APCH0A0001782009
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
PILER.
PRESENT: ZIAUDDIN SHAIK,
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Piler.
Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.
O.S. No.90 of 2009
Between :
1. Attar Syed Basha (Died)
2. Attar Khaja Khizar, S/o Syed Basha, age 42 years,
3. Smt A.S. Beebijan, W/o Syed Basha, age 65 years
Nos.2 & 3 are R/at LBS Road, Piler Post & Mandal, Chittoor District.
4. Smt S. Khamar Taj, W/o Ahammad Ali, age 45 years, R/at D.No.20-219/1, Jailkhana Street, Mittoor, Chittoor Town and District.
5. Smt S. Abidha, W/o Jahawar, age 38 years, R/at D.No.2-1580, LBS Road, Piler Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.
6. Smt S. Salma, W/o Chand Basha, age 36 years, Residing at D.No.21-140, Nanbala Street, Punganur Post, Chittoor District.
7. Smt S. Shabana, W/o Jaffar, age 33 years, R/at D.No.7-67, Mazjeed Street, Aragonda, Thavanamapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are added as legal heirs of deceased/ 1st plaintiff Vide I.A.No.360/2017, Dt:15-06-2017. ….Plaintiffs
And : Avula Jyotheeswar Reddy, S/o Sidda Reddi, aged 48 years, business and Cultivation, R/at D.No.2-312, Chittoor Road, Piler Post & Mandal, Chittoor District. .… Defendant
This suit is presented on 21.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Chinna Reddeppa, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri Y. Rajnendra Babu, Counsel for Defendant and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
2
:: J U D G M E N T ::
01. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the relief of declaration of Registered sale deed, dt:16-03-2006 in respect of plaint schedule property is null and void.
02. The plaint schedule property is a dry land in an extent of Ac.0.12 ½ cents situated in Sy.No.446-3 at Piler village & Mandal, Chittoor District.
03. The case of the plaintiffs in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property. Prior to 16-03-2006 the defendant approached him. The plaintiff in need of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and he asked money to the defendant. On 16-03- 2006 the defendant obtained registered sale deed from the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.12,500/- in respect of suit schedule property by mis- representation and with dishonest intention. But the possession was not yet delivered and no consideration is passed to the plaintiff. On 20-03-2006 the plaintiff took Rs.2,50,000/- as loan from the defendant agreed to discharge the same within 3 years. In evidence, an agreement was executed by the defendant. Prior to 04-12-2008 the plaintiff expressed his willingness to discharge the above amount along with interest and demanded the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On 04-12-2008 the defendant, his wife and one Jabbar Saheb came to his house and took the above agreement from him. But, they did not return it.
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
3
On that he approached the police, the police advised him to approach civil court. The said registered sale deed is nominal document and he issued a legal notice. The defendant filed a suit against him for specific performance of contract vide O.S.No. 136/2008. Hence, this suit.
04. The defendant filed his written statement and he denied the averments of the plaint and contend that the plaintiff received the consideration of Rs.12,500/- on 16-03-2006 and executed sale deed in his favour and also delivered the possession. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and he never executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant and one
Kahmbam Renuka entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff herein on 12-02-2007 for a land in an extent of Ac. 0.25 cents situated at Piler and the plaintiff received Rs.9,000/- in an advance and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within 10 months from 12.02.2007. but, the plaintiff failed to perform his contract as such, a suit Vide o.S.No.136/2008 is filed and this suit is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit.
05.On consideration of both rival contentions this Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of Regd. Sale deed, dt:16-03-2006 as null and void ?
2. Whether the un-registered edurugadi agreement,
dt:20-06-2006 is Valid, genuine and is enforceable
under law?.
3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
4
4. Whether the plaint schedule is correct ?.
5. To what relief ?
06. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Thereafter, the sole plaintiff died, as such the plaintiffs 2 to 7 are added as the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff as per orders Vide I.A.No.360/2017, dt:15-06-2017.
07.The 2nd plaintiff himself is examined as PW.2. Initially the evidence of
PW.3 is filed, but PW.3 did not turn up before the court as such, his evidence was eschewed from the record. On behalf of defendant he himself is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B.1.
08. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments.
09. In order to avoid repetitions, this court feels to answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 altogether.
In- Re-issues Nos.1 and 2 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration
of Regd. Sale deed, dt:16-03-2006 as null and void ?
2. Whether the un-registered edurugadi agreement,
dt:20-06-2006 is Valid, genuine and is enforceable
under law?.
Analysis:
Admitted facts :
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
5
10. On consideration of both rival contentions it is an admitted fact that, the deceased 1st plaintiff was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he executed Ex.A.1 sale deed in favour of the defendant on 16-03-2006. Further it is an un-disputed fact that the defendant got filed a suit Vide O.S.No.136/2008 for the relief of specific performance of contract against the deceased /1st plaintiff.
11. The contention of the plaintiff is that no consideration is passed under Ex.A.1 to the plaintiff, the defendant approached him and asked to sell the schedule property, then the 1st plaintiff asked him to provide loan of
Rs.2,50,000/-, on that the defendant lent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 20-03-2006 and without any consideration the defendant obtained Ex.A.1 sale deed on 16-03-2006 and the defendant executed an un-registered edurugadi agreement in favour of the 1st plaintiff, but prior to 04-12-2008 the defendant, his wife and one Jabbar Saheb came and took the said agreement from him. Per contra, the contention of the defendant is that the consideration is passed under Ex.A.1 and this suit is not maintainable.
12.Since this suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration to declare Ex.A.1 sale deed as null and void, now the plaintiff has to prove and establish that the defendant obtained Ex.A.1 sale deed (EX.B.1 is Original sale deed of Ex.A.1) by mis-representation and playing fraud and no consideration is passed under Ex.A.1 to the plaintiff. Now, the
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
6 burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove and establish his case.
13.To discharge his burden the deceased 1st plaintiff is examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and one more witness is examined as PW.2. The deceased 1st plaintiff filed his examination in chief affidavit which is replica of plaint where he had reiterated the averments of the plaint. He was cross examined. During his cross examination the original registered sale deed dt:18-03-2006 is marked as Ex.B.1. PW.1 categorically admitted that in EX.B.1 it is mentioned as possession was delivered to the defendant and he received consideration of Rs.12,500/- boundaries were also mentioned in it. He again says that he did not receive any sale consideration under Ex.B.1 and later he denied the suggestions.
14. Further, PW.1 deposed that he does not remember the date on which the defendant came to him and gave Rs.2,50,000/- on interest basis and no document is reduced into writing for the said debt. But, the defendant denied the contention of the plaintiff. PW.2 who is son of PW.1 he also deposed in the same lines as deposed by PW.1.
15. Admittedly, Ex.B.1 sale deed is a registered document. Admittedly,
Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.1 are one and the same as Ex.A.1 is a certified copy of
Ex.B.1. On perusal of Ex.B.1 which is a registered sale deed dt:16-03- 2006, where in it is recited as the deceased/1st plaintiff sold the plaint
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
7 schedule property to the defendant for consideration of Rs.12,500/- on 16-03-2006 and he received the sale consideration, thereafter he executed
Ex.B.1 sale deed in his favour. Since, Ex.B.1 is a registered document there is a presumption with regard to its genuineness: The Hon’ble Apex court in Hemlatha (died) by LRs Vs Tukaram (died) by LRs-2026 INSC- 82 where Hon’ble Apex court at Para No.31 as follows :
It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a “sham”. Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead)
Through Lrs. and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727, and Rattan Singh and Ors. v.
Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300, this Court reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.
16. In view of above decision now the plaintiffs have to prove and establish that no consideration is passed under Ex.A.1. To prove the same except PWs.1 and 2 no one is examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
8
Admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 are father and son. On perusal of Ex.B.1 one Raja
Reddy and abdul khadar acted as Attestors of Ex.B.1. If really, no consideration is passed under Ex.B.1 to the deceased plaintiff the same might be known to the attestors of Ex.B.1. But, the plaintiffs failed to examine any one of the attestors of Ex.B.1. Moreover, as per Sec.92 of
Indian Evidence Act the documentary evidence will prevail over oral evidence and exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence. In view of Sec.92 of Indian Evidence Act, receitals of Ex.B.1 will prevail over oral evidence of plaintiffs.
17.Since in Ex.B.1 it is clearly recited as the consideration of Rs.12,500/- was received by PW.1 as such, it is held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that no consideration is passed under Ex.B.1 to PW.1.
Hence, it is held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that no consideration is passed under Ex.B.1 to PW.1 and failed to rebutt the presumption.
18. The plea of the plaintiff is that on 20-03-2006 the defendant lent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to him and executed Ex.A.4 agreement in his favour. On perusal of Exs.A.2 and A.3 which are only legal notice and un- served postal cover. The defendant denied about execution of Ex.A.4 agreement.
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
9
19. The plaintiff in his plaint pleaded that on 04-12-2008 the defendant , his wife and one Jabbar Saheb came to his house and took Ex.A.4 agreement from him, but they di-d not return it and he approached the police, on the advise of the police he filed the present suit. Now the plaintiffs have to prove and establish that the defendant lent an amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- to PW1 and executed Exhibit A4 agreement in his favour on 20.03.2006. To prove the said fact, except PW1 and PW2, no one is examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. On perusal of plaint, the plaintiffs took a plea that on 04.12.2008, the defendant, his wife and one M. Jabbar saheb came to his house and took Exhibit A4 agreement for calculation of interest, but they did not return it, on that he approached the police, on the advice of the police he got filed the present suit. It shows that by the time of filing of the suit Exhibit A4 was not in the possession of Plaintiffs. But during pendency of the suit Exhibit A4 was filed by way of document petition and this court received the same. However there is no pleading in the plaint how the plaintiffs secured Exhibit A4 which is in the possession of the defendant as alleged by the plaintiffs. There is no plea or explanation in the plaint, how PW1 got Exhibit A4 agreement from the hands of The defendant.
20. During course of cross examination of PW1, he deposed that due to intervention of the police and CI he got back Exhibit A4 from DW1.
However there is no evidence to prove and establish the same. Moreover
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
10 there is no plea with respect to it in the plaint. The defendant is examined himself as DW1 and he was cross examined broadly but he did not admit about execution of Exhibit A4. If really Exhibit A4 was taken by the defendant, his wife and one Jabbar sahib, the plaintiffs should have taken steps to get back it, like presentation of a police report against them.
21. On perusal of entire evidence of the plaintiffs, PW1 had not filed any documentary proof to show and establish that he approached the police and presented a report against DW1, his wife and one Jabbar saheb for illegally obtaining Exhibit A4 from the possession of PW1 and retained it to return Exhibit A4 agreement. No police personnel is examined on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove and establish that due to intervention of the police
Exhibit A4 was obtained by PW1 from DW1. What prevented to the plaintiffs to examine any police personnel to prove their case. The reasons are best known to the plaintiffs for not examining them.
22. On perusal of Exhibit A4, it is recited as the defendant lent an amount of Rs 2,50,000/- to PW1 on 20.03.2006 and he already obtained a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2006 with regard to the plaint schedule property, after repayment of the entire debt along with interest, he will execute a registered sale deed in favour of PW1 or any other person on his behalf. Admittedly on perusal of Exhibit A4, PW2 who is son of PW1 acted as an attestor. However the defendant denied about execution of Exhibit
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
11
A4. Further, PW1 deposed that one Jabbar saheb also accompanied DW1 while taking Exhibit A4 from his possession. But the said Jabbar sahib was not examined though his examination in chief was filed as PW3. The reasons are best known to the plaintiffs for not examining the said Jabbar sahib. The evidence of Jabbar sahib is the best piece of evidence in this case. In the absence of evidence of Jabbar Sahib and not taking any criminal action against defendant, it is held that an adverse inference is to be drawn against the contention of the plaintiffs as per section 114(g) of
Indian Evidence Act. Hence it is held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that Exhibit A4 was executed by the defendant.
23. Moreover, The plaintiffs relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
in between Kaliaperumal vs Rajagopal, AIR 2009 SC 2122 where
Hon'ble Apex Court held that non payment of consideration renders the
sale deed is invalid despite registration. However here in this suit, the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish about non payment of consideration under Exhibit A1 as such the said decision is noway helpful to the case of the plaintiffs. Further the plaintiffs relied on another decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in between Vidyadhar Vs.Manik Rao, where Hon'ble Apex
Court held that where the execution is admitted but consideration is denied, the burden shifts to the vendee. On going through the decision the said suit is pertaining to mortgagee deed but not about registration of sale deed and the facts of both suits are different from each other as such the said
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
12 decision is also no way helpful to the case of plaintiffs.
24. Moreover, the plaintiffs relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in, Tulasi Vs. Chandrika Prasad, where it is held that the real intention of the parties determines whether a transaction is sale or mortgage, they also relied on another decision that is Bhoju Mandal vs debnath Bhagath, where it is held that if there is a condition for reconveyance, the transaction may be treated as mortgage and another decision in Pandit Chunchun
Jha Vs shaikh Ebadath Ali, where it was held that substance of transaction prevails over form, surrounding circumstances must be considered. Further, the plaintiffs relied on a decision of S.P. Chengalraya
Naidu vs Jagannath, where it was held that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and transactions and another decisionA.V.Papayya Sastri Vs.
Government of A.P. where it was held that a judgment or document obtained by fraud is nullity in law. However the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that Exhibit B1 sale deed was obtained by DW1 by fraudulent means and misrepresentation as such the decisions relied by the plaintiffs are no way helpful to this case.
25. Moreover the plaintiffs relied on a decision of Narandas Karsondas
Vs. S.A. Kamtam where it is held that transfer of ownership is not complete without intention of delivery of possession and another decision that is K.J
Nathan Vs. S.V. Maruthi Rao. Where a transaction is mortgage in substance, borrower retains a right to redeem. Another decision in Prem
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
13
Singh Vs. Birbal, where it is held that a void document can be ignored but if it is cloud's title, it must be cancelled and another decision I.S Sikandar vs
Subramani where it is held that when validity of agreement itself is under challenge, suit for specific performance cannot succeed. However, The plaintiffs failed to prove and establish about execution of Exhibit A4 and non-passing of consideration under Exhibit B1 as such, the said decisions are noway helpful to the case of the plaintiffs.
26. Moreover, the plaintiffs contended that the possession was not yet delivered. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property is a vacant site and when the disputed property is a vacant site, the principle is that the possession follows title. Since Exhibit B1 shows the title of defendant as such, the possession will be with DW1, but not with the plaintiffs. On perusal of Ex.B.1 wherein it is clearly recited as the possession of plaint schedule property was delivered to DW.1. Hence it is held that the plaintiffs also failed to prove and establish that they are in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In these circumstances it is held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that Exhibit A4 was executed by the defendant.
27. In view of above discussion it is held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that no consideration was passed under Exhibit B1 sale deed and the defendant executed Exhibit A4 agreement in favour of PW1
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
14 as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for. Accordingly Issue numbers 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs.
28. In Re- Issue No. 3 :
Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
29. This Court has framed the issue relating to Limitation of the suit. On perusal of Exhibit B1, it was executed on 16.03.2006 and this suit is filed on 16.03.2009 and as per Section 12(1) of Limitation Act, the first day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the suit for declaring the document as null and void is to be filed within 3 years from the date when the right to sue first accrued. It shows that the suit is filed within 3 years from the date of execution of
Exhibit B1 as such it is held that the suit is filed within limitation period and not barred by limitation. Accordingly Issue No. 3 is answered.
30. Issue No. 4: Whether the plaint schedule is correct ?.
31. This court has framed about Correctness of plaint schedule. However there is no dispute with regard to plaint schedule. So it is held that the plaint schedule is true and correct. Accordingly issue is answered.
32. To what relief ?
33. While answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 it is held that the plaintiffs failed to prove and establish that Exhibit A4 was executed by the defendant and no
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
15 consideration is passed under Exhibit B1, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
34. In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of MAY, 2026.
Sd/- Ziauddin Shiak,
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Piler.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For PLAINTIFFS: For DEFENDANTS:
P.W.1: Attar Syed Basha/ 1st PlaintiffDW.1: A. Jyotheeswar Reddy
P.W.2: A. Khaja Kazeer
P.W.3: Jabbar Saheb (eschewed)
FOR DEFENDANT :- NIL
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex. A1 / The Certified copy of Regd. gift settlement deed, dt: 16.03.2006.
Ex. A2/ Office Copy of the legal notice, dt: 22.12.2008
Ex. A3 / Un-served postal cover
Ex. A4 / Edurugeda Agreement to the Regd. Sale deed, dt: 20-03-2006
For DEFENDANTS :-
Ex. B1 / Original Register sale deed, dt: 16-03-2006.
Sd/- Ziauddin Shiak,
PCJ (Jr.D.), Piler.
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
16
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.D), Piler. O.S.No.90/2009, Dt: 14-05-2026
18