Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R. Venkataraman vs G. Mohan on 24 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE NO: S.A.No.22 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.N Date ORDER OFFICE
o. NOTE
24.03.2022 BSB, J
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant/2nd defendant filed suit for
permanent injunction based on agreement
dated 10.12.2009 allegedly executed by the 1st
defendant, but later on the 2nd defendant was
added as he instituted another suit O.S.No.26 of
2010 alleging another transaction of agreement
of sale between 1st defendant and 2nd defendant
seeking its specific performance and that the
said agreement is prior in point of time then the
present suit agreement of sale. Both the
plaintiff and the 2nd defendant alleged collusion
of the other party with the 1st defendant. The
suit in O.S.No.33 of 2010 was decreed.
Having aggrieved by the same, the second
defendant preferred first in A.S.No.17 of 2019
and the same was dismissed confirming the
decree in the suit. Now, the 2nd appeal is also
preferred by the 2nd defendant raising the
following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether or not the findings of the
Hon'ble lower appellate court on issues
1 and 2 in judgment and decree in
A.S.No.17 of 2019 confirming the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.33 of
2019 passed by the Hon'ble Senior Civil
Judge are correct or sustainable and
legal?
2. Whether the courts below have power
to set aside the registered sale deed
under Ex.A.4 executed by the Hon'ble
Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda without
the said judgment being challenged in
appeal? The lower Courts have no
jurisdiction to readjudicate or review
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.26
of 2010.
3. Whether the Hon'ble lower appellate
court failed to see that the trial court
erred in cancelling Ex.A.7 the
registered sale deed executed by its in
respect of the suit schedule property
pursuant to E.P.No.74 of 2010 in
O.S.No.26 of 2010 judgment and
decree dated 30.06.2010 when the said
judgment and decree is not set aside
by any appellate court?
4. Whether the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.33 of 2010 decreeing the first
relief of specific performance of
agreement of sale under Ex.A.1 is valid
when the appellant/2nd defendant is
bona fide purchaser under an
agreement of sale prior to Ex.A.1?
5. Whether in the teeth of finding by the
trial Court that no notice of demand
was served on the 2nd respondent/1st
defendant by the 1st
respondent/plaintiff and in the
absence of any evidence the finding of
the courts below that Ex.A.8 is ante
dated and collusive is valid and
correct?
6. Whether the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.33 of 2010 allowing 2nd relief
sought by 1st respondent/plaintiff for
cancellation of Ex.A.7 a court executed
registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011
is valid as the said relief sought is time
barred?
7. Whether the finding of the Hon'ble
lower courts regarding issue of
limitation in respect of cancellation of
Ex.A.7 a registered sale deed is correct
and valid as courts below reckoned
limitation from 2015 instead of
reckoning it from 1.12.2011 when 2nd
respondent/1st defendant filed his
written statement stating that he had
sold the suit schedule property to
appellant/2nd defendant herein on
06.03.2009?
8. Whether or not Ex.A.1 is vitiated by
the principles of pendent lite under
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882? The Ex.A.1 is dated 10.12.2009.
In view thereof, it is a fit case to admit the
appeal.
ADMIT.
Since the counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent, having filed Caveat and received
material papers, sought time to file counter in
I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by the appellant seeking
interim order of suspension of the operation of
the impugned judgment in the appeal.
Post on 20.04.2022.
Notice to 2nd respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant is
permitted to take out personal service of notice
to the 2nd respondent through RPAD and file
proof thereof.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
This petition is filed to suspend the
operation of the judgment and decree dated
29.09.2021 in A.S.No.17 of 2019 on the file of V
Additional District Judge, Allagadda, pending
disposal of the second appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondents
sought time to file counter.
Post on 20.04.2022.
_________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J
PNV
