre 27 Guntas fell to the share of Linga Reddy and after his death, Narayan 11 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Reddy, father of plaintiffs 1 to 3, defendant No.5 and husband of plaintiff
No.4 succeeded to his share in survey No.187/A. The land in survey
No.187/A is not the subject matter of suit in O.S. No.31 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Sangareddy for partition of the lands of
C.Narasimha Reddy. The defendant No.1 owned and possessed an area of 1 acre 28 Guntas in survey No.187/A and his name is recorded in the revenue records as owner, Khabirdar in the Pahanies from 1970- 71, 1980-81, 1995-96, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2004-2005 and his name has been recorded as possessor of the said land.
12.The father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 by name Narayana Reddy colluded with the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram and manipulated a statement alleged to have been made by Malla
Reddy, defendant No.1 in view of the fact that the alleged application of
Narayana Reddy is dated: 18.12.2002 and the alleged statement of defendant No.1 is also dated: 18.12.2002 and dated under signature of
Mandal Revenue Officer is corrected. The name of Malla Reddy, defendant No.1 is not deleted from the revenue records, therefore, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram issued Pattedar pass book in favour of Narayan Reddy at the instance of Narayan Reddy and the then Mandal Revenue Officer colluded together as stated above which resulted in passing of order dated: 31.12.2002. The pass book and title deed issued in favour of defendant No.1 are not cancelled and 12 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 the defendant No.1 executed registered gift deeds bearing document
No.10642/2003, dated: 15.11.2003 and gift deed bearing document
No.10643/2003, dated: 15.11.2003 in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.2 respectively by delivery of possession of 0.25 Guntas in survey No.187/A to each of them and the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Ramachandrapuram, issued proceedings in B/4546/2003, dated:
28.11.2003 directing to mutate the name of defendant No.2 in respect of 0.25 Guntas in survey No.187/A and issued proceedings in B/4545/2003
dated: 28.11.2003 to mutate the name of defendant No.3 in respect of
an area of 0.25 Guntas in survey No.187/A and Pattedar pass book was issued in Patta No.279 to the defendant No.2 and Pattedar pass book was issued in Patta No.461 to the defendant No.3 and title deeds were issued to them and the name of defendant No.3 is entered in the Pahani for the year 2004-2005.
13.The defendant No.1 executed a registered Agreement of
Sale-cum General Power of Attorney bearing document No.10489/2006,
dated: 13.04.2006 in respect of land of 0.17 Guntas in survey No.187/A
for a consideration of Rs.1,59,500/ in favour of defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of said land as he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.231 of 2006 is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with costs.
13 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
14.Adoption memo was filed by defendants No. 14 to 16 stating that they are adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.13.
The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant
No.13 is that the name of the defendant No.1 is recorded in the revenue record due to oversight in respect of the survey No.187 admeasuring acres 1.27 Guntas. Subsequently with the mutual understanding of the sons of the Linga Reddy, the defendant No.1 got executed registered gift deed in favour of the Mukunda Reddy and Veer Reddy for an extent of
Acres 0.25 Guntas each and further acres 0.17 Guntas sold by sons of
Narayana Reddy in favour of Dayanand Goud through defendant No.1 by executing Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession vide document No.10489 of 2006, dated: 13.04.2006 and received the consideration by the sons of Linga Reddy, it is pertinent to note here that the younger son of Linga Reddy i.e. defendant No.5 herein was stood one of the witness in the said document. Thus, in view of the mutual understanding between the sons of Linga Reddy, the defendant No.1 transferred the land through the above said document as such the claim of the plaintiffs that the survey No.187 admeasuring acres 1.27 Guntas fallen to the share of Narayana Reddy is totally incorrect, hence they denied.
15.It is submitted that the proceeding issued by the Mandal
Revenue Officer dated: 31.12.2002 is totally against the provision of law, 14 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 without issuing any notice to the sons of Linga Reddy as such it is denied by this defendant. It is pertinent to note here that the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram after due enquiry issued proceeding in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of the acres 0.25 Guntas each in survey No.187 and recorded their names in the revenue record as per the understanding of the sons of Linga Reddy.
This fact very well known by the plaintiffs and defendant No.5.
Defendant No.1 transferred the land in survey No.187 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 through registered gift deeds and further acres 0.17 Guntas of land sold in favour of defendant No.4 with the mutual understanding between the sons of Late Linga Reddy as such land admeasuring acres 1.27 Guntas in survey No.187 has not been fallen to the share of Narayana Reddy and then the plaintiffs have no right or title to seek cancellation of the gift deeds. It is submitted that the plaintiffs filed the present suit with a malafide intention for illegal gain only.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
16.Basing on the above Pleadings, this Trail Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of cancellation of registered gift deed and cancellation of agreement of sale as prayed for ?
2) Whether the suit was not properly valued ?
3) To what relief?
15 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Additional Issue: - (Dated 02.06.2010)
Whether the registered document No. 24715/06 in favour of defendant No.6 is void, in valid and hit by principles of pendentelite?
17.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and respondents.
18.Issue No.1:
Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of cancellation of registered gift deed and cancellation of agreement of sale as prayed for?
Issue No.2:
Whether the suit was not properly valued?
POINT:-
19.During the course of trail, Pw.1 and Pw.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to 64 were marked on behalf of Plaintiff and Dw.1 to Dw.3 were examined and Ex.B1 Certified Copy of Sale Deed vide document
No.20808/15 dated 20.11.2015 was marked on behalf of defendant.
20.After completion of full trail and on hearing the arguments of both sides , the learned trail court decreed the suit with costs canceling the Gift Deed vide 10642/2003, 10643/2003 dated 15.11.2003 and agreement of Sale cum General Power of attorney vide document
No.10487/2006 dated 13.4.2006 and Sale Deed vide document
No.24715 /2006 and not binding on the plaintiffs.
21.Aggrieved by the said judgment and Decree the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.14,15,16.
16 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
22. The brief grounds of the Appeal are that :
i.The judgment and decree under appeal is against the facts of the case, documentary evidence and legal provisions as such the same is liable to be set aside.
ii.The court below failed to appreciate that the relief for cancellation of the gift deeds is barred by limitation as such has come to erroneous conclusion.
iii.The court below failed to appreciate that the suit for cancellation of documents is not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not party to the said document as such the Hon’ ble Court has come to an erroneous conclusion.
iv.The court below failed to appreciate that in absence of relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property, the present suit is not maintainable as such has come to erroneous conclusion.
v.The court below failed to appreciate that the orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be challenged without following due procedure as laid down under law and that the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by decreeing the suit.
vi.The court below failed to appreciate that the defendants are entitled to take alternative pleas, contradictory pleas but has failed to take this legal position into consideration as such as come to an erroneous conclusion.
17 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 vii.The court below has wrongly decided that suit survey no.
187 is a joint family property whereas the record produced before the court and the oral evidence admission of PW.1 clearly goes to show that the said property was partitioned as such has come to erroneous conclusion.
viii.The court below failed to appreciate that no documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs to show that the suit schedule number has fallen to the share of late Narayan Reddy as such has come to an erroneous conclusion.
ix.The court below has given under importance to both oral and documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs and has failed to take into consideration the legal aspects of the same as such has come to an erroneous conclusion.
x.The findings of the court below that in the cross examination of PW.1 nothing fruitful was elucidated is erroneous as such the findings on these aspects are illogical and against the provisions of law.
xi.The court below failed to appreciate that defendant no. 5 is an attesting witness to exhibit A7 and no findings has been given on that aspect as such has come to an erroneous conclusion.
xii.The findings of the court below that no share was allotted to defendant no. 1 in the suit for partition in OS. No. 31 of 1981 is erroneous as the suit property was not a part and parcel of the said partition.
18 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 xiii.The court below failed to appreciate that the revenue entries in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant no. 2 and 3 towards regd. Gift settlement deed as such has come to an erroneous conclusion.
xiv.The court below has failed to consider the admission made by PW.1 in the cross-examination as such has come to an erroneous conclusion.
xv.The court below failed to appreciate the admission of the
PW.1 and PW2 no notice is served before recording the alleged statement of the defendant no. 1 before the tahsildar and further failed to appreciate the admission of the PW1 that no documentary evidence in respect of the partition of the schedule property and fallen to the share of
Linga Reddy as such has come to erroneous conclusion and the same is liable to be set-aside.
xvi.The court below the given undue importance to the oral evidence of PW.1 as such has come to an erroneous conclusion.
xvii.The court below failed to appreciate that the alleged statement made by Malla Reddy before the Mandal Revenue Officer was not as per the provisions of law and could not be taken into consideration as such has come to erroneous conclusion.
xviii.The court below failed to appreciate that even presuming that I acre 27 Guntas of agricultural land was allotted to Linga Reddy, 19 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 who died leaving behind three sons i.e., Narayan Reddy Mukunda
Reddy and Veera Reddy and daughter Anasuja, Narayana Reddy could not have become the owner of the total extent of 1 acre 27 Guntas in see. No. 187 i.e., the suit property and without producing any documentary evidence and explaining as to why Mukunda Reddy, Veera
Reddy and Anasuja are not entitled for a share hence Narayan Reddy could not have become the sole owner of the suit schedule property as such the findings of the lower court in this regard are perverse.
23.Notice were issued to the Respondents and Appeal through counsel and contesting the Appeal.
24.Heard Oral Arguments and Written Arguments and persuad citations filed by the Appellants and Respondent No.1 and 2, and
Respondent No.22 to 24 filed by the respective counsels.
25.The Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.P.Vinod Reddy,
Advocate contended that the trail court ought to have dismissed the Suit
No.231 of 2006 instead of decreed the same.
26.Per contra, Sri P.Veera Reddy, Learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1 and 2 and M/s.Unnam Law Firm represented by
Sri.Unnam Ravi, Advocate for Respondent No.22 to 24 , contened that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trail Judge, rightly decreed the suit O.S.No.231 of 2006. They further contended that there is no need to interfere with the Judgement and decree passed by 20 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 the trail court in O.S.No.231 of 2006 and they would further contened , the appeal may be dismissed.
27.Now the issues for consideration are:
1. Whether the appeal is to be allowed and Judgment and Decree of Learned Trail Court is liable to be set aside and whether the suit is to be dismissed as Prayed by the Appellant/Defendant ?
2. To What relief ?
28.The Parties did not adduced any additional documentary evidence in this Appeal.
Point No.1 and 2:-
29.Undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant No.5 are the children of late Narayana Reddy and plaintiff
No.4 is the wife of Narayana Reddy and the land in suit survey No. 187 is the joint family property. Narsimha Reddy was the brother of Linga
Reddy and defendant No.1, is the son of Narsimha Reddy. It is the case of the plaintiffs that originally an extent of Ac. 6.31 Gts in survey No. 187 belongs to Chandra Reddy and after his demise his four sons by name
Venkat Reddy, Linga Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and Gopal Reddy had partitioned the property in survey No.187, apart from the other properties, in which Ac. 1.27 Gts fell to the share of Linga Reddy and Ac.
1.28 Gts fell to the share of Narsimha Reddy (father of defendant No.1).
30.The Plaintiff are seeking relief for cancellation of the Gift
Deed vide 10642/2003, 10643/2003 dated 15.11.2003 and agreement of 21 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Sale cum General Power of attorney vide document No.10487/2006
dated 13.4.2006 and Sale Deed vide document No.24715 /2006 in the
Suit Schedule Property, therefore , burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their right and title in the schedule property by producing oral and documentary evidence. The legal position, therefore is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for cancellation of title could succeed only on the strength of their own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on the plaintiff irrespective of the questions whether the defendants have prove their case or not.
31.It is a trite law that, in a suit for cancellation of Registered
Sale Documents, title etc. burden always on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case, for granting such relief and weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief of cancellation to the plaintiffs.
32.To prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 before the trail court. He reiterated the contents of plaint in his evidence affidavit as Pw.1/Chilkamari Ramchandra and in
Cross examination he admit that:
1.It is true that that there is no written document in respect of the partition of the properties belonging to my paternal grandfather.
2.He do not have any idea whether my father and his two brothers ( D2 and D3 ) submitted any written document before Revenue 22 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Authorities for mutation of the properties in our respective names as the said parties are orally partitioned.
3.He do not known whether D2 and D3 submitted Written documents before Revenue Authorities about the said oral partition of the Properties and that the schedule property fell to this share of my father, Narayanareddy.
4.It is true that the name of D1 is shown in the revenue records as Pattedar and possessor of the Schedule Property.
5.He do not known whether defendant No.3 attested the said
Sale Deed. Ex A 7.
6.He do not know whether the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books to the defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of the
Schedule Property after the elaborate enquiry made by them.
7.He did not challenge the entries made by the revenue authorities in the pattadar pass books issued in the names of Defendant no.2 and 3 before filing of suit.
8.It is true that the statement of the first defendant marked
Ex.A9 does not contain the signature of D2 and D 3.
9.He do not know whether any notice was issued to the defendants 2 and 3 by the then Mandal Revenue officer, before issuing proceedings under Ex.A10 basing on Ex.A9.
23 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
10.It is true that the name of his father was not mutated in the revenue records in respect of the Schedule Property even after the proceedings under Ex.A10 .
11.It is true that he did not get it mentioned that the same accept in his pleadings that After death of his, they orally asked the revenue authority to mutate our names in the revenue records in respect of the Schedule property as his father was already given pattdar pass book for the same property.
33. PW.2/P.Venkat Reddy, admitted during the course of cross examination that
1.He did not send any notice to the first defendant on the petition filed by late Narayana Reddy in respect of correction of entry in the revenue records in respect of the Schedule Property.
2.The Suit Schedule Property is the ancestral property of Late
Narayana Reddy.
The above statement of Pw1/Pw2 on Oath itself go slow that
PW.1 is suppressing the Truth and not approach the court with clean hands. Therefore, the evidence on record fails to prove that Ex.B1 registered Sale Deed was fraudulently obtained by way of playing fraud and undue influence by the defendants. Unless fraud and undue influence have been proved, the plaintiff cannot get the cancellation of registered Sale Deed.
24 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Furthermore Pw.1 & Pw.2 admitted in their cross examination that they do not know the contends of evidence affidavit.
Furthermore Pw.1 and Pw.2 is not attestor or the scribe of the
Registered Sale deed relates to the year the Gift Deed vide 10642/2003, 10643/2003 dated 15.11.2003 and agreement of Sale cum General
Power of attorney vide Doc.No.10487/2006 dated 13.4.2006 and Sale
Deed vide Doc.No.24715 /2006 against which the cancellation is sought for by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove their case.
34.Ex.B1 is Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.20808/2015 dated 20.11.2015. The material on record show that Ex.B2 is the Registered
Sale Deed dated 20.11.2015 is said to have been executed in favour of the Appellant. As stated supra. Ex B 2 is the registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2015 executed before the Sub-Registrar office, Sangareddy. The
Execution of the registered Sale Deed is not totally disputed by the plaintiff. The contention of Plaintiffs is that Ex.B1 registered Sale Deed is obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation by the defendants.
In the Case of the Union of India Vs Chaturbhai M Patel and Company ( 1976 ) 1 SCC 757 was held that:
“All particulars relating to the fraud must be pleaded and
proved and more suspension is not enough to reach a finding of
fraud. The apex court further held that the proof of such fraud must
be beyond all reason doubt” 25 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
As stated supra the plaintiff did not examine the alleged attestor and scribe of registered Sale Deed Ex B 1 . They simply pleaded in the plaint that the said Sale Deed obtained by way of fraudulent and by playing fraud by the defendants.
35.It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any produced by the parties cannot be considered .It is also equally well settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the other party to know the facts which was pleaded by the parties. This preparation is well supported by cretina of decision of Apex court. It is also relevant to say a decision of the court cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties to the Suit.
36.The Counsel for the Appellant urged orally and filed Written arguments:
1.It is argued that late Ch. Chandra Reddy was the owner and possessor of various agricultural lands in different survey numbers including the land in Sy. No. 187 admeasuring Ac. 06-13 Guntas, situated at Tellapur Village (presently Tellapur Municipality) of
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District.
2.That Chandra Reddy died leaving behind his four sons namely; 1) Venkat Reddy, 2) linga Reddy 3) Narsimha Reddy and 4) 26 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
Gopal Reddy. After death of Chandra Reddy there was a partition between his four sons in pursuance of the partition his four sons were allotted Ac. 01-27 Guntas of land each in Sy. No. 187 of Tellapur.
3.It is argued that the names of Venkat Reddy Narsimha
Reddy Gopal Reddy were incorporated in the revenue record in pursuance of the partition to the extent Ac. 01-27 Guntas each in Sy. No.
187. But by mistake the land to an extent of Ac. 01-27 Guntas in Sy. No.
187 allotted to linga Reddy i.e., second son of Chandra Reddy was mutated in the revenue record in the name of Malla Reddy, who is the son of Narsimha Reddy (3rd son of Chandra Reddy). The Malla Reddy is defendant no. 1 in the suit. As per the revenue record no land is sanding in the name of linga Reddy in Sy. No. 187
4.It is that Admittedly the land in Sy.No.187 i.e., Ac. 01-27
Guntas fallen to the share of linga Reddy inherited from his father
Chandra Reddy but mistakenly it was mutated in the name of Malla
Reddy i.e., defendant no.1 who is son of Narsimha Reddy. It was evidence from the Pahanies filed by the plaintiffs under exhibits in ‘A’ series. Linga Reddy died leaving behind his three sons namely
Narayana Reddy, Mukunda Reddy and Veera Reddy. The said Ac.1-27
Guntas of land is ancestral and joint family property the sons of linga
Reddy entitled their respective shares as per their understanding.
Plaintiffs and defendant no. 8 are the children of Narayana Reddy.
27 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
The allegedly claim of the plaintiffs that Narayan Reddy was the exclusive owner of Ac. 01-27 Guntas of land in Sy. No. 187 and he was allotted in the partition hence plaintiffs has failed to prove their claim by reducing sufficient evidence.
5.The appellant further argued that Admittedly the respondents/ plaintiffs have not filed any documents to show that
Sy.No.187 extent Ac. 1-27 Guntas i.e., suit schedule land was fallen to the sheer of Narayana Reddy in the partition. The burden lies upon the respondents/ plaintiffs to prove that the suit survey number was allotted to Narayana Reddy, admittedly plaints have not filed any single document to show that suit land fallen to the share of the Narayana
Reddy i.e., father of the plaintiff’s and further plaintiff no. 1 admitted in his cross examination the same. And thus, the plaintiff’s failed to prove their burden to prove their case, the court below without examine the exhibits and oral evidence and given undue influence to the documents filed by the plaintiff’s passed the judgment and decree, which is erroneous and against the provisions of law and the same is liable to be set aside the appeal is liable to be allowed.
6. It is argued that as per Section 101 of the Indian evidence act, 1872 states that the burden of proof never shifts from the party who initially bears it. This means that the party who makes a claim must provide evidence to support their claim through the legal proceedings 28 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
EVIDENCE: Burden of proof- right in possession over the suit property proof of – plaintiff to succeed on strength of his title by reducing sufficient evidence to discharge burden of proof on even – cannot succeed on weakness of defendant’s case evidence act 1872 sec. 101.
2005 (3) ALD 345 (DB).
The appealing herein purchased the Ac.0-17 Guntas of land from defendant no.4 under regd. Sale deed Doc.No.20808/2015 (Ex.A60). As mentioned above the defendant no.1 executed regd. AGPA under Ex.A7 in favour of defendant no. 4.
The defendant no.1 executed Ex.A5 to A7 in favour of
Mukund Reddy Veera Reddy and Dayanand Goud are legal valid and have been executed as per the previous provided under law and the same are bidding on the one and all including the plaintiffs.
As mentioned above the suit of the plaintiffs itself is not maintainable as they have not proved their claim further the suit for cancellation of documents is not maintainable unless there is prayer for declaration of title, hence the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to dismissed.
The court below passed judgment and decree without observing the legal and factual possession hence the judgment and decree is liable to be set aside.
7.It is argued that linga Reddy was also allotted lands in other survey numbers thus the OS. No. 31 of 2007 was filed by plaintiffs no.2 and 3 for partition of the properties allotted to linga Reddy which was compromised thereafter. There is no mention of Sy.No.187 extent of
Ac.1-27 Guntas allotted to linga Reddy in the said suit. The exhibits 29 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 under ‘A’ series filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs are proof to the same.
Hence it is submitted that no stretch of imagination it can be said that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law or in facts.
8.It is argued that that the present suit filed for cancellation of documents is neither maintainable in law or on facts of the case. The court below has totally misunderstood the essence of the judgment cited by the counsel for the defendants reported in AIR 2010 SC page no.
2807 a reading of the said judgment categorically goes to show that in the event an person is not a party to any Registered Documents and who claims any right in the property has to file a Suit for Declaration of title and not for cancellation of the document.
The finding of the court below in this regard is not as per the provisions of law hence the court below has come to erroneous conclusion and decree the suit which is incorrect as such the present appeal is liable to be allowed.
9.It is argued that the court below has failed to appreciate the contents of the written statement filed by the appellants herein it is submitted that as the plaintiffs were allotted different lands hence the plaintiffs are not entitled land in Sy. No. 187 whereas the brother of plaintiffs no. 1 i.e., Gopal Reddy the defendant no. 8 in the suit and respondent no. 8 herein was allotted Ac. 0-17 Guntas of land in Sy.No.
187 i.e., suit schedule survey number which has fallen to the share of his 30 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 father Narayana Reddy. At the request of plaintiffs and Gopal Reddy regd. AGPA i.e., Ex. A7 was executed by defendant no. 1 Malla Reddy in favour of Dayanand Goud defendant no. 4 which bears the signature of Gopal Reddy i.e., defendant no. 8 in the attested column.
Thus, it is submitted that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit against this appellant.
10.It is argued that as mentioned above there was a partition between the sons of Chandra Reddy and each of the son was allotted
Ac. 01-27 Guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 187. It is submitted that by oversight instead the name of linga Reddy and his sons being incorporated in the Pahanies the name of Malla Reddy (defendant no.1) was mutated in respect of Ac. 01-27 Guntas of land which was allotted to the share of linga Reddy. When the said mistake was found in order to cover the same as per the understanding of sons of linga Reddy i.e.,
Narayana Reddy, Mukunda Reddy and Veera Reddy and defendant
No.1 (Malla Reddy) in whose name the land was mutated executed gift deeds to an extent of Ac. 0-25 Guntas each in favour of Mukunda Reddy and Veera Reddy i.e., gift deed doc. No. 10642/2003 and doc. No.
10643/2003 respectively which were marked as Exs.A5 and 6. In pursuance of the said gift deeds their names were mutated in the revenue record and issued Patta pass books and they are in actual and physical possession of the land allotted to them.
31 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
11.It is argued that, an extent of Ac.0-17 Guntas of land in
Sy.No.187 which was allotted to the share of Narayan Reddy was as per the understanding between the sons of Narayana Reddy i.e.,
Ramchandra Reddy and Gopal Reddy (D8) was sold to Dayanand Goud i.e.,defendant no.4 under Ex.A7. subsequently defendant No.4 sold the
Ac. 0-17 Guntas of land under regd. Sale deed Doc.No.20808/2015 (Ex.A60) to defendant No.19 who is the appellant in AS.No.2 of 2018 namely Renuka. It would be relevant to state here that plaintiffs have no lands in Sy.No.187 as per the understanding between the sons of
Narayana Reddy. As mentioned above the land allotted to Narayana
Reddy i.e., Ac.0-17 Guntas was sold through Malla Reddy i.e., defendant No.1 to defendant No.4 under Ex.A7 hence the suit of the plaintiff’s is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. As mentioned above in view of the understanding between the sons of Narayana
Reddy plaintiffs have no share in the land allotted to Narayana Reddy in
Sy.No.187 Gopal Reddy i.e., defendant o. 8 who is second of Narayana
Reddy was allotted Ac.0-17 Guntas as per understanding between the sons of Narayana Reddy was sold to the defendant no.4 under Ex.A7 and the defendant no. 8 was attesting witness to Ex.A7 and received total sale consideration thus it is submitted that the plaintiff’s did not have any share in the land sold under Ex.A7 i.e., AGPA to defendant
No.4, as such it is submitted that the suit filed in the present form is 32 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 neither maintainable in law or on facts of the case as such the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.
12.It is Argued that the Proceedings No.B1/4350/2002 dated 31.12.2002 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.A10 are illegal and against the provisions of law. Neither the mandatory provision laid down under law followed before issuing the said proceedings nor were notices issued to the interest parties it would be relevant to state here that the MRO was not followed the procedure laid down under law as such the order of the MRO is illegal and has no value in the eye of law and cannot be taken into consideration for deciding any issue.
13.It is Argued that admittedly the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove that the land in Sy.No.187 extent of Ac.1-27 Guntas is the exclusive property of Narayana Reddy. Unless or until there is for declaration that Narayana Reddy is the exclusive owner no further relief can be granted to the plaintiff’s, hence the suit of the plaintiff’s is not maintainable and the court below has come to an erroneous conclusion hence the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 03-11-2017 passed in OS. No. 231 of 2006.
14.It is Argued that the court below failed to understand and appreciate the documents and the oral evidence specifically the admission of PW1 and further failed to appreciate documentary evidence filed by the defendant. Under such circumstances the appeal filed by the 33 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 appellants may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the court below.
15.It is argued that the cardinal principles of law that the plaintiffs have to prove their case and they cannot permitted to take advantage of any failure of the defendants in the present case the plaintiff’s failed to prove title nor have filed any documents in evidence or sought for any relief for declaration as such the suit of the plaintiffs is neither maintainable in law or on facts of the case hence the court below has come to erroneous conclusion in decreeing the suit which against the provision of law. In view of the facts mentioned above the plaintiffs have not proved their case and nor filed in proper way as per the provisions of law hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs in OS.No.231 of 2006 is not maintainable. Hence, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree, dt 03-11-2017 passed by the trial court in OS.No.231 of 2006.
16.Thus Appellant prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in O.S.No.231 of 2006 dated 03-11-2017 with costs throughout, in the interest of Justice.
17.The counsel for the Appellant further argued that
1. No legal notice is served before filing of Suit.
34 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
2.Not examined the attestor of the Sale Deed and Registrar of Sub-
Registrar office, to examine the Sale Deed.
3.Plaintiff has filed suit for cancellation only but the plaintiff ought to have filed as The Suit for Declaration and re -possession and
Cancellation of Sale deed.
4.No Criminal case was sought in case of Sale Deed was obtained by fraud.
5.MRO has followed due process of law before correction of name and no notice was served to necessary party of the entries of the
Revenue Record and pass books.
37.Further argued that as per the content of the Sale Deed
Document No.24715, dated: 12-04-2007.
1.The Vendee has paid the full sale consideration amount to
Vendor.
2.The Vendor has delivered the possession of the immovable property as the Schedule of Property to the Vendee.
3.The Vendor has delivered all the link documents to Vendee at the time of Registration of Sale Deed
All the ingredients under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is exist and as such there no fraud in execution of Sale Deed in favour of the Vendee by the Vendor.
35 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
38.The Learned trail court did not properly appreciate the legal position on the above aspect and wrongly held prayed in favour the
Plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 2006 against the defendant and also cannot be granted without considering the rights of succession of the Appellant/
Defendant
39.The reasons and observation made by the trail court in the above judgment and decreed dated 3.11.2017 in OS.No. 231 of 2006 cancellation of Sale Deed the Gift Deed vide 10642/2003, 10643/2003
dated 15.11.2003 and agreement of Sale cum General Power of
attorney vide document No.10487/2006 dated 13.4.2006 and Sale Deed vide document No.24715 /2006 are not tenable and no maintainable in view of the above discussion.
40.The Appellant has prove that there was fair play in the transaction and that the apparent is the real, in other words, that the transaction is genuine and bonafide. In such a case the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is thrown upon the dominant party, that is to say, the party who in position of active confidence.
41.As stated supra, the alleged fraud and undue influence alleged to have played by the defendants in obtaining registered Sale
Deed is not at all proved by the plaintiff. Unless the said registered Sale deed is canceled, the plaintiff herein cannot get valid title. Furthermore, the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 is not helpful to the plaintiff, to prove 36 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 their case because they are totally denying the contents of chief examination sworn affidavit. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff herein are not entitled to get the relief the cancellation of Registered Sale Deed and also not entitled any relief as ought in O.S.No.231 of 2018.
42.The Plaintiff has relied the Phanis from Ex A.11 to Ex A57 and Ex A36 and Ex A58 Agandal and Pass Book are revenue records are not relevant. Furthermore, the law is well settled that entries in a revenue records do not confer any title , interest and rights in respect of suit schedule immovable property.
43.It is also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2807 R.V.RAVEENDRAN AND R.M.
LODHA,JJ,Civil appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010 (arising out of S.L.P. (C)
Nos. 6745-47 of 2009) D/- 29.03.2010.
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V. Radhir Singh & Ors.
Court fees act (7 of 1870) s. 7 (iv) (c) – court fee- suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiffs’ father is null and void and for joint possession – is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed – court – fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds – court – fee payable is computable under section 7 (iv) (c).
Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he had to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him.
37 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer. Conveyance can be brought out by the following illustration relating to’A’ and ‘B’ – two brothers ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favour of ‘C’ subsequently ‘A’ wants to avoid the sale ‘A’ has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if ‘B’ who is not the executed of the deed wants to avoid it he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by ‘A’ is invalid/ void and non-est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding.
But the form is different and court – fee is also different. If ‘A’ the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, the he has to pay ad-valorem court- fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed.
If ‘B’ who is a non- executant is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share he has to merely pay a fixed court- fee of Rs. 19.50 under article 17 (iii) of second schedule of the act. But if ‘B’ a non-executant is not in possession and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid but also the consequential relief of possession he has to pay an ad valorem court-fee as provided under section 7 (iv) (c) of the act. Section 7 (iv) (c) provides that in suit for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court – fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the 38 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018 suit for declaration decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less then the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of section-7.
44.It is argued by the counsel for the Appellant that it is held in
Supreme Court in Vanlalrauti Pathuau Vs Lallawmsanga Ralte AIR 2021
Gauati 119 that As the Sale Deed is 10.12.2008 has been executed as per the Registration Act, 1908, cannot override the Registered documents made under the the Registration Act, 1908.
45.The Learned trail court did not properly appreciate the legal position on the above aspect and wrongly prayed in favour of Plaintiff in
OS.No.231 of 2006 against defendant and also cannot be granted
without considering the rights of succession of Appellant/ Defendant
46.The Oral and Written Argument and citations filed by the
Respondents is part of the record and did not inspire any confidence and the citation filed by the respondents did not assist this court as they are not relevant in the present case on hand.
47.The reasons and observation made by the trail court in the above judgment and decreed dated 3.11.2017 in OS.No.231 of 2006 cancellation of Sale Deed the Gift Deed vide 10642/2003, 10643/2003
dated 15.11.2003 and agreement of Sale cum GPA, Doc.No.10487/2006
dated 13.4.2006 and Sale Deed vide Doc.No.24715 /2006 are not
tenable in view of the above discussion.
39 of 39 AS. No. 2 of 2018
The Suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for not producing any cogent and corroborative evidence in respect of the Suit
Schedule Property in the above Judgment and Decree, Dt: 03-11-2017 in OS.No.231 of 2006 on the file of Learned Senior Civil Judge,
Sangareddy.
48.In view of these circumstances, it is held that the appellant/Defendant acquired succession rights over the property .As the plaintiff failed to prove that have acquired exclusive and absolute rights over the plaint schedule property.
49The citation relied by the Respondent in this Appeal is Part of the Record and did not inspire any confidence and the citation relied by the Respondents did not assist this Court as they are not relevant in the present case on hand.
50. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for cancellation of document the Gift Deed vide 10642/2003, 10643/2003 dated 15.11.2003 and agreement of Sale cum General Power of attorney vide document
No.10487/2006 dated 13.4.2006 and Sale Deed vide document
No.24715 /2006 is not maintainable and not tenable in the eyes of law
51.In the Result, Appeal suit is Allowed with costs and
Judgment and Decree dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Learned Senior
Civil Judge Sangareddy in OS.No.231 of 2006 is set aside.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24 th Day of March, 2025.
II Additional District & Sessions Judge Sangareddy