1 Of 40
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE IX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DISTRICT.
PRESENT: Sri P. Raju, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC IX Addl., Sr., Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R., District
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2021
OS. No. 1718 / 2006
BETWEEN:-
G. Suresh Yadav, S/o late G.Gangadhar Yadav Aged about 32 years occ: Business R/o 15-3-406,Gowliguda Chaman, Hyderabad.
..... Plaintiff
A N D 1.Yadgiri Balraj, S/o late Ramaiah aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, 2.Yadgiri Chandraiah, S/o late Ramaiah aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Yadgiri Mallesha, S/o late Ramaiah aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, [All are R/o Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad Mandal,R.R.District]
4. V.Narsimha Reddy, S/o late V. Linga Reddy, aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o 3-2-870/3, VNR complex, Station Road,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ... Defendants
This suit is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Shivaram, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Smt., Deepika reddy,Advocate for defendant nos., 1 to 3 and of Sri Rakesh Sanghi,
Advocate for defedant no.,4 and perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing, this
Court delivered the following:- 2 Of 40
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant nos.,1 to 4 for grant of a decree declaring the sale deed document no.,7438/2005,
dated 28-06-2005, executed by defendant nos.,1 to 3 in favour of
defendant 4, in respect of the schedule property, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, by granting perpetual injunction restraining defendant no., 4, his agents, nominees, etcetera, from interefering, including the dispossession, with the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, by awarding costs of the suit, and consequential reliefs.
2.The suit schedule property is as follows: - “All the property admeasuring 9 acre 3 guntas in survey no.,116 situated at Kothwalguda village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.District which is bounded with :
North :Survey no.,116 part,
South :land of Raja Malla Reddy ,
East : Survey no.,115,
West :Survey no.,117.”
3.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff, are that :
(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner, title holder and pattadar of the schedule property, having purchased the same from its original vendor-
Yadagiri Balraj and others through the registered the General Power of
Attorney (for short ‘GPA.,’) holder-P.Nirupa Rani and G Srinivas Yadav, on 24-07-2004. The vendor of the plaintiff got title over the schedule property by virtue of proceedings issued in file no.,L/G/428/2002, dated 3 Of 40 17-07-2004 and sale certificate ,dated 21-07-2004, was issued under
Section 38(6) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenency and
Agricutural Land Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’), by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, East, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in physical possession of the schedule property, without any interruption from any other person. The plaintiff also obtained Mutation Proceedings from the Revenue Department under
Section 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Righs in Land and Pattadar
Pass books Act 1971 (for short ROR Act), in proceedings no.,
B/1430/2004, dated 02-09-2004. Thus, the plaintiff's name was also recorded in the pahanis as pattadar and possesser.
(ii) While so, defendant no.,4, without any right over the schedule property, created sale deed, in respect of the schedule property , on 27-06-2005, alleged to have been executed by the
Yadagiri Balraj and others, that is , defendant no., 1 to 3 herein. The sale deed is void , ab-initio in the eye of law, and liable to be set aside. The sale deed was obtained under coersion, threat and undue influence, for which defendant nos.,1 to 3 have already given an affidavit in respect of the fraud played by defendant no., 4. The sale deed document no.,7438/2005, dated 27-06-2005 (wrongly typed as 24- 06-2005) is void, ab-initio and is liable to be cancelled as the same is not binding on the plaintiff as it is nonest in the eye of law.
4 Of 40
(iii)Taking advantage of the sale deed, defendant no.,4 came to the suit schedule property on 01-07-2006, 03-07-2006 and 05-07- 2006 and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences to vacate the suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached the concerned police for necessary action . Therefore, it is prayed for gant of the reliefs.
3.(a)Defendant nos.,1 to 3 filed their written statement admitting their ownership over the schedule property, as pleaded by the plaintiff, and alleging that defendant no.,4, created the sale deed document no.,7438/2005, dated 27-06-2005, by coercion, undue influence and without their knowledge got obtained the signatures. Therefore, the said sale deed is nullity in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff.
The sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by defendant nos., 1 to 3 is true, genuine and valid as per law. The sale deed obtained by defendant no.,4, is by playing a fraud and the same is liable to be cancelled. Therefore, it is prayed for disposing the suit, according to law, by defendant nos., 1 to 3.
(b) (i)Defendant no.,4 filed his written statement, separtely, denying the averments of the plaint filed by the palintiff, putting the plaintiff to strict proof of the said allegations, and alleging the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither maintainable in law nor on facts .
(ii) (1) It is further submitted in the written statement by defendant no.,4 that the power of attorney holder of the owners had no subsisting authority to deal with the suit lands, as on 5 Of 40 24-07-2004. The land in an extent of acres 16-35 guntas, in the survery no.,116 (wrongly typed as survey no., 119) , was cultivated, as tenant, by one Yadgiri Ramaiah (father of defendant nos.,1 to 3 (wrongly typed as defendant nos., 2 to 4 in the written statement) as Proteced
Tenant. The said Yadgiri Ramaiah was issued with ownership certificate to an extent of acres 7-32 guntas, in survey no.,116, under Section 38-E of the Act by the Additional Divisional Officer, (Land Reforms),
Chevella Division, in file no., LRW/143/75, dated 15-05-1975. So far as the remaining land of acreas 9-03 guntas, in survey no., 116 is concerned, the said Yadgiri Ramaiah continued to cultivate the same as Protected Tenant. After demise of the said Yadgiri Ramaiah, defendant nos., 1 to 3 succeeded to the ownership rights, for an extent of acres 7-32 guntas, and protected tenant rights for the remaining land. Defendant nos., 1 to 3 and their mother Yadgiri Balamma, have jointly executed registered GPA., document no., 2029/1993, dated 6-10-1993, infavour of P. Nirupa Rani, wife of P. Prem Raja Rao, and
G. Srinivas Yadav, son of Gangadhar Yadav, authorizing them to sell the land in survey no.,116, to the extent of acres 7-32 guntas, vide proceedings no., LRW/143/75, dated 15-05-1975. No authority was given to the said agents to deal with the remaing land of acres 9-03 guntas, in survery no.,116, at the schedule primises, for the reason that ownership rights were not transfered to defendant nos.,1 to 3, over the said extent.
6 Of 40 (2)Defendant no.,4 negotiated with defendant no.,1 to 3, through the GPA., holder, to purchase the land in survey no.,116 admeasuring in and extent of acres 16-35 guntas. But, it was agreed to transfer acres 7-32 guntas, for which they had authority and also promised that they will transfer the remaining land whenever ownership rights were accrued. P. Nirupa Rani and G.Srinivas Yadav obtained registered sale deed in the name of P.Prem Raja Rao, for an extent of acres 7-32 guntas, through document no., 464/1998, dated 31-03-1998, and in turn got transferred the said land and adjoining land in survey no.,114, in an extent of acres 2-23 guntas, to defendant no.,4, through registered sale deed document no.,3468/2003, dated 10- 11-2003. The said P. Prema Raja Rao is husband of P. Nirupa Rani and brother-in-law to G. Srinivas Yadav. Consequently, registered Power of
Attorney, dated 6-10-1993 was given in favour P. Nirupa Rani and G.
Srinivas Yadav, for the extent of acres 7-32 guntas and it stood discharged with effect from 31-03-1993.
(iii)Defendant nos.,1 to 3 acquired ownership rights for the remaining land of acres 9-03 guntas, in survey no.,116, under Section 38(6) of Act, in file no.,L/4/2002, dated 21-7-2004. As per the promise, defendant nos., 1 to 3 transferred the remaining land of acres 9-03 guntas in favour of defendant no.,4, under registered sale deed document no.,7438/2005, dated 27-06-2005, for consideration of Rs., 5,55,000/-. The said sale deed was executed by defendant nos.,1 to 3 7 Of 40 themselves. Persuant to the said sale deed, possession was delivered to defendant no.,4 ,on the same day. Thus, by virtue of two sale deed document nos.,3468/2003 and 7438/2005, dated 10-11-2003 and 27-06- 2005, defendant no.,4 became absolute owner and possessor of entire extent of acres 16-35 guntas in the schedule survey no.,116.
(iv)The wife of defendant no.,4 also purchased land adjoining the land in survey nos.,36, 114 and 117. Defendant no.,4 developed the land ,in survey no.,116, by investing huge amount. He constructed a compound wall on three sides, including the suit land, and used it for horticulture and planted ‘Mosambi and Mango’ trees. He also constructed a water tank and pumped the water from the borewells, situated in survey no.,117. There is no access to the schedule land, except from the land of defendant no.,4 in survey no.,114. The name of defendant no.,4 is recorded in the pahani pathrika for the year 2004- 2005 and 2005-2006.
(v)Defendant nos.,1 to 3 are in collusion with the plaintiff. The averments of the written statement filed by defendant nos.,1 to 3 are not correct.
(vi)The proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 02- 09-2004, was without notice to defendant no.,4. Appeal was also filed against the said proceedings by the wife of the defendant and the sons of one Dwaraka Prasad. In the said proceedings, defendant no.,4 also 8 Of 40 filed petition to implead him. There is no final revenue proceedings, over the suit land.
(vii)There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit.
Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.
4.(a)Initially, in view of the rivalry pleadings of the parties to the suit, the following issues were settled for trial, on 01-03-2007:-
(i)Whether the sale deed dated 27-06-2005 is null and void and not binding ont he plaintiff?
(ii)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?
(iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Injucntion as prayed for?
(v)To what relief?
(b)The following additional issues were also framed on 15-03-2021:-
(i)Whether the plaintiff has proved the authencity and validity of registered sale deed document no.,3645/2004, dated 24-06-2007?
(ii)Whether the plaintiff has impeached the sale deed
dated 27-06-2005, document no.,7438/2005, without
seeking the relief of declaration?
(iii)Whether the admission by defendant nos.,1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff regarding absence or lack of their own title ,over the schedule land, binds the defendant no.,4 ,also, after execution of sale deed
dated 27-06-2005?
9 Of 40
(iv)Whether the admission by defendant nos.,1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff regarding absence or lack of their own title ,over the schedule land, automatically proved the title of the plaintiff?
(v)Whether the plaintiff is required to prove his own title ,over the schedule property, independently of the admissions made by defendant nos.,1 to 3?
(vi)Whether defendant nos.,1 to 3 pleaded and proved undue influence, fraud, mistake of fact and law, and ignorance, coercion, etectera, in respect of the sale deed document no.,7438/2005, dated 27-06-2005?
(vii)To what relief?
(c)The additional issue nos., (i) and (ii), framed on 15-03-2021, are recasted as follows:-
(i)Whether the plaintiff has proved the authenticity and validated of registered sale deed document no.,3645/2004, dated 24-07-2004?
(ii) Whether the palintiff has impeached the sale deed dated 27-06-2005, document no.,7438/2005 without seeking the relief of declaration of his own title?
(d)The following additional issues were also framed on 30-03-2021 :-
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves the authenticity and validity of registered GPA., dated 06-10-1993 (document no.,2029/1993)?
(ii)To what relief?
5.(i)The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined himself as PW1 (G. Suresh Yadav) and got marked Exs., A1 to A7 documentary evidence. But, in view of the representation made by the 10 Of 40 learned counsel for the plaintiff, by filing memorandum, on 16-06-2017, as he executed GPA., in view of his pre-occupation, the evidence of
PW1 (G. Suresh Yadav) was eschiewed from consideration and subsequently, the evidence of PW2 (P. Sai Prasad Yadav) was filed
before the Court, on 22-08-2017, by filing Rules 32 and 33 of the Civil
Rules of Practice, and again got marked Exs. A1 to A7 documentary evidence, which were already marked in the evidence of PW1. PW2 also got marked Ex.,A8 and he was cross examined by the learned counsel for defendant no.,4.
(ii)After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, defendant no.,4 examined himself as DW1 (V. Narsimha Reddy) and one more witness as DW2 (O. Venkat Ramireddy) and got marked Exs.,B1 to B9 documentary evidence.
(iii)After conclusion of the arguments, on 16-07-2021, the suit is posted to today for judgment.
(iv)Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.,4. Perused the supplementary written arguments and citations filed on behalf of defendant no.,4.
6.,(I) ISSUE NOS.,(i) and (iii) framed on 01-03-2007:- (A)(1)(a)Since both the issu7es are conttected to each other they are dealt with together.
11 Of 40
(b)(i)The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in view of the evidence of PW2 and supported by Exs.,A1 to A8 documentary evidence, is that the purchase of the schedule property by the plaintiff, under Ex.,A2, is prior to the sale deed under
Ex.,A1, that the schedule property is a open land and in case of open land title follows possession and that , therefore, the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property, that Ex.,A1 was obtained by defendant no.,4-DW1 from defendant nos.,1 to 3 under coercion, undue influence and without their knowledge got obtained their signatures and that, therefore, Ex.A1 is nullity in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff. Further, subsequent to Ex.,A2, mutation over the schedule property in the name of the plaintiff took place and Ex.,A5 proceedings were issued by the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Shamshabad Mandal and under Ex., A8 to record the possession as "Disputed". In view of the interference by defendant no.,4-DW1, on 1-7-2006, 3-7-2006 and 5-7-2006, with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, over the suit schedule propety, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injucntion against DW1, over the scheddule property.
(ii)The learned counsel for the plaintiff, for grant of the relief in favour of the plaintiff, by filing written arguments on behalf of the plaintiff, relied on the judgments in the case of Ananthula
Sudhakar vs., P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs., and others (1) [AIR 2008 12 Of 40 (SC) 2333], Gurbax Sinlgh vs., Kartar Singh and others (2) [AIR 2002 (SC) 959] and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, in Narsimha Reddy vs.,
Suresh Yadav and others in CRP no.,458/2020, dated 22-01-2021 (3).
(2)(a)On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for defendant no.,4, in the written arguments and supplementary written arguments filed on behalf of defendant no.,4, is that the order passed in IA no.,198/21 by this Court, on 15-04-2021, is without issuing notice to defendant no.,3 and thereby prevented defendant no.,4 from proving the forgery and fraud played by defendant nos.,1 to 3, as Vakalatnama and written statement is not filed by them
before the Court and they are fabricated with the thumb impression and
signatures of defendant nos.,1 to 3, that the plaintiff did not prove
Ex.,A6 - GPA., that the contents of Ex.A2 are not proved by the plaintiff and mere marking of Exs.,A2 and A6 is not sufficient and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot rely upon them , that the admission of defendant nos.,1 to 3 in their written statement has to be taken as false and incorrect, as mere pleading of them in the written statement, without oral evidence to corroborate it is of no use, that the admission of defendant nos.,1 to 3 is against the contents of Ex.,A1, that the plaintiff must prove his own case, without relying upon the weaknesses of the defendant’s case, and, therefore, Ex.,A1-sale deed of DW1 cannot directly be attacked for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, basing 13 Of 40 on Ex.,A2 , that defendant nos.,1 to 3, having executed Ex.,A1-sale deed, cannot make admission against Ex.,A1, that the fraud, undue influence and coercion, etecetera, are to be proved and mere pleading is not sufficient and, in that regard, an adverse inference can be drawn against defendant nos.,1 to 3, that since Ex.,A2-sale deed is not proved, the examination of the title of DW1 could be merely an academic, that
Ex.,A6- GPA., dated 6-10-1993 itself is invalid and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim lawful title or possession over the schedule property, basing on Ex.,A2-sale deed, dated 24-7-2004, that since the vendors of the plaintiff, under Ex.,A2, are not having subsisting right, title or interest and, therefore, the plaintiff will not get any right, title or interest, in the schedule property, that the transfer ,under Ex.,A2, is illegal and void transfer, that subordinate courts cannot avoid precedents, that since defendant no.,3 is very much available for the
Court, it would have issued notice to defendant no.,3 in IA no.,198/21, when the learned counsel for defendant no.,3 reported no instructions for defendant no.,3, that the signatures of defendant nos.,1 to 3 is very much available under Ex.,A6-GPA., dated 6-10-1993, and that therefore, the disputed signatures on the Vakalarnama and written stattement could have been sent for comparison with the admitted signatures of defendnat nos., 1 to 3, that the binding precendents relied upon by defendant no.,4 as stated in the written arguments filed on his behalf are not referred to and abide, it will amount to miscondut committing contempt of Court and that, therefore, it is prayed for 14 Of 40 dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff by awarding exemplary costs to DW1.
(b)The learned counsel for defendant no.,4, in respect of written arguments filed on behalf of defendant no.,4 relied on the judgments in the case of Gurbax Singh vs., Kartar Singh [AIR 1954
Bombay 305] (4), Mohammed Yousuf and another vs., D. Anand and another [AIR 1968 Bombay 112] (5), Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., vs., M/s., Kadbrotee Engineering Industries [AIR 1983 Bombay 1] (6), Supreme Court of India Narbada Devi Gupta vs., Birendra Kumar
Jaiswal and Kumar [AIR 2004 SC 175] (7), V. Satyavathi vs., P.
Venkataratnam [1988 (1) ALT 915] (8), Nevddasoni Sarojana vs.,
Ruddasani Venkat Narsaiah [AIR 2007 AP 50] (9), [2003 (6) ALT, 491] (10) , [2011 (4) ALT, 282] (11), [AIR 1999 SC 1441] (12), Suprement Court of India Vidhyadhar vs., Manik Rao [AIR 1999 SC 1341] (13), [2019 (8) SCC 701] (14), [2018 (8) SCC, 67] (15), [2003 (3) ALT 127] (16), [2005(2) ALT, 462] (17) , [2019 (5) SCJ, 606] (18), Girish Mittal and Pavati vs. Sundaram ( Contempt Petition (c) no., 928/2016 dated 26-04-2019) (19), [AIR 1972 SC, 2466], (20) [2011 (4) ALT, 746] (21), Janki Vashdeo
Bhojwani and another vs., Indusind Bank Ltd and others [2005 (2) SCC 217] (22), Union of India and others vs., Vasavi Cooperative
Housing Society [2014 (2) Supreme Court Cases 269] (23) and
Anand Chandra Pande vs., Kishore Mohan Tripathy [2004 (3) APLJ 1,
Para-14] (24) (parties name not given).
15 Of 40
B) ADMITTED FACTS: - (I)The total extent of the land schedule survey number is acres 16-35 guntas of late Yadgiri Ramaiah (father of defendant nos.,1 to 3) had cultivated the said land as protected tenant and he was granted ownership certificate for acres 7-32 guntas, out of acres 16-35 guntas under Section 38 E of the Act, on 15-05-1975, in file no., LRW/143/75,
dated 15-05-1975. As regards balance extent of acres 9-03 guntas (suit
property) is concerned, Yadgiri Ramaiah remained to be protected tenant and that after demise of Yadgiri Ramaiah, defendnat nos.,1 to 3 and late Yadagiri Balamma have succeeded to acres 7-33 guntas as owners and acres 9-03 guntas as protected tenants and that defendant nos.,1 to 3 together with their mother-Yadgiri Balamma executed Ex.A6 in favour of Nirupa Rani (who is mother of PW2) and G. Srinivas
Yadav and in respect of the said land they also got ownership rights under Exs.,A3 and A4. P. Nirupa Rani and G. Srinivas Yadav, GPA., holders of defendant no.,1 to 3 and late Yadgiri Balamma transferred acres 7-32 guntas, for which defendant nos.,1 to 3 got ownership certificate, under Section 38 E of the Act, in favour of the Prem Raj
Yadav (husband of P. Nirupa Rani) and brother-in-law of G. Srinivas
Yadav, under Ex.,B2, and Prem Raj Yadav along with Nirupa Rani, in turn, sold an extent of 7-32 guntas, in the suit survey number along with the land in survey no.,114, in an extent of acres 2-23 guntas, under, Ex.,B1 in favour of defendant no.,4, and defendant nos.,1 to 3 16 Of 40 and late Yadgiri Balamma, got ownership rights in respect of balance extent of acres 9-03 guntas (suit property), under Ex.,A3 and A4.
(C) FACTS IN TRANSFER OP NO.,273/2021 :-
(a)It is a matter of recrod that in the Transfer OP no.,273/2021, dated 9-7-2021, filed by defendant no.,4/DW1, while dismissing it, the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga
Reddy District held that since there is direction by the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP no.,458/2020, dated 22-01-2021 to dispose of the case as expediciously as possible and, therefore, no bias or motive or serious allegations like bribery can be attributed to the Officer for taking up the matter for speedy disposal, that too without any basis.
(b)It is also held in Tr.OP.no.,273/2021, dated 9-7-2021 by refering to a judgement of the Honorable Apex Court of India, wherein it is held that making such serious allegations against the Presiding
Officer and the entire Judiciary would attract the Contempt of Court.
(D) ORDER IN IA NOS., 197,198 AND 199 OF 2021 IN OS
NO.,1718 OF 2006, DATED 15-04-2021 PASSED BY THIS COURT :-
(a)(i)It is also a matter of record that while disposing of IA nos.,197,198 and 199 of 2021, dated 15-04-2021, it is held by this
Court that defendant nos.,2 and 3 have reported as dead and the case 17 Of 40 against them was abated, as died, as steps are not taken against the legal representatives of them, by the plaintiff.
(ii)Even the learned counsel for defendant nos.,1 to 3 filed memorandum, submitting that defendant no.,1 and the legal representatives of defendant nos.,2 and 3 are not responding to her and therefore, she has no instructions from defendant no.,1 and the legal representatives of the deceased defendant nos.,2 and 3.
(b)It is also a matter of record that the common written statement of defendant nos.,1 to 3, in the case, is admitting the claim of the plaintiff and in the entire evidence of PW2, there is no objection taken by defendant no.,4 or by his learned earlier counsel, on record, and defendant no.,4 proceeded with the cross examination of PW2 at length and it is only at the fag-end of the case, the applications are filed for sending the disputed signatures or thumb impressions of defendant nos.,1 to 3, particularly when defendant nos.,2 and 3 are no more.
(c)Even according to written statement of defendant no.,4, except denying that averments of the written statement of defendant nos.,1 to 3 as not correct, there is nothing in the written statement of defendant no.,4 that the written statement of defendnat nos.,1 to 3,
Vakalatnama, suit summons and interlocutory application notices filed
before the Court are not belonging to defendant nos.,1 to 3. Therefore,
18 Of 40 it cannot be said that there are disputed hand writings and signatures of defendant nos.,1 to 3 in the said documents.
(E)(1)(a)So far as Exs.,B1 to B4 are concerned, they are not disputed by the plaintiff through evidence of PW2, who is corr examined by the learned Advocate Commissioner.
(b)Ex.,B2 purchase of acres 7-32 guntas in the schedule survey number, by the vendor of DW1 contains about Ex.,A6-GPA., in favour of P. Nirupa Rani and G. Srinivas Yadav. The extent of the land purchased by the vendor of DW1 is out of total extent of acres 16-35 guntas, as admitted by DW1.
(c)Though, DW1 obtained Ex.,B1 over the property, in the suit survey number under Ex.,B2, and the land in survey no.,114 in an extent of acres 2-32 guntas, the purchase of land by the vendors of
DW1 is referring to Ex.,A6, under Ex.,B2. But, having purchased the land, under Ex.,B2, by the vendor of DW1, through Ex.,A6, now DW1 is questioning the same document stating that it is not a valid document, which in the opinion of this Court is not correct. No document is produced to show that the land purchased under Ex.,B2, in an extent of acres 7-32 guntas, is having separate boundaries from that of out of total extent of acres 16-35 guntas. Since the purchase of the land under Ex.,B2 is admitted by DW1 as it is from out of total extent of acres 16-35 guntas, it cannot be said that without referring to
Ex.,A6, which is for entire extent of acres 16-35 guntas, DW1 19 Of 40 purchased the said extent of acres 7-32 guntas from out of the total extent in the schedule survey number.
(d)(i)So far as admission of DW1 to DW3, with regard to
Ex.,A2 and denying Ex.,A1, in their written statement, is concerned, though defendant nos.,1 to 3 filed their written statement before the
Court, on 13-11-2006, and defendant no.,4 DW1 filed his written statement, on 20-11-2006, in the entire pleading of defendant no.,4, there is no specific denial of the admission made by defendant nos.,1 to 3 with regard to Ex.,A2, denying Ex.,A1.
(2)The facts that are deemed to have admitted by rules of pleadings
(i)Pleadings means plaintor written statement and an admission in pleadings means the admission of an averment by the opposite party. But, a denial, in general terms imposes on defendant no.,4 an specifically alleged by defendant nos.,1 to 3 in the written statement, denying Ex.,A1 and admitting Ex.,A2 and the same are not denied by defendant no.,4. Thus, defendant no.,4 who failed to deny the said facts is deemed to have admitted the facts which are alleged by defendant nos.,1 to 3, in their written statement. Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code says that every allegation of fact in the pleading, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications should be taken to be admitted, except as against persons under disability. Thus, the facts amitted by defendant nos.,1 to 3, in their written statement, are admissible against defendant no.,4, without proof.
20 Of 40
(iii)When the plaintiff did not choose to examine defendant nos.,1 to 3 (while alive of defendant nos.,2 and 3), as they admitted the case of the plaintiff, defendant no.,4 would have atleast sought for examination of them for their examination to speak that Ex.,A2 is false document and Ex.,A1 is genuine document, or to give a suggestion to that effect, which is not done by DW1.
(iv)PW1 did not come into witness box and his evidence was eschiewed. PW2 is examined in view of execution of Ex.,A7, by the plaintiff in favour of PW2. Ex.,A7 specifically contains about Ex.,A2 that the plaintiff purchased the schedule property from his vendors, under Ex.,A2, through their GPA., holders. Ex.,A2 specifically contains about Exs.,A3 and A4. Therefore, it cannot be said that PW2 is not knowing about the facts of the case and that the plaintiff should have come into witness box to speak about Exs.,A2 to A5. Thus, basing on
Ex.,A7 PW1 gave evidence before the Court.
(v)Ex.,A6-GPA., dated 6-10-1993 and Exs.,A3 and A4 are dated 17-07-2004 and 24-07-2004, respectively, and the execution of Ex.,A2 in favour of the plaintiff, over the schedule property, is dated 24-07-2004.
(vi)At this stage, it is just and necessary to reproduce the contents of Exs., A3 and A4, which are as follows : -
(a) Ex.,A3 contents:- ORDER 21 Of 40 “The claim of the Appellant has been examined with reference to the material available on record Act and Rules in force, which revealed that the one Y. Pullaiah was the P.T., over the land Ac.,16-35 guntas in Sy.No.116 of Kothwalguda (V). In the year 1975 while considering the case U/sec 38-E of the A.P.(T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act 1950 Y.Pullaiah found dead and his son-in-law was considered as
L.R., of deceased and granted Ownership Certificate U/sec.38-E of the
Tenancy Act by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer (LR) Tribunal in favour of Y.Rmanaiah to an extent of Ac.,7-32 guntas in Sy.No.116 of Kothwalguda (V) vide Reg.LRW/143/75, dated 15.05.1975. For the remaining area the petitioners who are Lrs of Y.Ramaiah filed claim for which the respondents have neither filed any objections nor a counter, which proved that the claim of Appellant is genuine and desirable for grant of Sale Certificate U/s 38-A of the A.P.(T.A) Tenancy and
Agricultural Land Act, 1950.
Accordingly the sale certificate in Form VI U/Rule.10 of Sec.38(6_ of Tenancy Act, 1950, is being issued in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.9-03 guntas in Sy.No.116 of Kothwalguda (V) Shamshabad (M) in favour of Appellants on deposit of sale price determined U/sec.38(2) of the Tenancy Act to an amount Rs.8,331/- (Rupees Eight Thousand
Three Hudnred and Thirty One) in shape of a Demand Draft in favour of the Revene Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District and submit the Demand Draft in this office together with the stamp papers equivalent to the existing stamp duty on date the said sale price that is
Rs.8,331/-.
(b) Ex.,A4 contents:- 22 Of 40 “Form -VI – Form of Certificate Under Sub Section (6) of Section 38 of
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Argicultural Lands Act, 1950. - No.,L/428/2002, dated 07-2004.
Whereas Yadagiri @ Ausha Ramaiah died per LRS 1) Yadagiri Bal
Raj S/o late Y. Ramaiah, (2) Y. Chandraiah S/o Y. Ramaiah, (3) Y.
Mallesh, S/o Ramaiah (4) Y. Balamma W/o late Ramaiah, R/o
Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is the protected tenant of the land specified below belonging to the land holder Syed Ahmed Hashan, R/o Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and whereas under the provisions of Sub
Section (5) of Section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and agricultural
Lands Act,1950, the protected tenant mentioned above was required to deposit and has deposited and amount of Rs.,8,331/ (Rupees eight thousand three hundred thirty one only) is shape of Demand Draft no.,549731, dated 20-07-2004 of SBH., Shamshabad, drawn in favour of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District as the price of the land; it is hereby certified that the said protected tenant
Yadagiri @ Ausha Ramaiah died per LRS (1) Yadagiri Bal Raj, S/o late
Y. Ramaiah, (2) Y. Chandraiah, S/o Y. Ramaiah, (3) Y. Mallesh, S/o
Ramaiah, (4) Y. Balamma, W/o late Ramaiah shall be deemed to be the purchaser of the land specified below under the provisions of the
Sub-Section (6) of Section 38 of the said Act.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
DistrictMandalVillageSurveyPoteAreaAssessBoundRemarks no.,no., orAcresmentaried Hissa 123456789
R.R.ShamKothwal116---9.0313.48---- Districtshabadgudaps.
23 Of 40
(vii)Thus, Exs.,A3 and A4 clearly go to show that Yadgiri Balraj and three others are as legal representatives to Yadgiri alias Ausha
Ramaiah and they are the protected tenants to the schedule property and, therefore, Exs.,A3 and A4 were issued in their favour. It is only after issuance of Exs.,A3 and A4, the plaintiff got Ex.,A2 in his favour, over the schedule property that actually if Exs.,A3 and A4 took place subsequent to Ex.,A2, the things would have been different.
(viii) Having knowing the fact of Ex.,A6, as on the date of
Ex.,B2, DW1 cannot say that the GPA., given, under Ex.,A6, is only to the extent of acres 7-32 guntas and not for total extent of acres 16-35 guntas.
(ix)(1)In case of Gurbax Sinlgh vs., Kartar Singh and others [(2) supra], it is held that in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the
Registration Act 1908, it will sell settled that one which sale deed is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. Ex.,A2 is prior to Ex.,A1.
(2)In the case of Ananthula Sudhakar vs., P. Buchi
Reddy (dead) by LRs., and others [(1) supra], it is held that if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possesed or enjoyed, in such case the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish the title there to will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title.
24 Of 40 (3)Even in the case of Narsimha Reddy vs., Suresh
Yadav and 8 others [(3) supra], (in the present case), it is held by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Talangana at
Hyderabad that when the land is an agricultural land, at the time when the respective parties alleaged to have purchased the schedule property, it is well settled that for the open land ‘possession follows title’.
(x)Since Ex.,A2 is is prior to Ex.,A1 and the schedule property is vacant property as Exs.,B5 to B9 are of no help to DW1, as that
Exs.,B5 and B6 are of the year 2007, DW1 did not file along with his written statement and Ex.,B6 was obtained after Ex.,A8 on that when
Exs.,B7 to B9 are obtained during the pendency of the suit. Further,
Exs.,B7 to B9 are not according to Ex.,A8-proceedings, as they did not disclose that the land in the schedule property is in ‘dispute’, when it is specifically mentioned under Ex.,A8-order that in the Revenue record it is to be recorded as disputed till the adjudication of the present case.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Exs.,B1 to B9 are of no help to defendant no.,4-DW1 to show that he is in possession of the schedule property since Ex.,A2 is prior to Ex.,A1-sale deed of DW1. Therefore, the sale deed of the plaintiff, under Ex.,A2, is valid, genuine and admissible document as per the Registration Act, Transfer of property
Act, Indian Contract, Indian Evidence Act and the Specific Relief Act.
(xi)(a)Had actually Ex.,A1 is prior to Ex.,A2, the things would have been different with regard to the plea of sale deed under 25 Of 40
Ex.,A2 as void, ficticious, collusive or not intended to be acted upon, has no role in the present case, as the plaintiff through the version of
PW2 sought for declaring Ex.,A1 is viod ab-initio and not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, the facts in the case of Vidhyadhar vs., Manik
Rao [(13) supra] and the facts of the present case are distinguisable on facts.
(b)Even in the case of Raja Ram vs., Jai Prakash Singh and others (14) supra, it is held that close relationship between the parties would not lead to presumption of undue influence, particularly, in a case where some only of the siblings. PW2 is son of the vendors under
Ex.,B1 and he is relative to the plaintiff GPA., holder no.,2 under
Ex.,B2, so also under Ex.,A2-GPA., holder no.,2. Since the admission of defendant nos.,1 to 3, in their the written statement with regard to
Ex.,A1 is not denied by DW1 in his written statemkent and, therefore, the said admission shall be taken into consideration, that Ex.,A1 is subsequent to Ex.,A2 and that, therefore, the judment relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in the case of Raja Ram vs., Jai
Prakash Singh and others (14) supra is of no help to defendant no.,4-
DW1 as the facts are distinguishable.
(c)As already discussed, though the evidence of PW1 is eschiewed from consideration, in view of Ex.,A7, which is prior to filing the suit, PW2 is knowing about Ex.,A2 and the proceedings under
Exs.,A3 and A4 and that, therefore, it cannot be said that the acts done 26 Of 40 in the case, as under Exs.,A2 to A4 and A7, are not known to PW2.
Therefore, the facts in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs., Indusind Bank Ltd and others [(22) supra] and the facts of the present case are distingusishable on facts, and, therefore, the said judgment is of no help to defendant no.,4-DW1.
(d)Since the plaintiff, through the evidence of PW2 established that Ex.,A2 is prior to Ex.,A1 and that the schedule property is open land and in such case the principle is that the ‘possession follows title’, the plaintiff through PW2 established his case as PW2 got Ex.,A7, from the plaintiff, over the schedule property and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and he must be non suited, particularly, in view of Ex.,A2 the title over the schedule property is in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the facts in the case of Union of India and others vs., Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society [(23) supra] and the facts of the present case are distinguishable on facts, and therefore, the said judgment is of no help to defendant no.,4-
DW1.
(e)In view of production of Exs.,A1 to A8, the plaintiff through the evidence of PW2 established his title and possession, over the schedule property as Ex.,A2 is prior to Ex.,A1, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff and PW2 are taking advantage of the weaknesses in the evidence of DW1 and DW2. Therefore, the facts in the case of Anand Chandra Pande vs., Kishore Mohan Tripathy [(24) 27 Of 40 supra] and the facts of the present case are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant no.,4-DW1, is of no help to DW1.
(xii)(a)Initially, in the year 1998 itself acres 7-32 guntas of land was purchased by the vendor of DW1, through Ex.,A6, through the GPA., holders of the original pattadars and he purchased the same under Ex.,B1 from the vendee, under Ex.,B1, there is no question of purchase of the remaining extent of the land in the same survey number, from the original Pattadars, itself, unless it is shown that the
GPA., given, under Ex.,A6, to the GPA., holders is cancelled, subsequently, before execution of Ex.,A2, as Ex.,A6 is given for the total extent of acres 16-35 guntas and it is known to DW1. Since
Exs.,B1 to B4, are not pertaining to the schedule property, PW2 admitted about the same. There is nothing in the cross examination of
PW2, specifically, suggetions to the effect that the written statement filed by defenant nos.,1 to 3, admitting the claim of the plaintiff, is false one.
(b)It is version of the PW2, in his cross examination, denying the suggestion given to him, that the authority to deal with the land in survey no.,116 given by defenant nos.,1 to 3 and Yadgiri
Balamma in favour of Nirupa Rani and G. Srinivas Yadav, under
Ex.,A6, was only in respect of acres 7-03 guntas of land and no authority granted to them under Ex.,A6 to deal with remaining extent 28 Of 40 of acres 9-03 guntas. But, Ex.,B2 clearly go to show about referring to
Ex.,A6. DW1, in his cross examination, deposed that while purchasing the property under Ex.,B1, he had verified the link documents and that the GPA., under Ex.,A6, was total extent of acres 16-35 guntas in the said survey number. Therefore, it cannot be said that DW1 is not knowing, at the time of Ex.,B1, that the total extent of land under
Ex.,A6 is not for acres 16-35 guntas. Had, actually, Ex.,A2 is subsequently to Ex.,A1 and Ex.,A6 is not for the total extent of acres 16-35 guntas, then it can be safely be concluded that Nirupa Rani and
G. Srinivas Yadav have no authority, under Ex.,A6, to sell the land under Ex.,A2.
(c)When it is the version of PW2, in his cross examination, as on the date of his cross examination by the learned Advocate
Commissioner, on 02-10-2018, that he was in possessiopn of the vacant schedule property, it is not suggested to PW2 denying such evidence of
PW2, in his cross examination. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that PW2 is in vacant possession of the schedule property as on the date of his cross examination by the learned Advocate Commissioner, on 02-10-2018.
(d)Since Exs.,B5 to B9 are of no help to DW1, not filling of rejoinder to the written statement of defedant no.,4 is of no consequence, as DW1 did not produce any documentary evidence that 29 Of 40 he constructed a water tank and compound wall in the schedule property.
(e)So far as the evidence of DW2 is concerned, in the chief examination he testified that he is cultivating the land of DW1 and, whereas, in the cross examination it is his version that defendant no.,4-DW1 is a lessese to DW2 for his lands in the survey nos.,114, 116, 117 and 36. DW2 is not knowing as to why the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants. The version of DW2 before the Court is that at the instance of defendant no.,4 he deposed that DW1 leased out the land to DW2. DW2 is not knowing as, to for how much extent of land the plaintiff filed the suit. According to DW2, the total extent of the land in survey no.,116 is of acres 16-00 guntas. But, when it is suggested to DW2 that at the instance of defendant no.,4-DW1, he deposed berfore the Court, it is denied by DW2. Thus, in view of the contrary version of DW2, it can not be said that he is knowing about the water tank, that the land of DW1 was leased out by DW1 to him and that there is common compound wall constructed by DW1 to the schedule property.
(f)Since Ex.,A2 and the original of Ex.,A6 are produced before the Court, through PW2, the version of PW2 is that he did not know where apart from Ex., A2 there is any proof to show that the consideration amount of Rs.,3,00,000/-was paid by the palintiff to
Nirupa Rani and G. Srinivas Yadav and that he did not know the said 30 Of 40 transaction is reflected in Income Tax Return or not, is of no help to defendant no.,4. If the said transaction is in the Income Tax Returns, it is for the concerned department to take steps, perticularly, when an
Ex.,A2 shows that the consideration amount is paid under it and defendant nos.,1 to 3 admitted the same.
(xiii) For the foregoing discussion, in the veiw of the version of
PW2, suppoerted by Exs.,A1 to A8 documentary eveidence that defendant nos., 1 to 3 filed their written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and the same is not denied by defendant no.,4 in his written statement and no effort is made for summoning defendant nos.,1 to 3 before the Court to give suggestion to them, in support of the case of defendant no.,4-DW1 and that Ex.,A1 is subsequent to
Ex.,A2, this Court is of the opinion that the sale deed under Ex.,A1 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed for. Issue nos.,(i) and (iii) framed on 01-03-2007 are, accordingly, answered against defendant no.,4-DW1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
(II)Additional issue no.,(i) framed on 15-03-2021, re-casted on 30-03- 2021, and additional issue no.,1 framed on 30-03-2021 : (1) (a)
Since both the issues are connect to each other, they are dealt with together.
(b)Inview of the evidence of PW2, by producing Exs.,A2 to A8, since the admission of defendant nos., 1 to 3, in their written 31 Of 40 statement, denying Ex.,A1 and admitting Ex.,A2, and that Dw1, having known about Ex.,A6, pursuant to Exs., B2 and B1, cannot deny Ex.,A6 and that the contents of Ex.,A2, which is prior to Ex.,A1, which is marked through Pw2, inview of the version of PW2, is proved, inview of the judgments in the case of Ananthula Sudhakar vs., P. Buchi
Reddy (dead) by Lrs., and others and Gurbax Singh vs., Kartar Singh and others [(1) and (2) Supra]. Therefore, the facts in the case of (4),
Gurbax Singh vs., Kartar Singh [AIR 1954 Bombay 305], (5)
Mohammed Yousuf and another vs., D. Anand and another [AIR 1968
Bombay 112], (6) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., vs., M/s., Kadbrotee
Engineering Industries [AIR 1983 Bombay 1], (7) Supreme Court of
India Narbada Devi Gupta vs., Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and Kumar [AIR 2004 SC 175], (8) V. Satyavathi vs., P. Venkataratnam [1988 (1) ALT 915], (9) Nevddasoni Sarojana vs., Ruddasani Venkat Narsaiah [AIR 2007 AP 50], are distinguishable on facts of the present case and, therefore, the said judgments are no help to DW1.
(2)Since defendant nos., 1 to 3 supported the claim of the plaintiff, in their written statement, and there is nothing in the written statement of defendant no.,1, specifically, denying the said averments of defendant nos., 1 to 3, in their written statement, no adverse inference can be drawn, in this regard, as when defendant nos., 1 to 3 are not examined by the plaintiff, to dis credit Ex.,A2, by mere giving suggestion to defendant nos., 1 to 3 by summoning them before
Court, would have served the purpose. But, Dw1 did not choose to 32 Of 40 summon defendant nos., 1 to 3 to deny their averments in thier written statement, supporting the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgments in the case of (10) [2003 (6) ALT, 491], (11) [2011 (4)
ALT, 282], (12) [AIR 1999 SC 1441], (13) Suprement Court of India
Vidhyadhar vs., Manik Rao [AIR 1999 SC 1341] [(10 to (13) supra] are distinguishable on facts and they are of no help to defendant no.,4 -DW1.
(3)Therefore, inview of the version of PW2, supported by
Exs.,A2 to A8, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved the authenticity and validity of Ex.,A2 and Ex.,A6. Thus, the issues are, accordingly, answered against defendant no.,4-Dw1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
(III)Additional Issue no., (ii) is framed on 15-03-2021 and recasted on 30-03-2021 : (a) In view of the judgment in the case of
Ananthula Sudhakar vs., P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs., and others [AIR 2008 (SC) 2333] and Gurbax Sinlgh vs., Kartar Singh and others [(1) and (2) supra] Ex.,A2 is prior to Ex.,A1 and since the schedule property is vacant agricultural land, that Exs., B5 to B9 are of no help to DW1 and that in the case of open land title follows possession, the plaintiff through the version of PW2 has impeached that Ex.,A1 is of no help to DW1. Since, the plaintiff is not party to Ex.,A1, the plaintiff sought for declaring Ex.,A1 as null and void, without seeking any declaration to his own title. Therefore, the plaintiff, through the 33 Of 40 version of PW2 supported by the documentary evidence under Exs.,A2 to A8 by proved Exs.,A2 and A6 impeached Ex.,A1. Further, DW1 himself knowing about Ex.,A6 got Ex.,B1 after Ex.,B2.
(b)Additional issue no.,(ii) framed on 15-03-2021, which was recasted on 30-03-2021 is, accordingly, answered against defendant no.,4-Dw1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
(IV)Additional issue no.,(iii) framed on 15-03-2021 : (a) As already discussed, defendant no.,4-Dw1 did not deny the pleading of defendant nos., 1 to 3 about admitting Ex.,A2 and denying Ex.,A1, in the written statement filed by defendant no.,4-DW1 , subsequent to the written statement of defendant nos.,1 to 3.
(ii)When the admission of defendant nos., 1 to 3 is against A1, it is for defendant no.,4-DW1 to take appropriate proceedings against defendant nos., 1 to 3 and that defendant no.,1-DW1 cannot question
Ex.,A2, executed prusuant to Exs.,A3, A4 and A6, particularly, when it is prior to Ex.,A1. Since the pleading of defendant nos., 1 to 3, in their written statement, is not denied by defendant no.,4-Dw1 in his written statement, there is no question of giving evidence by defendant nos., 1 to 3 with regard to their admission, in view of pleading in their their written statement and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the pleading of defendant nos., 1 to 3 in their written statement is false and incorrect, particularly, when defendant no.,4-Dw1 failed to 34 Of 40 examine none of them, in regard to Exs., A1 and A2, for proving
Ex.,A1.
(iii)For the foregoing discussion, additional issue no.,(iii) framed, on 15-03-2021, is, accordingly, answered against defendant no.,4-Dw1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
(V)Additional issue nos.,(iv), (v) and (vi) framed on 15-03-2021 : (i)
Since issue nos.,(iv), (v) and (vi) are connected to each other, they are dealt with together.
(ii)As already discussed on additional issue no.,(iii), framed on 15-03-2021, that the admission of defendant nos., 1 to 3, in their pleading, is not specifically denied by defendant no.,4 and PW1 in his written statement, the pleading of defendant nos., 1 to 3 , with regard to Exs.,A1 and A2, are admitted facts and no adverse inference can be drawn against defendant nos., 1 to 3 for not entering into witness box.
(iii)Denying the identity of defendant nos., 1 to 3 by defendant no.,4 is not there in his pleading, in the written statement filed by him. For the first time defendant no.,4-DW1 came before the court by filing I.A.nos., 197, 198 and 199 of 2021 for sending Vakalathnama and written statement of defendant nos., 1 to 3 with their admitted signature under Ex.,A6. Therefore, the said contention of defendant no.,4-Dw1 cannot be accepted, without any pleading in his written statement, deny the thumb impressions and signatures on the vakalatnamaa and written statement.
35 Of 40
(iv)Defendant no.,4 – Dw1 did not file any counter claim questioning Ex.,A2 and claiming relief under Ex.,A2, in the case, when prior notice given by the plaintiff by filing the suit that Ex.,A2 is prior to Ex.,A1.
(v)Since defendant nos., 1 to 3 admitted the claim of the plaintiff in their written statement and it is not denied by defendant no.,4-DW1 specifically and, therefore, there is no question of proving fraud or undue influence in the version of PW2, with regard to Ex.,A1, by the plaintiff. Hence the facts in the case of Raja Ram vs., Jai Prakash
Singh and others [2019 (8) SCC 701 (14) Supra] and the facts of the present case are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Raja Ram vs., Jai Prakash Singh and others [2019 (8)
SCC 701 (14) Supra] is of no help to defendant no.,4-Dw1.
(vi)By taking into consideration of Ex.,A6, Exs.,B1 and B2 are brought into existence as Ex.,B2 is showing the same. Therefore, defendant no.,4-DW1 cannot go against Ex.,A6 and say that it is invalid document. Basing on Ex.,A2 and inview of the documentary evidence under Ex.,A2 and A8, the plaintiff through the version of PW2 is claiming lawful title and possession over the schedule property.
Therefore, basing on Exs.,A2 to A8 it cannot be said that the vendor’s under Ex.,A2 have no right , title or interest in the schedule property and the plaintiff did not acquire the same over it, pursuant to Ex.,A2.
36 Of 40
(vii)When defendant nos., 1 to 3 filed their written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and that there is no pleading that the signture on the Vakalathnama and the written statement filed by defendant nos., 1 to 3 are not in their thumb impression or signatue, in the written statement of defendant no.,4, there is no question of seeking the said documents sending for comparison and giving notice to defendant no.,1, when memo is filed by the learned counsel for defendant no.,1 that she has no instructions from defendant no.,1 and it is for the defendant no.,4-DW1 to summon them for their examination in support of the pleading of DW1, while defendant nos., 2 and 3 are alive, and it is not for the plaintiff to examine them for proving Ex.,A2 when there is already their pleading of admitting it. Thus, the facts in the case of [2018 (8) SCC, 67], [2003 (3) ALT 127], [2005(2) ALT, 462], [2019 (5) SCJ, 606], Girish Mittal and Pavati vs. Sundaram ( Contempt Petition (c) no., 928/2016 dated 26-04-2019) [AIR 1972 SC, 2466], [2011 (4) ALT, 746] [(15 to 21) supra] and the facts of the present case are distinguishable on facts and they are of no help to defendant no.4-DW1. Additional issue nos., (iv), (v) and (vi) are, accordingly, answered in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.,4-DW1.
(VI) Issue nos.,(ii) and (iv) framed on 01-03-2007:-
(a)Since both the issues are connected to each other, they are dealt with together.
37 Of 40
(b)In view of discussion on issue nos.,(i) and (iii) framed on 01-03-2007, additional issue nos.,(i) to (vi) framed on 15-03-2021,
additional issues nos., 1 and 2 framed on 13-03-2021, which were
recasted on 30-03-2021 and additional issue no., 1 framed on 30-03- 2021, this Court of the opinion that the plaintiff, in view of the version of PW2 and supported by Exs.,A2 to A8, that though there is no dispute about Exs., B1 to B4, that Exs.,B5 to B9 are of no help to defendant no.,4-DW1, holding the said issues in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.,4 – DW1, holding that in view of Ex.,A2, which is prior to Ex.,A1, in view of admission of defendant nos.,1 to 3 with regard to Ex.,A2, in their pleading, which is not specifically denied by defendant no.,4-DW1, in his written statement, which is filed subsequent to the written statement of defendant no.,1 to 3, that the vakalatanama and written statement filed by them , about the thumb impression /signatures, is not denied by DW1 in his written statement that since ‘title follows possession’, in the case of open land, and that in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, Ex.,A2 is prevailing over subsequent document of Ex.,A1, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved his possesssion over the schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit, and that in view of the interference by defendant no.,4-DW1, over the schedule property with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of the equitable and discretionary injunction against defenant 38 Of 40 no.,4-DW1. Issue nos.,2 and 4 framed on 01-03-2007 are, accordingly, answered in favour of the plaintiff and against defenant no.,4-DW1.
(VII)Issue no.,(v) framed on 01-03-2007, additional issue no.,(vii) framed on 15-03-2021 and additional issue no.,(ii) framed on 30-03- 2021, in view of the discussion on issue nos., (i) to (iv) framed on 01- 03-2007, issue nos.,(i) to (vi) framed on 15-03-2021, additional issue nos.,(i) and (ii) framed on 15-03-2021, which were recasted on 30-03- 2021 and additional issue no.,1 framed on 30-03-2021, holding them against defendant no.,4-DW1 and in favour of the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for grant of the relief as prayed for, as the version of DW1 and DW2 and the written arguments, supplementary written arguments, filed on behalf of DW1 and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for DW1 are of no help to DW1.
7.In the result the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs declaring the sale deed document no.,7438/2005, dated 27-06-2006 (Ex.,A1) executed by defendant nos.,1 to 3 in favour of defendant no.,4-DW1, in respect of schedule property, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and by granting perpetual injunction restraining defendant no.,4-DW1, his agents, nominees, etecetera, from interfering, including the dispossession, with the possession of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
( Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of July, 2021.)
FAC IX ADDL., SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
L.B. NAGAR, R.R DISTRICT.
39 Of 40
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff: For Defendants:
PW1 : G. Suresh Yadav (eschewed) DW1 : V. Narsimha Reddy
PW2 : P. Sai Prasad Yadav DW2 : Venkat Rami Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
Ex.,A1 : Copy of sale deed document no.,7438/2005, dated 27-06-2005 executed by Yadgiri Balraj and 2 others in favour of Veni Reddy Narsimha Reddy.
Ex.,A2 : Copy of saale deed document no.,3645/2004, dated 24-7-2004 executed by Yadgiri Balraj and 3 others represented by their GPA holders -P. Nirupa Rani and another in favour of G. Suresh Yadav.
Ex.,A3 : Order of the Revenue Divion of the proceedings no.,L/4/428/2002, dated 17-7-2004.
Ex.,A4 : Form no.,VI, No.,L/428/2002, dated 21- 07-2004.
Ex.,A5 : Proceedings no.,B/1430/2004 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District dated 02-09-2004.
Ex.,A6 : GPA., document no., 2029/1993, dated 6-10-1993 executed in between Yadgiri Balraju and 3 others and Smt., P. Nirupa Rani.
Ex.,A7 : Copy of Agreement of sale cum GPA document no.,9208/2006,
dated 26-07-2006 executed by G. Suresh Yadav in favour of P. Sai
Prasad Yadav.
Ex.,A8 : Xerox copy of Appeal proceedings of Collector -I, Ranga Reddy District, Case no.,D1/382/2012,
dated 24-09-2016 between G. Suresh Yadav and SGDC and
RDO Chevella Division and 5 others.
40 Of 40
For Defendants: -
Ex.,B1 : Certified copy of sale deed documetn no.,3468/2003,
dated 10-11-2003 executed by Smt., P. Boina Niroopa Rani
and another in favour of V. Narsimha Reddy.
Ex.,B2 : Certified copy of sale deed document no., 464/1998,
dated 31-03-1998 executed by Yadgiri Balraj and 3 others
represented by their GPA holder- Niroopa Rani and another in favour of P. Prem Raj Yadav.
Ex.,B3 : Certified copy of sale deed document no.,1877/2002,
dated 13-05-2002, executed by C. Srinivas Reddy and 4 others
in favour of P. Niroopa Rani.
Ex.,B4 : Certified copy of sale deed document no.,1879/2002,
dated 13-05-2002 executed by Gandham Jangaiah and 2 others
represented by their GPA holder- Rajesh Patel and another in favour of Smt., P. Niroopa Rani.
Ex.,B5 : Pass book (title deed) stands in the name of V. Narsimha Reddy
Ex.,B6 : Pattadar pass book stands in the name of V. Narsimha Reddy
Ex.,B7 : Pahani for the year 2013-2014. Ex.,B8 : Pattadar Adangal Pahani dated 30-01-2014. Ex.,B9 : Pattadar Adangal Pahani dated 10-03-2016.
FAC IX ADDL., SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
L.B. NAGAR, R.R DISTRICT.