Dismissed

T Saraswathi, Nalgonda Dist v. Sama Pruthviraj, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023SA/106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second appeal filed by a seller against a buyer who sought a perpetual injunction based on an unregistered agreement of sale. The High Court dismissed the appeal at the threshold, holding no substantial question of law existed as unregistered agreements cannot establish title against registered purchasers.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admissibility itself without costs.

T Saraswathi, Nalgonda Dist Vs Sama Pruthviraj… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

,
\r
\r

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR T AT HYDJREABITTE^{OF TELANGANA} "ffi |36 I.ll,','i'"H,?H-?i +,,X?

t32

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶7

SEcoNDAPPEAL NO :1 060F2017

¶8

Appeal Under Sectior 100 of C.p.C against lhe Judgment and Decree Dated: 2'_6_2'16made in A.S No. ::; i:;;i i# i# i-i!1ff "Ti[^IH;"TH ff ;J l*:: or the court or the Principar Junior civir Judse nans" neodrD].',,t#:11'r"lj:erile

¶9

Between:

¶10

t ?";e#:'fi r)fl^,,i;, li", j:ii,il?, rA%? ol"?,,"1.",,,^{o cc: Hou s e wire,}

¶11

AND

¶12

...APPELLANT,/RESPoNDENT_1/PLAINTTFF

¶13

Sama pruthvirai, S/o. B aged 50 vears, Rl/o' H.No. 18-7-742, Our

¶14

srdecowtipura, Hvoo"#!1j'

¶15

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT.3

¶16

'5IH'6?R:X:XJ3,.T.HU?[#"cff J,:i:'df ss;,il31][?.;#3ffi 3r,,o

¶17

RayakuntaMaila Reddy (died), -

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶19

1& 2 I.A. N 10 201 P OF 2 17

¶20

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances srated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned judgment and decree in A.S.No.286 of 2012 on the fite XIV Additionar District and sessions Judge, Rangareddy District in reversing the iudgment^and decree in o.s.No. 667 0f 2oo1 0n the fire of the principar Junior

¶21

rict^{L.B.Nagar pending dispos:rl of} the^second Civil^{Judge,Ra rr areddYDist} apPeal^{in thr: in r:i'rs o' justice}

¶22

I. VENKAT^{REDDY 'T} Counsel^{for the A l5'ellant:SR} : M/S.^{CHANORASEN LAW OFFI'lES'} Counsel^{fol the F es'Pondents} The Court^{Delive e(l the following} JUDGMENT

¶23

'l'HE HONOURABLE, Dr. JUS I'ICE G. RADIIA RANI

¶24

SECOND APPE,AL NO.106 ()F 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This Second Appcal is filcd by thc appellant-respondent No.l-plaintilf aggrieved by the^judgrnent and decree dated20.06.2016 in A.S. No.286 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga I{cddy District reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2012 passed in O.S. No.667 of 2001 on the hle of the Principal Junior Civil Judgc, llanga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar.

¶27

The parties are hereafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.

¶28

The case of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property^plot bearing No.47 admeasuring 267 sq. yds., forming part of Sy.No.140 of Almasguda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District.^One Somireddy Balreddy was the owner and^possessor of^{the said plot and} he offered to sell the house plot to the husband of the^plaintiff in^the year 1986 for a sale consideration'of Rs.2,670i-. The husband of^the

¶29

ltlailitill.^{b1. urrr.. latc [. .\citlr'1 lr errtcrcd into arr lrstrt' lerlt ol'sllc} u.i1h Sorrirecir'. llrl'ecltlr ()ll I8. ll.1986 arrtl piutl tlr. cltire^sale consitlerrtir'11 tl^{g r,qtttlrr-tlelir cr'.'d tllc racatrtand} 1ll 1;^c,l 1l'rsscssiotl ol thc schcriLrl( | olert]' arttl^{tlrc r'etlc]tlr ltttdcttooklo c)i(:clltc salc tlccd} whencvcr crcnri r' lcd b1' thc hLrsbarrtl ol'thc lllaint^{11. lh. htrsbarrd ol'} the plaintill't:i; ir;d on 2.8.1997.^{Aflor. his ccrrist. thc plaintilT} obtaine(l c(lnst 1^jl ion penrrissiotr liorn^Cilam lhnclriryltl^.{lrllasguda villagc on lt.l I l(l(X) and constructiotr^platrt'r'a s^{lt so slr)c.ior cd by thc} Grarl Pancha',-rl on the satuc tlatc. Afier-olttainitrg^{pc'r'iss on, rvhilc} the plainti^{'f rr} u r.tying to constrrct two roorlrs in tlx'^{,,airl plot, thc} de fcndants r)() v.ry conccntecl u,ith the suit^{st ltctlul-'} ltlot tried^ttr disposscss thr: l lainlifT lr-ont hcr peaccful^{posscs:,iott.Ilrc riel'cndants} were neiglrbot,r'⁽ f lhc plaintitl'having a gt'ecdy^(ye t() k,rock away thc suit plot fl'onr t e plaintill. On -5.6.200 I and again on^1ll.(X,.200 l,^the def-endants tlic i to entcr into the schcdule^plc,L lnd .hreatencd^the plainti[f u ith J^'e conseclucnces. ,As such. thc^ptz intil'l'fllecl rhe strit for perpetuaI rr-rjun ti, rn.

¶30

l'hc rle irdanl No.2 \,as set ex-paftc on 2l ).2101. ]'he procecdrugs irg rirrst detbnrlaut No.2 were also abrted on 5. I 201 2 as no

¶31

)

¶32

sleps were taken to bri^g thc leqal reprcsentatives of del'endant No.2 on record

¶33

The delendants No. I and -i Ii led scparate wr.irten sraternents alleging that the suit plot was purchase<I by clefendant No. I on 2.2.lggg vide registered document No. r554 or r 9ti9 and the sale deed was also rectified vide rectificarion deed 14536 of 1989 dared 25.10.19g9 and the sale deed as well as rectilied deed were executed by Somireddy Balreddy as the GPA holdcr on bel-ralf of his family members. Subsequently, the defendant No.l sold the suit plot in favour ofthe delendant No.3 vide rcgistered sale deed document No.2938 ol 2001 dated,25.04.2001. The defendants No.l and 3 specifica[y pleaded that the defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit plot by virtue of purchase from the defendant No.l, who purchased the same from Somireddy Balreddy.

¶34

The trial court framed the following the issues:

¶35

Whether the ptaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property ?

¶36

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

¶37

To what reliefi

¶38

¶39

a 6. llr: tl rilrtil-i^{cxittlttltctlltcrscll'ltsP\' I} 'rrltr^{1 cl-'\illllincd} a ne iclllr( l,.rt ou ucr ol^{plot No.42 as PW.l itll(l1 t)t -'xalllilled} t \1 to A3 rvitncss. it L,: ;r ii e ol'tl)c^{rttt llcr tlf plot No.'13 a:' P\" l'} u,crc ma,-kc.l⁽ !t lrehall'01'thc^{plai[tifl. [ix.z\l u,lrs t lo .i:]l'ccnlel)t olsale} dltccl l^S. l )8(r cxecuted bl Sornircddl' Bal^.cclJ''' 11, r our ol' tlte

¶40

husbund ol' h,:^{plaintrl'1.Hx r\2 was thc pct'Lr'i:sLo'llcttcr' lbr} corlstructio r^{,1' house flontGl'atnPancltavat clatul lS t 1 2000 and} Irr.Al u,as.l sanctioncd^{plartol'the (irarn Pa rcl:ay lt'l hc clclcndant} No.3 r,r':s lr .tnined as^{I)'fi/. I al1(l Exs.B I to 3'l r,''t:r.'Irlat kecl on his} behalf'. t'.x.ll I^{was tlte registered sale clcedclo< utncut \o l9l8 oi2001} u'heteirt dr: li rc:ant No sold thc scheduled^{plot Lo ,lt lcnJartt No.3 on} 25.0,+.200 l. l:.x.82 *'its the^{ccrtiFled copy of tirt: ( ietltral l'owerof} Attornt:y lrl n:e([ in lbvour ol'^{Sornireddy'Jalt'tctl'zhv his larnily} rr.rcurbers b.^,vhich hc^{was authorised to st ll Acs.lJ.2:igts., out of} Acs. l4.0(l ir S,y.No. 140 situatcd at Ahnasgud^{L villag.r-llx.B3rvas the} cedifl:atc^,f encumbt ance of^{propctlyu hich ''ou dshow that} Sonrircddr, )r lrcddy^{as GPAholdcrexecutcd a dtlr:tt re rlt itr l-avou|of} thc clel'encll rt No. t ancl^{ltx.84 ivasanotherccrtificat ,' 0l'ctrcumbrance} clated 03.,.), .2001 for^{plot No.47 in S),.No. 1.1(t. 'l lic trial cou11,on} consirlcrirrt tlre oral and doctlmentar)'cvidclrcc ol^{cc('rddecrcedthe}

¶41

¶42

suit in I'avour ol the plaintili'rcstraining thc clei'cndants li.o rn interl-ering with the possession olthe plaintilf over.thc suit schedulc plot.

¶43

Aggrieved by the said judgrncnt and decree dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar, the defendant No.3 prelerred an appeal. l'he appeal was heard by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and vide judgr.nent in A.S. No.286 of 2012 dated 20.06.2016 reversed the finding olthe trial court

¶44

Aggrieved by the said reversal^judgment, the plaintiff preferred this second appeal contending that the lower appellate court er.red in reversing the well considered^judgment of the trial court. The lower appellate court failed to see that Ex.Al unregistered sale deed was duly impounded and the same could be received in evidence as defendant No. I not objected for its marking nor taken any^{ground in} the first appeal. Exs.Al to ,{3 coupled with the evidence of^PWs.l to³ would clearly establish the possession ol the appellant-plaintiff.^The lower appellate court erred in coming to^{the conclusionthat Ex.Al} agreement of sale was not a document of^{tltle and the plaintiff should} have filed a suit for specific^performance of^{agreement of sale, having}

¶45

¶46

l-egar(l r() tltc tr( lltatt thc lrltlteilartt lllecl a suit litt lt,tp,^{t,t.rl lllLllretit)ll} antl nLtl a :uit {lcclaratrr)n o1'ti1le. In il sLlit 1i)r l)ct'ir(ttrill ltt-lLttlction. rt \ lrs ess,. rttiitl^(| p[ovc p0sscssi0t.t over thc suit sch!'( ttlc 1lr-r-r1lct t1^as on tl)c^(lat('o1'l' i,rB ol'the suit. J'lte lowcr appcllltc co.rlt Ial]ed t() scr: that tire clcl'eril: rr No.l tirough clainrod to havc pLrrch,r:;c,1 t1'c suil plot lioru tlre lLrr' ii nre vendor of thc plaintiff had not filctl rr)v s,lle decd to that cl'lcct alul h: def-enciant No.l not plef-erred an1, rprpcrl. Hcnce, ;1ll1ru ing tlrc ap ,crl filcd b1, tlte del'endant No.3,^,vho J irinrc.l to [-rc the subscclucnl prir h.rser ltonr the delendant No.l r,as n(,1 sLlstujuablc ln la rr'

¶47

Ilrt: a^,plllant raised thc lollowins subst,intial :lr estiorls ol'1a\, in tltc^groL.rncts, f rppeal

¶48

a \Vhethcr thr: .iudgment and dccrce of lhr [-r rr -'r r plrclJate Court in rcvcrsir.tg the well corrsid:rr:d J rciqrncnt antl docroe ofthe trial court isjrrstrficrl

¶49

I t^\Vhether the l-ower Appcllate Court u as rust ll,i(i i r lrolding thrLt thc uulegistcrcd Agrcernent of Sr lc l ta I not bc rcceivctl in evidence though irnpou rtl .:rl r rd nrarked as Ex. r-l in vierv of s:ttlcrl t.r rl 1^{r,position that tllc salne can} bc^{takclt rr.to} , rrsideration for the collateral purpose ol'px.r r rg 'orScssion.

¶50

t^\Vhether thc Lclwer Appellate^(iourt v,as jtrstil- .'rl r rlkrwing llre appeal having hcld that posse;s -rrr s rn thc rlatc of filing the suit only to lrc sci:n r . .r Lr t'trr inj uncliotr.

{

---v

d) Whcthcr the [-orr.cr Appcllatc Courl rvas justiliecl in iuroling EK A- l to A-3 proving thc posscssrorr of thc r\ppcllant/plaintrfl'as on rhc tllrc rif filinu ,,1 the suit entilling the^plaintifl'ro ha\c lhc rclie'iof injunction.

¶55

e) Whcther the Agrcerncnt of Salc Ex.A- l as obtaincd lrorn his ventlor anrl duly. inipountlctl collaterally proves thc possession u,hen the rclief was sought against a strallger, but uot against the vendor.

¶56

f) Whether the possession irl parl ltcrft)nnance of Agreement of Salc undcr Scc. 53-A of^'fransfbl of Property Act is liable to be protected ugainst tJrc stranger.

¶57

Heard the leamed counsel tilr rhe appettanr and the leamed

¶58

counsel for the respondents on the above substantial questions of law.

¶59

ll. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

¶60

lower appellate court was not justified in allowing the appeal as the suit was filed only for peryetual injunction and the unregistered agreement of sale could be considered for the collateral pulpose of proving possession. The lower appellate court erred in considering that the relief for the plaintiff was filing a suit for specific^{perfotmanceof agreement} of sale. The plaintiff was seeking^{relief against a stranger but not} against the vendor. The^{possession inpart performance of the} agreement of sale^{was liable to be protected against the stranger and} prayed to admit the appeal.

I 't l

I I I

rl ll

1r I

l-1. Ilr' lca'tcil r.r,u,scl litr the r-es1.ro,rlr,t ls. ( ll tltt ttlher.hancl.

¶67

c()rtcl)d((l tlL t (lLrrirg tlrc perrclc,cy of tlrc a|pci.J. trr-. appc-llartr Plai.lrl'l^{cx( c rt(r(l} an ag'ccnrcnt of salc currr cl),\ i r l',t'.rrr o1' ll Vc,kulc-*,rr,: Ii c<lcly anrl (i. Srikanth l{ccldv r,n r):;..1.r20 I statirrs in tlrc rlocrrrr.r,:. ,rat slic *'as clecra.ed as ownr r .r' rrr: proper-1y \ i(re dccr.c rlareci 5 06.20r2 in o.S N..667 or'200 I orr r.l e rire .1'I)r-incipal JLrnior-⁽ ir il Lrrlq,:, I{ansa Reddy I)istrict. Ilt tun.r, []. \ cnkirtesu,ara Redtlr rrn<l ( . Srikanth l{ccldy cxccuted a salc drx d virlc tlocumenl No.3lJ(r,: tr^' , ) I-l on 26 02.2014 in favour ol'I).Nav,:e r K unrar Reddy arrl Srr, Srrr rt'dtly Illiarati. 'l'hcreatter., the d:fenrli,r Nr.l fllcd o.S N..7 ol l0 l-i 1i.,f r)crl)etral inlunction and also rlled L r,. No.2() or.20l7 Ibr intcrrrr r- u.rction on t,e lile of-principal Jrni.r.(.i,.il .tuilge. Ranga Itcddl' I)isr.i r' rric courr below initially granted intcir n irrlunction, but subseclrrt:rti' rlicr ela'.rate discussio, d.sntiss:rl thc I.A. o, 02.0i.1()17 Aggrieved by the same, they preferrec cr\rA No.4g of 20l7 br'lbri' h: liV Additional Disrricr Judgc. Ranllrr Itccldy I ) is tric t, I I) N'gar- A licr heari,g the ,ratter, the Dis rict c .rrrt ricr .0t grant anv intcr.rnt \ rlicr and tlti: CMA u,as pencling. Thc lu.r ser t apl)cal was ljlcd bi sup; ressing thc ract that the appeilanr aronu \,irh her firrnil v nrerl be rs l'r: -l _'pleselttcd bcforc. the Regrstrar, Ran:lr Rr:tld1. t)istrict

¶68

¶69

I I

¶70

and executed an agrccmcnt orsale curn cipA ibr posscssion irr fa'our of D. Venkareswara Redrry and G. Srikanth ltecrcry on 05.0i.20 l:i. Aggrieved by the action ol- the appellant herein (plaintilf). the lespondent No' l (defendant No.3) fired a compr.ehensive suit vide o.s. No. 1607 oi20l8 on the file of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Itanga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar for declaration and also to declare the sale deeds executecl by the appellant herein as null and voicl and also filed l.A. No.728 of 201g. After hearing the matter, the court granted interirn injunction in favour of the defendant No.3 (p laintifl therein ).

¶71

The leamed counsel for the respondents contended that basing on the unregistered agreement of sare which was not a titre deed, Ihe plaintiff played all the mischief, the suit could not be decreed against the real owner, no substantial question. of law would arise and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶72

The point for consideration now is:

¶73

Whether any substantial questions of law would arise in the second appeal so as to entertain the same?

¶74

l,)

¶75

I-,i l'oi tt:

¶76

Scc(i., 0r) ol lirc^(loric ol'Civil Proctdruc rrLd Orler \l-ll Rulc I the rcol nrakcs it nranrlator-y that the Hrglr⁽ o.rrt should bc satislit'rl irb,rrr llrc exrstcncc ol' substalltial^(luesl ollr; o1' law involr crl ir tlrc sccontl app('al and lirrttruli lt lltcnr lbr corrsidcr-a1ion rr thc scc-or.tcl appeal as a pl.- rcq.risitc for entcrtainirrg .rrr^.econtl appcal. The l{on'ble Arer Cortfi deprecatcd tirne arrrl aqlirr ,rutiLrc adnrrssion olsccond appca s u,itl orrt existence cll' substar)tiai^(lue ti.)ns ol' liru.^'l he trial court conside-r rg hat I:x.Al agleenrcnt ol 'atc was executed in the year 1986^i,1, Somircddy Balredrly rn la o rr ol' thc husband of thc ptaintifl', \v )crcas the samc l'cndor St,nri^',.:r d'., flalledtlv crccutcd a registered salc rLer:d rn lar''our of thc delcnrlant I c I in the 1'car 1989 fbr the sarne proi)() tv, i:orrsidcring it as l sirbs,-:.1 Lcrt transaction cxecuted by the vcnd,rr fb' the saure pl'()per1) suppl s. ing thc earlier transaction and as the clefendant No. I failcd lo^()ntc' r)to thc wrtness box, or failed to hle hrl rcgistered sale decd and botlr LrL defcndants No.l and 3 l'ailed to exanri re trrcir vendor Somircdclr, []i lrrxldy, opined tliat the plaintilf \1as ln lcgitirnate possessro r o\ e I rc suit sclrcclule pll)l)efiy ll'om tlie dat,: .rl'exccution of Ex.,Al

¶77

¶78

\ \

¶79

l(r.^'l'he lorvcr appellate couft observing that the plainriff re licd on an unregistered agreement of sale whereas thc dcr-cndarrt No.i lelied upon a registered sale deed marked as Ex.Bt and that the un'egistered agreement of sare was nor a documc,t ot- title and the plaintitl'could not get titre over the suit plot by virtue or- agreenrcnt of salc and she could not file a suit for perpetual injunction basing on the agreement o1' sale, she ought to have filecl a suit fbr specific pertbrmance of contract basing on the said document dated lg.l2.l9g6. the unregisr.ered agreement of sare courd not be receivcd i, evide,ce except in a suit for specific performance ofcontract, the trial courl en.cd in marking rhe agreement of sale (though impounded) in a su il lbr perpetual injunction and the plaintiff atso failed to examine the witnesses to the document marked under Ex.Al, the documents marked under Exs.A2 and A3 were not sufficient to prove the possession of the plaintiff over rhe suit plot, held that the trial court wrongly relied o, the documents marked as Exs.Al to ,{3 and granted perpetual injunction which was not sustainable under law, as such, allowed the appeal.

¶80

This court does not find any error in the judgment of the lower appellate court or any substantial questions of law arising out of

¶81

t t 0 a

¶82

¶83

thc satric^{l h s o rLt aql-cc\ \ ith tllc observations'rf the lt:u'er lPpcllatc} court^{tltal []te iL rr:ettlctll i't sltlc rtlts l.ttlt a clocutt-en: rl lrtlc an(l cotlld} not bc^{rel ,cd .'tr1' thc plainr il'l to llrtlvc hcr pot'se ssit tl atr'1 thc satre} coulcl^{not bt: tt l-asis lor- grantrng' llerllctual njttncri 'rt lglrinstthe} rcgistcretl^{,rr' ql rlltlre lllopeltl"rvllo purclraserltltc sanrcvide} -l hc dcl-enilrrlts No' l and I tve rc tot^{stratlgets to} registcrctl^{salc d|ctls'} the^{prop.''rtr' b it rvcre o\ llel s o1' the properly' whopu ic lasedthc same} vide registerc'^{\toculllell(s'lttrd hetrcc' tlie trial rjourt r)tlgl't1 not to havc} grantcd^{tt.itttrr ti'rtr agarlrst tllc origirlalowllers-''his Co rrt rloes trot find} any substttttLi^I lucstiorrs^{o1- lau lrrising in this r'-rattera-I(l tlre suggcsted} ,rot loru the^{basis fbr lbrrruiatirgany sr'rbstantial} tluest^{ion s ctt rltl} As suclt.^{lhc sccond appeal is liablt to bt: disnrissedat} questiolls^of 't\v^' the stagtc^{c'l': drnissionitsel t'}

¶84

ln rhe t'esult,^{the Sccond Appeal is clisttrisst:d at the stage} l,)

¶85

of admissio^{irsell' Nt' o1'(1cras to costs}

¶86

MsrellaneousApplications,ifanyp':nclir4':h3itt!"9:]"ttd

¶87

¶88

331'i*'AI[["+'^H- -r;5diri6N //rRuE^coPY// oFFlcER

¶89

To, The, X^{V AdditionalDistrict and SessionsJudl;e' Rarrgir Rr:ddyDistrictat L B} 2 3 iiiltnq"trii#ll#b",f,ssEi,',':"i::i,11;;'n"L 4 6;;,^{i ;a to M/s chandrasett} 5 Twcr^{'D CoPtes}

TJ (La

HIGH COU t

DATED:0510612023

JUDGMEN T

SA.No.106 of 2017

:=- --
1Ht utrl ..,-+r
( O\r :: <br>:)c
1 1 AU6 ?0ll
.)
'4,

¶96

DISMISSIh Gi THE SECOND APPEAL A']' THE STAGE OF ADMIS SiON ITSELF.

¶97

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶98

c,f$ @

¶99

{"'

T Saraswathi, Nalgonda Dist v. Sama Pruthviraj, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Saraswathi, Nalgonda Dist v. Sama Pruthviraj, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Praveen Reddy Vs Mr. D. ragulu

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs Sri. M.Krishna Kumar

Smt. M.Sreedevi, Vs J.Yadagiri

Khairunnisa Vs Md. Abdul Gaffar

Kanthilal Chandulal Khati, Hyd Vs C. Vittal Rao, Hyd

Chintala Madhavi Vs S. Venkatamma, / Venkata Lakshmi