Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vuppu Veera Venkata Subba Rao vs Borra Padmaja Rao on 5 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
APPEAL SUIT No.1569 OF 2018
Between:
Vuppu Veera Venkata Subba Rao,
S/o late Puliraju, Hindu, aged about 69 years,
R/o H.No.41-3-78, Satyam Hotel Road,
Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13. ... Appellant.
Versus
Borra Padmaja Rao, W/o Jaganmohana Rao,
Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o D.No.41-20/10-25,
Plot No.202, Goli Ramakanth Residency,
High School Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13.
... Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 05.01.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
______________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ APPEAL SUIT No.1569 OF 2018
% 05.01.2024
# Between:
Vuppu Veera Venkata Subba Rao,
S/o late Puliraju, Hindu, aged about 69 years,
R/o H.No.41-3-78, Satyam Hotel Road,
Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13. ... Appellant.
Versus
Borra Padmaja Rao, W/o Jaganmohana Rao,
Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o D.No.41-20/10-25,
Plot No.202, Goli Ramakanth Residency,
High School Road, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada-13.
... Respondent.
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V. Venugopala Rao.
^ Counsel for the Respondent :
Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656
This Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Appeal Suit No.1569 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
-
Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment, dated
24.07.2018 in O.S.No.213 of 2017, on the file of VII Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada ("Additional Senior Civil Judge"
for short), whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which was filed with a prayer
to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint
schedule property having right, title and possession and to grant
perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her agents and
other men from ever interfering with the plaintiff's right, title
and peaceful possession and further restraining the defendant
not to encumber or to alienate the plaint schedule property.
2) The parties to this Appeal Suit will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the learned Additional Senior
Civil Judge for the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the
plaint averments is that the plaintiff is no other than the elder
brother of the defendant. He purchased the plaint schedule
property from one Rajagiri Balarama Murthy and others vide a
deed of sale on 19.12.1978 bearing registered document
No.5772/1978. The plaint schedule property is vacant site,
described in the plaint schedule. Since the date of purchase, the
plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
Recently, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant with the active
connivance of her henchmen, fabricated, cooked up and
manufactured an illusory document of sale, dated 26.12.2016,
on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mangalagiri, bearing
Document No.13636/2016, alleged to have been executed by
one Pamulapati Kanchaiah of Vijayawada, alleged to be the
General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff. In the
aforesaid sale deed, it was alleged that the defendant paid the
entire consideration of Rs.38,40,000/- to the alleged vendor in
installments prior to the date of alleged sale deed. It was also
alleged that the original document of title was lost and could not
be traced out though a report was lodged to Patamata,
Autonagar Police Station. It was also alleged in the sale deed
that possession was delivered by the vendor to the vendee, but
in fact there was no delivery of possession and there is no oral
sale in favour of Mandapu Venkateswara Rao as alleged in the
document of sale, dated 26.12.2016. The alleged G.P.A. bearing
document No.2447/1994, on the file of Joint Sub-Registry, is
nothing but fabricated, manufactured and illegal document and
the contents thereof are not true. The contents of the sale deed,
dated 26.12.2016, are false and collusive and there is no iota of
truth in it. The defendant has no financial capacity to pay huge
amount of Rs.38,40,000/- either to the alleged vendor or to
Mandapu Venakteswara Rao at any point of time, even in
installments. So, basing on the alleged sale deed, dated
26.12.2016, no right, title and possession was flown to the
defendant. After came to know about the illegal sale deed, dated
26.12.2016, the plaintiff lodged a report to the Commissioner of
Police, Vijayawada, on 23.02.2017 against acknowledgement.
Hence, the suit.
4) The defendant got filed her written statement
denying the averments in the plaint and the contention of the
defendant, in brief, is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not at
all maintainable. The plaintiff suppressed the facts willfully and
filed the present suit with an intention to grab the property of
the defendant by hook or crook. The plaintiff executed a General
Power of Attorney on 21.09.1994 in favour of Pamulapati
Kanchaiah, S/o Venkateswara Rao and got it registered as
document No.2447/1994 before the Sub-Registrar Office,
Vijayawada. In the said document, it was categorically stated
that the plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property to one
Mandapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o Ramaiah on 21.09.1994 and
an agreement of sale was executed in favour of Mandapu
Venkateswara Rao. It was further stated that as the plaintiff has
some inconvenience in executing the registered sale deed in
favour of Mandapu Venakteswara Rao or his nominees, he
executed a G.P.A. The G.P.A. Holder is having rights to execute
a sale deed in favour of Mandapu Venkateswara Rao and also
signed on behalf of the plaintiff on all the required documents
and presented the same before the Registrar Office to execute
necessary documents. The schedule property was also
categorically mentioned in the G.P.A. The plaintiff also used to
be called as Veera Venkateswara Rao and he used to sign as
Veera Venkata Subba Rao. The plaintiff signed on the G.P.A. as
V.V.V. Subba Rao even though his name was mentioned as
Veera Venkateswara Rao S/o Puli Raju. The plaintiff himself
signed on the G.P.A. and he got it registered and put his thumb
impressions. He is well aware about the said fact. If he did not
execute the said document, he ought to have filed the original
document of the property. As he sold the property to Mandapu
VenakteswaraRao and executed a G.P.A. in favour of Kanchaiah,
he is not entitled to file the present suit to declare him as
absolute owner. The plaintiff, who already sold the property and
received total consideration is not entitled to claim any relief.
The defendant is a bonafide purchaser for valuable
consideration and she purchased the property for
Rs.38,40,000/- from the plaintiff, being represented by G.P.A.
Agent, Pamulapati Kanchaiah and Mandapu Venkateswara Rao
and obtained a registered sale deed, dated 26.12.2016. She
paid the total consideration and took possession and she has
been enjoying the same as absolute owner. The G.P.A. Holder,
Pamulapati Kanchaiah and Mandapu Venkateswara Rao are also
necessary and proper parties and the suit is not maintainable in
the absence of them. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim the
relief without claiming any relief against the G.P.A. Holder.
Without challenging the G.P.A., the plaintiff cannot maintain the
suit. The G.P.A. Holder of the plaintiff, Pamulapati Kanchaiah, is
entitled to execute the sale deed, as such, the defendant is the
absolute owner of the property. She is entitled to protect her
possession. Even in the report said to have been given by the
plaintiff to the Police Commissioner, he admitted the execution
of G.P.A. in favour of Pamulapati Kanchaiah. As the contents of
the report are false, police did not initiate any action. Hence, the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
5) Basing on the above pleadings, the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge settled the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and
consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
(3) Whether the defendant is a bonafide purchaser for
valuable consideration?
(4) To what relief?
6) During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff,
P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 were marked. The
defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and further examined
D.W.2, her husband and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4.
7) The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge on
conclusion of trial and on considering the oral evidence as well
as the documentary evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the
present appeal.
8) Now, in deciding the present appeal, the points that
arise for consideration are as follows:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proved his entitlement before the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge to seek declaration of
title and consequential relief of permanent injunction
under two counts as prayed for?
(2) Whether the judgment of the learned Additional Senior
Civil Judge is sustainable under law and facts and whether
there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9) P.W.1 before the learned Additional Senior Civil
Judge was no other than the plaintiff, who got filed his chief
examination affidavit. In chief examination affidavit, the plaintiff
put forth the facts as averred in the plaint averments. During his
examination in chief, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 were marked. Ex.A.1 was
registered extract of the sale deed, dated 19.12.1978 standing
in his name. Ex.A.2 was copy of report given by him to the
Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. During cross examination
of D.W.2, the husband of the defendant, Ex.A.3-the registration
extract of the sale deed, dated 21.04.1995 in respect of
Krishnalanka property and further Ex.A.4-the registration
extract of the G.P.A., dated 21.09.1994 with regard to
Krishnalanka property were marked.
10) The defendant got filed her chief examination
affidavit as D.W.1 putting forth the facts in tune with the
contents of the written statement and through her examination,
Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 were marked. Ex.B.1 was registration extract of
sale deed, dated 26.12.2016 executed by GPA Holder of the
plaintiff. Ex.B.2 was registration extract of GPA executed by the
wife of plaintiff in favour of Kanchaiah, dated 21.09.1994.
Ex.B.3 was paper publication published in Prajasakthi, dated
15.11.2016.
11) The defendant got filed the chief examination
affidavit of D.W.2, who is no other than her husband and his
chief examination affidavit is in tune with the defence of the
defendant as averred in the written statement.
12) Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the plaintiff, would canvass the facts as averred in
the pleadings. He would contend that the plaintiff instituted the
suit for declaration of his title, possession and rights over the
plaint schedule property. There was no dispute that originally
the plaintiff purchased the property under Ex.A.1 from its
vendors. The defendant set up a sale deed, dated 26.12.2016
alleged to be executed by the G.P.A. holder of the plaintiff and
the alleged G.P.A. was of the year 1994. The plaintiff explained
the circumstances in Ex.A.2, the report lodged to police, in
which the said G.P.A. was brought into existence fraudulently.
To know the case of the plaintiff in proper perspective, one has
to look into his version in Ex.A.2 report lodged with police. He
categorically explained the circumstances in which he was
compelled to sign as many as papers and thumb marks at the
compulsion made by some persons and to protect the interest of
the defendant and her husband only, the plaintiff signed number
of documents. The so-called G.P.A. alleged to be executed by
the plaintiff was not at all voluntary and it was brought into
existence under threat and coercion, etc. On account of various
reasons and on account of inability, the plaintiff could not
challenge the validity of the alleged registered G.P.A., as such,
he kept quite. However, in a suit for declaration of title, the
Court has to investigate the title comprehensively. There is no
need for the plaintiff to challenge the validity of the alleged
G.P.A. which was alleged to be registered. In a suit for
declaration of title, the Court can go through the validity of the
alleged G.P.A. According to the case of the plaintiff, the so-
called G.P.A. set up by the defendant was not valid and it was
obtained by fraud and coercion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of
Haryana and another 1 clearly deprecated the practice of
conveying the properties under the cover of G.P.As. The effect of
the judgment in Suraj Lamp's case (supra) can be considered by
this Court to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the G.P.A.
pleaded by the plaintiff. When the plaint schedule property was
said to be located in Gollapudi area, the sale deed in the name
of the defendant was registered in Mangalagiri Sub-Registrar
Office, for the reasons best known. D.W.2, the husband of the
defendant, had no personal knowledge whatsoever even
according to him in support of the case of the defendant.
Absolutely, according to the answers spoken by D.W.1 and
D.W.2, there is every discrepancy as to the manner in which
consideration was paid by the defendant to the alleged vendor.
The defendant had no financial capacity to pay the alleged
consideration that too in various installments. The learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge ignored the serious discrepancies in
the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 as to the manner in which
they were alleged to have paid the consideration for purchasing
the property. During cross examination of D.W.1, Plaintiff
(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 656
brought into evidence Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 and it reveals that
though there was a G.P.A., the vendee ventured to purchase the
property from the wife of P.W.1 and the G.P.A. Holder
Kanchaiah kept quiet. All these goes to show that purposefully
on account of inability of the plaintiff for not challenging the
G.P.A., it was used to grab the property of the plaintiff. The
defendant is no other than the blood relative of P.W.1 and in
spite of help rendered by the plaintiff, the defendant and her
husband ultimately thought to grab the property, as such,
brought into existence the sale deed, dated 26.12.2016. As the
evidence on record reveals that the sale deed set up by the
defendant was not supported by consideration, it is nothing but
invalid. According to Ex.B.2, the so-called copy of G.P.A., it was
averred that the plaintiff sold the property to one M.
Venkateswara Rao under an agreement of sale. However, the
said agreement of sale has not seen the light of the day. Apart
from this, in the sale deed, dated 26.12.2016 i.e., Ex.B.1, it was
alleged that there was an oral sale and that the defendant paid
the amounts prior to Ex.B.1 in installments. The sale deed was
executed showing the defendant as nominee of M. Venkateswara
Rao. All these goes to show that the said sale deed was brought
into picture to grab the property of the defendant. With the
above submissions, the learned Senior Counsel would contend
that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge did not appreciate
the evidence in proper perspective, as such, appeal suit is liable
to be allowed so as to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff.
13) Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, would canvass the facts in
accordance with the written statement. He would contend that
P.W.1 is well educated. In the year 1994 he executed registered
G.P.A. in favour of one P. Kanchaiah stating that he sold the
plaint schedule property in favour of M. Venkateswara Rao and
because of his inability to execute a further sale deed conferred
power on the G.P.A. to execute sale deed in favour of
M. Venkateswara Rao or to any other person as suggested by
M. Venkateswara Rao. He kept quite since 1994 till the date of
filing of the suit. The case of the defendant is that she paid the
amounts to M. VenkateswaraRao in installments prior to the
execution of sale deed and she got the sale deed from G.P.A.
Holder as well as M. Venkateswara Rao. Her contention is that
the defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the plaint schedule
property. Plaintiff did not spell out any circumstances
whatsoever as to how he kept quite when the alleged registered
G.P.A. was obtained by him with coercion and force. According
to Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the G.P.A. has
been in force because the authority is not terminated. It is not
the case of the plaintiff that though he was forced to execute
alleged G.P.A., he ventured to execute any other document so
as to terminate the authority of the said G.P.A. No prudent man
would keep quiet for about 22 years when alleged G.P.A. was
obtained by him by playing fraud. Plaint averments did not
whisper that alleged G.P.A. is on account of any fraud by
coercion or undue influence. The plaintiff did not seek to declare
the G.P.A. as null and void or invalid. He allowed elapsing of
time of 22 years, though he was forced to execute the alleged
registered G.P.A. for no fault of him. On the other hand, in
Ex.A.2, he alleged several things explaining certain
circumstances in which he was allegedly subjected to pressure
to put his signatures on the stamps and also put signatures
before the Registrar. The conduct of the plaintiff is not that of a
man of reasonable prudence. The plaintiff did not plead any
fraud with necessary particulars. There is no bar to register the
property in anywhere in the State. The G.P.A. in the name of P.
Kanchaiah is perfectly valid. The relief of declaration is a
discretionary one. The plaintiff did not approach the Court with
clean hands. The decision in Suraj Lamp's case (supra) has
nothing to do with the present case on hand. It is not that
under the guise of G.P.A., the property was sold. On the other
hand, the G.P.A. was given to P. Kanchaiah with an
authorization to execute sale deed. The sale deed in the name of
the defendant was duly stamped and registered. The G.P.A. was
not brought into picture to evade any stamp duty or registration
charges. The registered G.P.A. in the name of P. Kanchaiah was
duly stamped and registered. The decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp's case (supra) has no application.
The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and with sound reasons, he dismissed the
suit of the plaintiff, as such, there are no grounds to interfere
with the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge.
With the above said contentions, the learned counsel for the
respondent prays to dismiss the suit.
14) There is no dispute that the plaintiff purchased the
plaint schedule property under the original of Ex.A.1 on
19.12.1978 and the plaint schedule property is vacant site in an
extent of 240 sq. yards in Gollapudi Village with specific
boundaries. The plaintiff sought to declare his title over the
plaint schedule property on the ground that he purchased the
same under the original of Ex.A.1 and that the defendant
claimed that she purchased the property on 26.12.2016 and the
document set up by the defendant is fabricated, cooked up and
manufactured and further the defendant claimed that she
purchased the property under the registered GPA Holder of the
plaintiff and that such a document is also a fabricated and
manufactured document. This is the substance of the pleadings.
15) Admittedly, there is no pleading in the plaint that
the registered GPA bearing Document No.2447/1994 is on
account of any forgery. When the plaintiff branded the
registered GPA fabricated, manufactured and illegal, there are
no proper pleadings as to in which circumstances the above said
registered GPA was brought into existence. It is the contention
of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that to know the
better the case of the plaintiff, one has to look into Ex.A.2, the
report lodged by P.W.1. Admittedly, there is a reference in the
plaint that the plaintiff lodged a report with concerned police
against his grievance with regard to the sale deed set up by the
defendant and further so-called registered GPA.
16) As seen from Ex.A.2, it is a tailored report and it is
lodged by the plaintiff on 23.02.2017 with the Commissioner of
Police, Vijayawada City. The substance of its allegations are that
Borra Padmaja Rao (defendant) is his younger sister. Borra
Jaganmohana Rao is the husband of Borra Padmaja Rao. On
08.09.1994 Borra Jaganmohana Rao came to him and told him
that Mandapu Venkateswara Rao is pressuring him to repay the
amount borrowed by him and he requested him to accompany
him (Jaganmohan Rao) to the house of Mandapu Venkateswara
Rao at 10-00 a.m. Accordingly, he accompanied Borra
Jaganmohana Rao. On seeing them, Mandapu Venakteswara
Rao slapped Jaganmohana Rao for which he intervened.
Mandapu Venakteswara Rao abused him (brother-in-law of
plaintiff) and asked him (P.W.1) to give a promissory note for
Rs.5,00,000/- with empty cheques. Then he went to his house
and brought 10 empty cheques each for Rs.50,000/- and
handed over to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao. Then they were
released. Later, they asked him as to how he would repay the
amount, for which he replied that he has house in Krishnalanka,
a site in Gollapudi and another site in Mangalagiri and he will get
money by mortgaging the same. After 10 days, Mandapu
Venakteswara Rao asked to him to pay the amount. He asked
him to grant time, for which he refused. As demanded by him on
20.09.1994, he took the documents of title of his house and
vacant site of Gollapudi and the site in the name of his wife at
Mangalagiri and handed over to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao.
Mandapu Venakteswara Rao asked him to accompany a person
and introduced one Pamulapati Kanchaiah and asked him to sign
the GPA document, as such, he signed the same in the Registrar
Office. They were demanded to get the GPA registered and they
obliged it. Subsequently, on 01.05.1995 Mandapu Venakteswara
Rao came to him and told him that his brother-in-law did not
pay the amount and asked him to pay the amount by selling
away the properties and he left Kanchaiah with him and
Kanchaiah abused them in filthy language. As demanded by
them, they completed the registration of a document pertaining
to their house and paid Rs.3,25,000/- and went to their house.
Later, Mandapu Venakteswara Rao did not release the
documents. When they questioned Jaganmohan Rao and his
wife, they did not give proper answer. Later, they came to know
that his sister got the sale deed on 26.12.2016. Hence, his son
and daughter sent a report with Prime Minister of India on
16.01.2017, but there is no response. So, they decided to file
complaint. This is the substance of the allegations.
17) As evident from Ex.A.2 when the so-called episodes
were occurred on 08.09.1994, 20.09.1994 and 01.05.1995, the
plaintiff could cause sending the so-called report to Prime
Minister of India on 16.01.2017. Ultimately they lodged a report
with police on 23.02.2017. There is no dispute that police did
not take any action on Ex.A.2. It is a case where there was
silence throughout on the part of the plaintiff till the year 2017
without bothering about the fate of so-called GPA, especially,
when it was allegedly obtained due to compulsion. Now, it is
pertinent to look into the cross examination part of P.W.1.
18) As evident from the evidence of P.W.1 in cross
examination, he deposed that he is working as Air Conditioned
Engineer. He studied Diploma in Mechanical and Diary
Engineering. The defendant is his sister. He gave Ex.A.2
personally. He scribed it. In the month of September, 1994 his
signatures were obtained forcibly in the office of the document
writer. Three days thereafter he went to the Registrar Office
where a document was registered. He obtained certified copy of
document in the month of January, 2017. It reveals that as if he
sold the plaint schedule property to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao
and appointed one Pamulapati Kanchaiah as his GPA Holder. He
did not give any notice to them till today. At request of his
brother-in-law, he signed the document. Till today he did not
issue any legal notice to his brother-in-law for cancellation of
GPA or gave any report to the police. No crime was registered
on the basis of Ex.A.2, but, he filed a private complaint against
the defendant, her husband, Mandapu Venakteswara Rao and
Pamulapati Kanchaiah and it is not registered so far, though he
filed it 45 days back before his evidence. He denied that he sold
the property to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao and executed a GPA
in favour of Kanchaiah and the defendant has no role to play in
the said transaction. He denied that he is not entitled for
declaration and that he is deposing false.
19) It is to be noted that Ex.B.2, the GPA, was dated
21.09.1994. The property purchased by the defendant was on
26.12.2016. The contents of Ex.B.2 were such that the plaintiff
sold the plaint schedule property to one Mandapu Venakteswara
Rao under agreement of sale on 21.09.1994 and as he was not
in position to execute a sale deed, he authorized Kanchaiah so
as to execute the sale deed in favour of Mandapu Venakteswara
Rao or to any person suggested by him. Ex.B.2 was a registered
document. A man of reasonable prudence would not have kept
quiet for a considerable period of 22 years having signed
document in the Registrar Office. The plaintiff had knowledge
that the so-called document which he allegedly signed either at
the compulsion of Mandapu Venakteswara Rao or his brother-in-
law was registered in the Sub-Registrar Office. He would not
have kept quiet without enquiry as to the nature of the
document. His evidence that he obtained the copy of document
in the year 2017 is nothing but improbable and against natural
course of human conduct. The knowledge of the contents of
Ex.B.2 can as well be attributed to the plaintiff. If really plaintiff
signed Ex.B.2 either at the compulsion of Mandapu
Venakteswara Rao or his sister or brother-in-law, he would not
have kept quiet without raising his little finger for 22 years. The
contents of Ex.A.2 were not at all pleaded properly in the plaint.
Even according to the plaintiff, the episode came to an end on
01.05.1995 where the plaintiff developed any amount of
despondency having paid a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- but taken back
Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- promissory note and 10 cheques
alone from Mandapu Venakteswara Rao. Even after 01.05.1995
the plaintiff kept quiet without bothering anything till the year
2017. In the considered view of this Court, the conduct of the
plaintiff was not that of a man of reasonable prudence. When his
close relatives i.e., his sister and brother-in-law did not respond
properly though he allegedly helped them he would not have
kept quiet without looking into the contents of the so-called
registered GPA.
20) Having regard to the natural course of conduct of a
man of reasonable prudence, this Court is of the view that if
really the contents of Ex.B.2 were on account of any threat or
coercion, plaintiff would not have kept quiet. In the light of the
above, the plaintiff had every knowledge about the contents of
Ex.B.2, registered GPA and it has to be inferred ultimately that if
the plaintiff did not voluntarily execute Ex.B.2, the registered
GPA in favour of Kanchaiah, he would not have kept quiet.
21) The plaintiff during the course of trial at the time of
cross examination of D.W.2 got marked Ex.A.3 and registration
extract of sale deed, dated 21.04.1995 and Ex.A.4 registration
extract of GPA, dated 21.09.1994. Having looked into the cross
examination part of D.W.2, the obvious intention of the plaintiff
in marking those documents is such that when his wife executed
Ex.A.4 registered GPA in favour of Kanchaiah so as to sell the
property at Krishnalanka, but the vendee under Ex.A.3
purchased the property directly from the wife of the plaintiff.
So, by filing those documents, contention of the plaintiff appears
to be that when his wife executed Ex.A.4 in favour of Kanchaiah
to sell the property covered under Ex.A.4, but Kanchaiah
allowed the same to be purchased by the vendee directly from
the wife of the plaintiff under Ex.A.3. In the considered view of
this Court, the above said contention has nothing to do with
Ex.B.2. Ex.B.2 is a separate GPA pertaining to vacant site at
Gollapudi. By relying upon Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4, the case of the
plaintiff cannot be supported in anyway. According to Section
201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, one of the modes of
termination of agency is termination by the principal revoking
his authority. Here, the contents of Ex.B.2 can be attributed to
the plaintiff since 21.09.1994. So, he did not choose to
terminate the authority of Kanchaiah. Under the circumstances
basing on Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4, the plaintiff cannot contend that
Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 are invalid.
22) It is also the contention of the appellant that when
Ex.B.2, the registered GPA, speaks of the agreement of sale
executed by the plaintiff in favour of Mandapu Venakteswara
Rao, the defendant did not produce the same in support of their
contention. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. As
this Court already pointed out, the evidence on record reveals
that execution of Ex.B.2, GPA in favour of Mandapu
Venakteswara Rao was not in the manner as pleaded by the
plaintiff. So, it is within the well knowledge of the plaintiff as to
what happened to the so-called agreement of sale between him
and Mandapu Venakteswara Rao. Under the circumstances, on
account of non-production of so-called agreement of sale
between the plaintiff and Mandapu Venakteswara Rao, the case
of the plaintiff cannot be substantiated. Under the
circumstances, the plaintiff cannot defeat the contention of the
defendant on the ground that the agreement of sale as referred
in Ex.B.2 was not produced. May be a fact that in Ex.B.1 sale
deed, there was a reference as to the existence of agreement
between Mandapu Venakteswara Rao and the plaintiff as oral
one. On that count, the plaintiff cannot substantiate his
contention so as to get a declaration of title. It is a case where
according to Ex.B.2, Kanchaiah was authorized to execute a sale
deed either in the name of Mandapu Venakteswara Rao or in the
name of a person suggested by him. According to the defence
of the defendant, Mandapu Venakteswara Rao having received
the amount from the defendant in installments authorized
Kanchaiah to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant along
with him. According to the defence of defendant, she was the
nominee by Mandapu Venakteswara Rao having paid the
consideration of Rs.38,40,000/- in various installments prior to
the sale. Under the circumstances and when Ex.B.2 was a
registered document authorizing Kanchaiah to execute sale deed
either in the name of Mandapu Venakteswara Rao or to his
nominee, the plaintiff cannot contend that the sale deed cannot
be executed in the name of the defendant without production of
original agreement of sale between him and Mandapu
Venakteswara Rao.
23) Coming to the case of Suraj Lamp's case (supra), it
is a case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of
certain things referring transfer of immovable properties under
the guise of General Power of Attorney sales. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court dealing with the situation held that the
immovable property can be transferred or conveyed only by
deed of conveyance i.e., sale deed duly stamped and registered
as required by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that
the judgment will not affect validity of sale agreements and
powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions prior to its
judgment.
24) Coming to the present case on hand, Ex.B.2 was on
21.09.1994. It is not a sale deed. It was an authorization given
to Kanchaiah to execute a sale deed duly in favour of Mandapu
Venakteswara Rao or to his nominee. Even Ex.B.2 was a
registered document. Apart from this, pursuant to the
authorization under Ex.B.2, Kanchaiah and Mandapu
Venakteswara Rao executed a registered sale deed under the
original of Ex.B.1 in the name of the plaintiff. Under the
circumstances, the judgment in Suraj Lamp's case (supra) has
nothing to do with the present facts and circumstances.
25) It is to be noted that the plaintiff, admittedly, did
not seek to declare the so-called GPA under Ex.B.2 as null and
void or vitiated by fraud and undue influence. On the other
hand, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title in respect of the
plaint schedule property. As this Court already pointed out the
plaintiff had every knowledge about the nature of the document
and the contents of the document and he kept silence
throughout. As rightly contended by the defendant, the plaintiff
did not mould his prayer properly. He did not seek to declare
Ex.B.2 document as null and void or vitiated by fraud and undue
influence. When the very execution of such a document as per
the evidence available on record appears to be voluntary his
prayer to declare his title deserves no merits. In the view of this
Court, the plaintiff should have pleaded proper facts in the plaint
in tune with allegations in Ex.A.2 and should have made proper
pleading so as to seek appropriate relief but the plaintiff
miserably failed to do so.
26) It is to be noted that the contention of the defendant
is that she purchased the plaint schedule property for a sum of
Rs.38,40,000/- and she paid the amount in various installments
to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao. Admittedly, as evident from the
evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, there appears to be some
discrepancy with regard to the manner in which the
consideration was paid to Mandapu Venakteswara Rao. D.W.1
during cross examination deposed that the amount was settled
for Rs.38,40,000/-. She gave advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
There is no recital in Ex.B.1 about the payment of advance of
Rs.4,00,000/-. Total consideration was paid in installments. First
installment started about 10 days prior to Ex.B.1. Last payment
was made on 26.12.2016 on which date she paid Rs.20 lakh.
She also deposed that both her children are working in States
and they used to send money to her.
27) Coming to the cross examination of D.W.2, the
husband of D.W.1, he has no personal knowledge about the
facts of the case as regards the GPA executed by the plaintiff.
He deposed that plaint schedule property was purchased by his
wife from Mandapu Venakteswara Rao for Rs.38,40,000/-. While
he gave Rs.15,00,000/-, the remaining amount was secured by
his son and daughter. The amount sent from 2015 to him and
his wife, were utilized for purchase of the property. He further
deposed that by the time of registration of Ex.B.1, an amount of
Rs.20 lakh was paid.
28) Basing on these answers the contention of the
plaintiff is that there is no consistency with regard to the
manner in which an amount of Rs.38,40,000/- was paid by the
defendant in favour of Mandapu Venakteswara Rao. If evidence
of D.W.1 and D.W.2 is considered together, in the considered
view of this Court, there is some consistency with regard to
getting of the amounts from their children who are working in
States. These answers are spoken by D.W.1 and D.W.2
consistently. The only discrepancy appears to be that when
D.W.2 stated that he gave Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant but
it is not deposed by D.W.1. Whatever the reason may be on
account of some discrepancy in the evidence of D.W.1 and
D.W.2 as to the manner in which the consideration under Ex.B.1
was paid, the case of the defendant cannot be thrown out. The
consideration was a matter between Mandapu Venakteswara
Rao and the defendant. When the evidence on record reveals
that the plaintiff miserably failed to probabalize his contention
that Ex.B.2 was vitiated as it was not executed voluntarily, he
cannot support his contention basing on the so-called small
discrepancy between the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 as to the
manner in which consideration under Ex.B.1 was paid. The relief
of declaration sought for by the plaintiff is discretionary one. It
is a case where he kept quiet all through for about 22 or 23
years having executed Ex.B.2. Under the circumstances, the
plaintiff cannot succeed basing on the weakness of the
defendant. It is the plaintiff who approached the Court seeking
declaration of title without making proper pleadings so as to
brand Ex.B.2 as vitiated by fraud or undue influence or coercion.
29) In the considered view of this Court, the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge on thorough appreciation of
evidence on record, declined to grant the relief of declaration
and perpetual injunction. Under the circumstances, this Court
does not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge.
30) In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs
confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24.07.2018 in
O.S.No.213 of 2017, on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Vijayawada.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt. 05.01.2024.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 05.01.2024
PGR
