Dismissed

Ragati Mallesh v. G Sarojana (Died) and 5 Others

Telangana HC15 Apr 2025CRP/4712/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A third party who purchased premises in 2004 resisted an eviction execution claiming title via a ratification deed, against an earlier uncancelled 1988 sale deed. Invoking Section 48 TPA and the limited summary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, the High Court upheld the dismissal of his application and dismissed the revision petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ragati Mallesh Vs G Sarojana (Died) and 5 Others — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4712 OF 2013

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 13-09-2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.18212007 on the file of the court of the Prl Rent Controller cum Xll Junior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ragati Mallesh, S/o Late Rajaiah, Hindu, Occ - Employee in Bank of lndia, Khairatabad Branch, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner

AND

G Sarojana wife of Anjaiah (Died),

¶14

2 G Anjaiah, S/o Rama Swamy, aged B0 yrs, Occ - Retd Employee, R/o 13-64391 1 I A162, Balajinagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

3 G Damodar, S/o Anjaiah, R/o 1 3-6-439/'1 /4/62, Balqinagar, Hyderabad. 4. G Chandra Sekhar, S/o Anjaiah, Rlo 13-6-439/11N62, Balalinagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

T Jayanti, D/o Anjaiah, aged 44yrs, Rlo 13-6-439111N62, Balajinagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

Bala Maddileti, S/o Late Pullaiah, Hindu, Bajahatari R/o APHB, It/llG-ll, Block 37, Ground Floor, Plot No.3, Baghlingampally, Hyderabd.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013( CRPMP. NO: 6415 OF 2013)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleased stay} of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 15/20'1 1 in R.C.No.18212007 on the^{file of the} Court of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XIl Junior Civil Judge,^{City Small} Causes Court pending disposal of the main CRP.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 0' 5ro IIPMP. NO:6355 OF 2015

¶22

Petition -rr Ct> Section 15i CpC praying that in the ci cun stances stated in the affidavit fil,:)d n support of the petition, the High Court ma1 be pleased to expedite the he a.ing ,rf CRP No.4712 of 2013.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024.

¶24

Petition rn,J€)r section i51 cpc praying that in the circurrstancbs stated in the affidavit^Fik,rd r support of the petition, irre Hign court may be pleased to condone the delav o 1120 days in taking steps to bring the Le gar iepresentative of the deceaseci [:eti'ioner on record oy iiting the regariepreseitat ve petition.

¶25

lA NO; 2 OF 2024

¶26

Petition rrn:rer :lection 151 cpc praying that in thr: cirlum itances stated in the affidavit lile:d ir support of the petition, ine Higr' court ,xay be pleased to appear on beh;rlf c.f ny brother named VIZ Mr. Regati Naveen Kumar in the above mentroned cF t'> by deposing on beharf of my biother, riring affidavit, Etc., on behalf of for acijrrc ii;ation the above mentioned CRp.

¶27

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶28

Petition unrre' fiection^'151 cpc praying that in th€, cirr:u mr,;tances stated in the affidavit f re,i irr support of the petition, ine H,gn ccurt rnay be preased to rmplead the prrtp:se ,cl petitioner herein as petitio-ner No. .2 b.ing'the iegal Representative rf the Jeceased civil Revision petitioner \i,iz., sr t la jati lvlalre"sh in the above mert crrr:rl CRP and all other connected lAS.

¶29

Counsel for the Pr:,titicner: Sri. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana

¶30

Counsel for the Rr:'spondents: Sri. T C D Sekhar

¶31

The Court made the f tllowing: ORDER

¶32

¶33

TIIE HONOI'RABLE SIUTJUSTICE^{IL SUJANA} CWIL RE[/I$ON PETIIION No.47l2^{OF 2013}

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This revision petition is filed^{challengingthe order dated} 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of^{2Ol2 in tr P'No'15 of 2011 in} R.C.No. 182 of 2OO7 on^{the hle of the Principal Rent Controller} cum Xll Junior Civil Judge,^{City SmallCauses Court, at} Hyderabad.

¶36

The brief facts of the^{case are that therevision} petitioner/ third party, fiied^{tr.A.No.2 Iof 2Ol2 in E P'No' 15 of} 201 1 in R.C.No. la2 of^{2OO7 underOrderXXI Ruies 97 and 100} of the Code of Civil^{Procedureread with Rule 23(7) of the} Andhra Pradesh Rent^{ControlAct, 196O, seekingdeclaration of} ownership and^{possessionover a property bearing Municipal} No.1-8-430/ 14, situated^{atChikkadpally,Hyderabad'} comprising a^{ground,hrst, and secondfloor, with a total extent} of approximately^{160.35squareyards' The claim arose in the} context of an eviction^{executionpetition (E'P'No' 15 of 2011 in} R.C.No. 182 of 2OO7l^{ltledby the legal heirsof a previous owner'} The petitioner contended^{that he had lawfullypurchased the}

¶37

¶38

SKS,J (l tt'. \o .+; l2 OF 2013

¶39

I I I I i I I i I I l ; i I

¶40

I i l, l

¶41

said prr:rtr t', uide registered sale deed dated 21.C7.! 004 from one Srr il l- a shikala, who was represented by lrer registered Generetl Power of Attorney GPI') hoider,

¶42

Sri Ba a !l,t,1dile ti / respondent No.6. The salc \,a s ba;ed on an earlier :, qrl⁽ ment of sale-cum-GPA dated 1ti.06 2O0,1. It was furthel r or r :,rncled that the vacant possession $'asi ha^'rded over to the pr tit oncr at the timc of the sale, and hc had l ince then been in rrr i rl errupted possession. It was strlted thi t he had mutal( d h :; namc in municipal records, pairl tr xes, and obtain,)d r: lrousing loan by mortgaging Lhe properry thereby, alhrmin;r I is orvnership. Hou,ever, it came to liglrt rl'rat an earlier registere(l r zrlc cleed dated 16.07.1988 (DocumerLl Nt.3961 of 1988) ii rl been executed in flvor of one Smt^(1. ll,:r'^(,l.rlra/ rr: sponden I No.1 lor an extenl o1 li0 square vards.

¶43

It^,r'a; the specific contention of petitioner hat the 1988 deed u a' lr r v a nominal transaction executed to liecu re a loan, and ro prssession had been delivered undcr tlrat sale. Subse<1u,:r tl.', Sarojana had executed an irrevor:a1t1,: General Power ot Attorney dated 27 .O4.1991 ir hvor of Smt Fia a llamulamma, authorizing her to d,:a1 with the

SXS,J

CRP.No.a7l2 OF 2013

property, and based on this GPA, a ratification deed dated 22.09 .2OO7 was executed confirming the sale in favor of the peti[ioner and conveying the title of Sarojana to him. The petitioner alleged that respondents No.2 to 5 had hled E.P., and obtained ex parte orders behind his back, suppressing material facts and creating a false narrative. He asserted that the execution of the eviction order was illegal and sought protection under Rule 23(71 of the Rent Control Act. It was further stated that the ex parte decree had become infructuous as the alleged tenant - Respondent No. 6 had vacated long before the decree was passed.

¶48

The respondents in trA., contested the^petition, contending that the 1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G. Sarojana was still valid and had not been cancelled, and that neither the petitioner, nor his vendors, had any legal right to se1l the property in 2OO4 as it had already been sold to Sarojana. The exislence of any valid GPA by Sarojana in favor of^Ramulamma was denied and the validity of the ratification deed^was challenged as being collusive and self serving. Further,^{that the} petitioner was not a bona fde purchaser and that his title

I I i I I I

i tl ll i I I i I

ix:

SKS,J '-l^{iP.\o47i2 OF 2013}

¶54

documel t:; rvere fabricated to oy6..o-. defects ir thc chain of title

¶55

'J'hr: ?r ncipal Rent Controller recorded e,..idencc iom both parties. 'i:t petitioner was examined as pW1, :rnd d rcuments includingr -l t sale deed, GpA, ratification deecl, ta> no iccs, and municiplrl r::ords were marked as trx.p1 to Ex.p 1. ()n behalf of respo; :cle r ts RW 1 and RW2 were examir-rccl a ncl Ex. R 1 to Ex.R12 r,,c-: marked. The principal Rent Con r-oll,:r ntted that both pz.rr ie s "elicd on registered sale deeds_orLe fr rrn 9gg and anothel lio r 2oo4-creating a direct confli<.t o- 1itte. Upon analyzn'tg 1^'l : evidence, the principal Rent Controll:r c tncluded that the Re r t Control Court lacks jurisdiction to a,ljr-rdicate comple::^,1trr stions of title, and emphasized thrrt rrrtcle . Scction 48 of .hc^''-ansfer of properly Act, 1gg2, ulre r-r t tere are multipkr or- rtcting transfers, thc earlier in tirne 1rrcr. rrls, ancl since the 1!) l3 sale deed was registerecl first, and 1 a<j ror been la'"r'fullv c r.t r llcd, the subsequent sare in 2oo4 co, cr n rt confer better 1it e. 'lhe Principal Rent Controller c,pint.d ,har the petitionr:r hi c also not taken any legal steps to rhallenge or cancel t1( r:: rlir:r sale deed, nor had he initiatcd a( tiur against his vendor.s f I^- misrepresentadon, and that the ratif icat on deed

¶56

¶57

SKS,J CRP-No..1712^{OF 2013}

¶58

¶59

relied upon by the^{petitionerwas executed only after the ex} parte evictron^{decree had been passed, and in addition' the} petitioner had^{not notihed or disputedthe rights of Respondent} No.1 at the^{relevanttime, further weakening his claim'}

¶60

The Principal^{Rent Controller uide impugned orderdated} l3.0g.2013heldthatwhilethepetitionerclaimeduninterrupted possession and^{submitted certain documents' his title to the} property remained^{under a cloudand could not be conclusively} established^{within the iimited jurisdictionof the Rent Controller'} Further, that^{the petition raisedsubstantialquestions regarding} ownership^{and title, which must be determined by a competent} Civil Court.^{Accordingly, E'A No'21 of 2Ol2 was dismissed' with} liberty^{granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for} rights. Aggrieved^{thereby, this revision} adjudication^ofhis petition is filed.

¶61

7 Heard Sri^{A. SaLyanarayana, Iearned counselfor revrsron} Sri TCD^{Shekhar, learned counselfor} petitioner, and respondents.

¶62

Learned^{counselfor revisionpetitioner' submitted that} thatthedismissaloftheE'A.,lrledbyrevisionpetitioneris

¶63

.t,

¶64

¶65

SKS,J C lP.l'.io 4712 Ol'2013

¶66

contra:r' to the law, weight ol evidence, and probz bilr ie s of the case, e n:1 : l rt the Rent Controller erred in dismis';ing the claim petitio'r :;o1 r v on the ground of jurisdiction. Flc c,rntcnded that the Reel^(l( rrtroller has the authority to clecicle on he rbjections raised b,. t re petitioner who is in possessiorL ol- the property, under R r1r: !/3(7) of the Rent Controller Ru1es, ani th. t the said rule ern1,r,i, r:rs the Rent Controller to address sr ch rb.lections and eve r reject the E.P., if necessary. Ile l:rne rtec that the E.A., r,,a'; c isn-rissed withouI propcrly considcrinq t1-rr oral and documert:r^'" evidence presented in the casc. He rcii:d on the obsen,llio:.rs made by the Rent Control Appellatr: Court in I.A.No.9l'Ct cf 2OO7 in R.A.No.251 of 2OO7 datcd Cr2.O4-2OO9, whererrr ft:r , liberty was granted to the petitior er o file an appliczLti,r'i rrnder Rule 23(71 of the Rulcs, r,,,i'ric:h u'ould irnply that tlLe Iit nt Controller failed to take thcse obs rr-a rions into account. r,''rich further supports the ca:le ,rl retitioner. Therefrrr '. . r'-- prayed this Court to allorv the rcr. sior p"1i1ior-r, setting . sic^(1-he impugned order dated I3.O9.2C I il tassed in E.A.No.2 I r f 2072 in E.P.No.15 ol 2Oll in R.C.No 82 { 2OO7.

¶67

()r L lLe contrary, learned counsel [crr res rondents, vehemr:n:l', opposed the submissions made b.,, leiirne I counsel

SKS,J

CRP.No.'1712 OF²⁰¹³

for petitioner and^{contendedthatthere are no irregularitiesor} illegalities in the impugned^{orderdated 13'09'2013 and that the} E.A., frled by^{petitioner was rightlydismissed, directingthe} petitioner to approach^{competent civil CourtHe further} contended that the^{1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G Sarojana} remains valid and^{un-canceled,which in fact would render any} subsequent sale^{of the properry by the petitioneror his vendors} h 2OO4 illegitimate.^{He assertedthat the said contentionis} based on the^{principle that a prior sale deed takesprecedence} over any subsequent^{transactions involvingthe sameproperty'} He asserted that^{Sarojana's prior purchase of the property} nullifies any claims^{of ownershipor transfer rights by the} petitioner or his vendors,^{and that this assertion is groundedin} the idea that once^{a propertyhasbeen soid, the sellerno longer} has the right to transfer^{ownershipto another party' That apart'} he disputed in^{relation to existence of a validGeneral Power of} Attorney (GPA) from^{Sarojanato Ramulamma,and divulged the} ratihcation deed^{as collusiveand self-serving,implyinglack of} authenticity in the^{transactions'He averred that the GPA and} ratification deed^{were created tomanipulate the property's} ownership, rather^{than reflecting a genuine transfer of rights'} He reiterated that^{petitioner does not qualify as a bonafrd'e}

¶73

¶74

SKS,J C iP \o 4712 OF 2013

¶75

purch.rs r ( lr te to the questionable nature of his tit e ck,cuments, and tha - I L e documents appear to be fab rica. ed to rectify defects irr tle chain of title. Thercfore, he prayecl this Court to dismiss 1: r, revision petition stating that there nrc no llegalities in impu,lnr rl order dated 13.09.2O13 passed in El.A.No-21 of 2Ol2 r:'t I f . \o.15 of 2011 in R.C.No. 182 of 2Ot)7 .

¶76

1O. Il. ,,:r t, rcgard to the rival submissions n arle , and on perusing 1h I n'raterial placed on record, it is to bc lrote,l that the petitioncr' lirrci purchased the entire properlr, ,rf v hich the petitiorr^-c' r edule property forms a part, under a r:gis ered sale deed car z<1 21.O7.2OO4 (Ex.Pl) executed by Sm SL ashikaia, represinIc(]^rt1 her Agreement of Sale-cum-GPr\ hcldr_:r, Sri Baja Madclil:t i^I li.:spondent No.6, contending Lhat poss,tssion was delivcrr:d 1() rim pursuant to the said transaction an I that he has bccl ir uninterrupted possession and enjo.-mctt of the petrtior :;r'h : lule property ever since, having nruta Leci his name in murri, ir)ir records and paid properLy ta>:es r:egr larl1,. To substar)t a1t the same, reliance was piaced upon :ixs. ?1 to pg, includi:r; :l c Sale Deed (Ex.Pl), Agreement c,f Srrle r:um GpA (Ex.P2) Ir-r,r zrcable GPA executed by Smt G. Srrroiirn:l in lavour of Baja Rarr rrlamma (Ex.P3), the Ratification [)ced err cutecl by

¶77

¶78

SKS,J CRP.No.4712 OF 20l3

¶79

(

¶80

Ramulamma (Ex.P ), the Certihed Copy of^{Sale Deeddated} 16.07.1988 (Ex.Ps), and municipal tax notices (Exs.P6 to P8).

¶81

It is the speciltc contention of petitioner that^{the earlier} registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988^{(Ex.P5) executed by} Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti^{infavour of} Smt Sarojana/ respondent^No. 1, to an^{extent of8O square yards,} was a sham and nominal transaction,^{intended merely to secure} a loan and not to effectuate a transfer^{of title or possession.} Further, that no possession was ever^{delivered to the Iirst} respondent pursuant to Ex.PS, and that respondent^{No.1 never} exercised any ownership rights over^{the property. Furthermore,} that the execution of an irrevocable GPA^by Smt^{Sarojana in} favour of Baja Ramulamma(trx.P3) and^{thesubsequent} Ratilrcation Deed dated 22.O9.2OO7^{(Ex.Pa) executed by} Ramulamma in favour of the^{petitioner reinforce the claim that} the 1988 transaction was not acted upon and^{that the petitioner} validly derived title through the^2OO4 saie^{deed.However,on} meticulousiy perusing the evidence,^inciudingthe cross-examination of PW 1, it becomes evident^{that the petitioner} was aware of existence of the^prior registered^{saledeed dated} 16.07.1988 in favour of respondent No.l.^{Thatapart,PWI}

¶82

¶83

SKS,J CF^r . '7t2^OF2013

¶84

categoric Lllr admitted^{in his cross-examinationthat he had} obtaint d a r t rtified copy^{of the 1988 sale cleed atrc lc:a -ncd that} the re;ptrr 1:nt No.1^{had becom. 11'"} 'lfscrlutr ov ner and posses lo" r,1 lhe properqy^{coveredunderE:r.P'-:H :further} stated tlra' lre^{u,as informed by Smt Shashikalaand Sri Baja} Maddilet^r i^{t ,.} at the^{said transaction \ ras nominal:rn d cxecuted} to sccl ro a loan.^{However, thisassert o1-r remains} uncortolror-r r ed by any^{inclependentdocumentirn't virlt ncc}

¶85

lii ,r.ri i:erntly,^{despite having knou'ledgicr I tlrc e:rrlier} transaci o;r, the^{petitioner admittedly did not init att: an-v steps} to get th :¹ !'88^{sale deed cancelled or declare<l nr- II :rr Ld void by} any con'P:':,'rnt^{Court. The petitionerneitheriss-redanv 1ega1} notice t,)^{',rspondentNo.1 disputingher t tle' tror initiated} proceccl a1t; aSlainst^{Smt Shashikalaor Sri Baja N'tarldilctti for} havinll r ru^{illed property which they had alreirdv'rlicr ated'}

¶86

T]'t, t rrpart,^{though the petitioner contcn<is toI rave relied} on tt,c R rtification^{Deed dated 22.O9.201)7 (!)x. )4), itis} notertor -trr that the^{same was executed aftert }-re er porte} evictii,n o'r1cr dated 30.08'2007^{inR CNo L82 of2OO7 '} Morec vcr, I he said Ratification^{Deed was exe( ute( Iby Baja} Ramul:r'-r.r r r, u.ho is admittedly^{not a} Fart<sup>lo thesale

¶87

¶88

¶89

SKS.J CRP-No.4712 OF 2Ol3

¶90

transaction of petitioner, under Ex.P1, thus^{renderingits legal} efficacy questionable

¶91

At this^juncture, it is significant^{to note that the sale deed} dated 16.O7.1988 (Ex.Ps)^{is a registeredand regularsale deed,} and as per Lhe settled^principle embodied^{underSection48 of} the Transfer of Property^{Act, 1882, when two competing claims} are based on registered sale^{deeds, the doctrine qui piorest} tempore potior est^{jure (he who} is^{earlierin time is strongerin} law) shall app1y. It is a^{weli-estabtished principle that once a} valid transfer is made, the transferor^{cannot conferany right or} title upon another^{person in derogation of the earlier transfer'}

¶92

Reverting to the^{factsof case on hand,no doubt, it follows} that Smt Shashikala and^{Sri Baja Maddiletti had no subsisting} right to convey title under Ex.Pl^{in favour of the petitionerin} 2004, having already conveyed^{the propertyto respondent No'I} under Ex.PS in 1988. Further,^{the petitionerhas failed to} discharge the burden of establishing^{that thc obstructionto} execution proceedings was^{raised in goodfaith.Thoughhe} examined himself as PW 1 and a third^{party as PW2, the} evidence of PW2 does not inspire^{conltdence,as he disclaimed} knowledge of the afhdavit and admitted that^{he had not given}

¶93

..,.i

¶94

¶95

SKS,J (l1P l\o +712 OF 2013

¶96

(

¶97

any inst|rt( tLons lor its preparation. No indep,:ndrrnl or reliable er.iden,-t lri s been placed before this Court to deniolts trate that the I 9 3li s: l'] dced was never acted upon or that llre Lr ansaction was m3r:l.z securi[r for a loan.

¶98

16- r r r,l j ition, it is imperative to record that thc petilioner filed E.A . L rrcler Rule 23(71 of the A.P. Rent Contr ol F ulcs, and a perlLs lr r^' the said provision makes it c1e ar t h:L t the Rent Contrc 11, r r s required to conduct a sumrnar- cr rquiry to ascertrrir^\ l,eLher the resistance or obstructi()n to cx rcution of the evic ir;r decree is bona fide. The said provir;ior-r does not empo\1--¹ : e Rent Controller to adjudicate u pon complex questi()1' r⁽ f title, and in the present case, bcth the petitioner and th c^-cs p ondent no.1 asserl rival claims ol ovr rc:'s iip based On SC[,2] it^{I (} registered sale deeds, as such, the I'inr ipal Rent Contrc 11, r t rsrnissed the petition observing that the ltc tittoner is entitle I tr r".ail appropriate remedy available to l:im rnder law bcforc L rr: ( ompetent civil Court to decide hc title over the propert\ t ()\4.ever, instead of availing the ;aid rer'-redy, the petitio 1(^' i l,:ci this revision petition challenging t.rc s lid order. That apr rrt. ('ven prior to this, rvhen the petitioner file d petition under O rcle r I Rule 10 of CPC., the appeilate '3ou-t arlvised the

SKS,J

CRP.No.4712 OF^2O13

petitioner to approach^competent civil^{Court, but instead' he} hled this revision^{petition. Thus, in view of the abovediscussion'} this Court is of the^{firm view that thereare no irregularities or} illegalities in the^{impugnedorder dated 13'09 2013passed in} E.A.No.21 of 2Ol2 in^{E.P.No. 15 of 2011 in R'C No 182 of 2OO7'} There are no valid^{grounds in this revision petition to entertain} the same, warranting^{interference of this Court, and the same is} iiable to be dismissed.

¶104