Sri V.Narender Reddy vs Smt.P.Lakshmi Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2877 Tel

                                    1

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                       A.S.No.796 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

1 Impugning the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2010

delivered in O.S.No.437 of 2006 by the learned VIII Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the

unsuccessful defendant in the said suit preferred this appeal.

2 For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal will

hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial

Court.

3 The plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S.No.437 of 2006 before

the Court below against the defendant for declaration and

perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land

admeasuring Ac.5-23 guntas in Sy.No.491, Aliyabad Village,

Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with specific

boundaries, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit schedule

property'.

4 The facts that led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs

are that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule

property. Originally V.Malla Reddy, Buchi Reddy, Bhoomi Reddy

and K.Venkat Reddy were the owners of the said extent and that

they sold Ac.4-17 ½ guntas and Ac.1.06 guntas of land under

two separate registered sale deeds, vide document

Nos.7503/1988 and 7504/1988, both dated 11.10.1988 to one

Kaja Hakeemuddin, who in turn, vide registered document dated

12.4.1996, sold Ac.1.34 ½ guntas each to first plaintiff, one

Y.Bharathi Reddy and Abdul Kareem. The said Bharathi Reddy

sold her extent of Ac.1.34½ guntas to second plaintiff, vide

registered sale deed dated 12.12.2000. Likewise, Abdul Kareem

also sold his extent of Ac.1.34 ½ guntas of land in favour of

third plaintiff, vide registered sale deed dated 27.7.2004. Thus,

the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 became the absolute owners and

possessors of the suit schedule property. The original pattadars

sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs with specific

boundaries and delivered possession physically to the

purchasers. The plaintiffs have also obtained permission from

the gram panchayat, Aliyabad, on 25.8.2005 for constructing

compound wall around the suit schedule property.

5 It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in the month of

July, 2005, the defendant came to the suit schedule property

and proclaimed that he purchased part of land in Sy.No.491

from Buchi Reddy and Vanga Bhoomi Reddy and that he filed

O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar,

seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated

29.9.1987 and further canvassed that the said suit was decreed

on 19.11.1994 and a sale deed was executed in his favour by the

Court.

6 The plaintiffs further assert that on enquiry they came to

know that the defendant herein filed the above suit O.S.No.422

of 1990 against Buchi Reddy and Vanga Bhoomi Reddy seeking

specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.9.1987 and

the said suit was decreed ex parte on 19.11.1994 and in

pursuance of the said decree, the defendant filed E.P.No.157 of

1997 and got the sale deed executed through Court on

26.4.2004 to an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.491, situated at

Aliyabad villge, Shamirpet Mandal Ranga Reddy District

bounded by North: Sy.No.491 (Part), South: Government land,

East: Sy.No.490 and West: P.W.D. Road and land of one Gopal

Rao. Thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained Certified Copy of the said

sale deed and on verification of the alleged agreement of sale

dated 29.9.1987 and the plaint in O.S.No.422 of 1990 it was

found that no boundaries were mentioned therein. Therefore,

the plaintiffs understood that the defendant herein, in collusion

with their vendor's vendors, filed the above suit and by playing

fraud on the part of the Court, obtained decree in the said suit

to gain illegally. The boundaries shown in the above sale deed

are different from the boundaries of the land purchased and

possessed by the plaintiffs. Even in the decree passed in the

above suit also no boundaries were shown. The defendant has

no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.

7 Hence the plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.437 of 2006

seeking to declare the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1994

passed in O.S.No.422 of 1990 by the learned Principal

Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroornagar, and

the registered sale deed dated 26.4.2004 vide document No.5629

of 2004 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy District which was executed in

execution of the above said decree, as null and void and not

binding on the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property

and consequently to grant perpetual injunction restraining the

defendant from transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit

schedule property and also to grant perpetual injunction

restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs'

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property.

8 The defendant filed written statement denying the various

averments of the plaint inter alia contending that he entered into

an agreement of sale on 27.9.1987 to purchase the land in

Sy.No.491/Part admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas with original

pattadars for consideration of Rs.84,000/- out of which he paid

Rs.20,000/- as advance at the time of agreement. However, as

the vendors failed to execute regular registered sale deed, he

filed O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, which was decreed on 19.11.1994. He filed

E.P.No.187 of 1997 and accordingly, the Court executed a sale

deed dated 26.4.2004 which was registered as document

No.5629 of 2004 and possession of the E.P. schedule was

delivered to him on 22.01.2005 and ever since he has been in

exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same without any

objection from anyone.

9 The defendant further claimed that the alleged sale deeds

under which the plaintiffs are claiming title are all bogus. It is

submitted that when Khaja Hakeemuddin published an

advertisement on 04.02.1996 in Deccal Chronicle this defendant

got published a reply public notice on 11.02.1996, in which the

decree dated 19.11.1994 passed in O.S.No.422 of 1990 was also

mentioned, in spite of which the plaintiffs and their vendors

went ahead with the proposed transactions which clearly shows

that they are all bogus transactions and also lack of bona fides

on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaint schedule and the

boundaries and the vendors were all set up for the purpose of

filing the suit. The plaintiffs or their vendor Hakeemuddin were

never in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs

cannot question the sale deed dated 26.4.2004 executed by the

competent Court. Hence the defendant prayed to dismiss the

suit.

10 Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the

following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of decree in O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the file of the I ASJ Court, R.R. District and sale deed dated 26.4.2004 under document No.5629/2004 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

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

3) To what relief?

11 During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiffs P.Ws.1

and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.37 were marked. On

behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as

D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.19 were marked.

12 On issue No.1, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs 1 to

3 perfected their title from their vendors and their vendors also

got title through Hakeemuddin and the said Hakeemuddin also

perfected his title from original vendors and that the defendant

failed to prove that the original vendors Buchi Reddy and

Bhoomy Reddy executed the sale deed and the same was

effected through decree in his favour. Accordingly, the issue was

held in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

13 On issue No.2, the trial Court held that the pattedar pass

books and title deeds under Exs.A.7 to A.12 and Pahanis under

Exs.A.13 to A.17 permissions obtained by the plaintiffs under

Exs.A.19 to A.21 and other supporting documents like electricity

bills, photographs etc, more particularly Ex.A.23 proceedings of

the Mandal Revenue Officer clearly establish that the plaintiffs

are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of

filing of the suit. Accordingly, the trial Court held the issue in

favour of the plaintiffs granting perpetual injunction in favour of

the plaintiffs.

14 Accordingly, by judgment and decree dated 22.3.2010 the

trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against

the defendant holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for

declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the

file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District and sale deed dated 26.4.2004 under document

No.5629 of 2004 is null and void and not binding on the

plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual

injunction.

15 As stated supra, aggrieved by the judgment and decree

dated 22.3.2010 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.437 of

2006, the unsuccessful defendant filed the present appeal.

16 Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the

defendant, submitted that non-examination of V.Buchi Reddy,

V.Bhoomi Reddy and Hakeemuddin through whom the plaintiffs

are claiming is fatal to the plaintiffs' case. He further submitted

that the plaintiffs instead of filing a suit for declaration of title,

have filed the suit seeking a declaration that the earlier decree

passed by the court in favour of the defendant is not binding on

them, which is not permissible as per the ratio laid down in

Prasantha Benerji Vs. Puspa Ashoke Chandani1. He further

submitted that the court below failed to see that in view of the

judgment reported in Anantula Sudhakar Vs. Buchireddy2, the

suit for injunction simplicitor without the relief of declaration as

to the title is not maintainable. He further submitted that the

alleged purchase of property by the plaintiffs is pendent lite,

therefore, the plaintiffs cannot assail the decree as their sale

deeds are clearly void under Section 52 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882. In support of his contention he relied on the

ratio laid down in Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P. Lakhmi Ammal3.

He further submitted that the plaintiffs have not filed any

document to show their possession over the property as on the

date of filing of the suit and to rebut the delivery of possession to

the defendant under Exs.B.9 and B.10. He further submitted

that the plaintiffs failed to prove the fraud allegedly played by

the defendant without there being any basis. He further

submitted that the trial Court, having appreciated that even

1 AIR 2000 SC 3567 2 AIR 2008 SC 2033 3 AIR 2008 SC 2560

after knowing about the filing of the suit, P.W.1 did not file any

petition in the executing Court, which is fatal to the case of the

plaintiffs. He further submitted that in view of Exs.B.2 and B.11,

the suit claim is barred by limitation. He further submitted that

the suit is liable to be dismissed since the plaintiffs did not seek

relief of possession under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act. In

respect of amendment of schedule of property, the learned

counsel for the defendant relied on the ratio laid down in M.A.

Rasheed Vs. T.S.Mahabob Basha4 and by relying on the ratio

laid down in Niyamat Ali Molla Vs. Sonargon Housing

Cooperative Society Ltd5, the learned counsel for the

defendant submitted that decree is not defeated by blanks in

schedule and that they can be filled by amendment under

Section 152 CPC and accordingly the learned counsel for the

defendant prayed to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit.

17 Per contra, Sri P.Veerraju, the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs, submitted that the sale deeds Exs.A.1 and A.2 were

registered on 11.10.1988 in the name of Hakeemuddin and as

such on the date of execution of EXs.A.1 and A.2 the alleged

land agreement of sale deed under Ex.A.30 has become

infructuous as the defendant failed to perform his part of

contract. He further submitted that Ex.A.30 is subsequent to

Exs.A.1 and A.2. He further submitted that Ex.A.30 is an

unregistered agreement of sale, which cannot be looked into. He

further submitted that the defendant incorporated boundaries

4 2002 (3) ALT 293 5 (2007) 13 SCC 421

by filing amendment petition. He further submitted that since

the plaintiffs and their vendors have been in continuous

possession, relief under section 22 of Specific Relief Act is not

necessary and accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal and

confirm the impugned judgment.

18 Keeping in view the submissions made by the respective

counsel and the material available on record, this Court framed

the following points for consideration in this appeal.

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of decree in O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the file of the I ASJ Court, R.R. District and sale deed dated 26.4.2004 under document No.5629/2004 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

(2) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs without there being any relief sought for by them insofar as declaration of title is concerned? and

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and if so whether they are entitled to decree of perpetual injunction in their favour?

POINT Nos.1 to 3:

19 As seen from Exs.A.1 and A.2, they were executed in

favour of one Hakeemuddin by V.Malla Reddy, Buchi Reddy,

Bhoomi Reddy and one Venkat Reddy on 11.10.1988 for the

total extent of Ac.5.23 guntas in Sy.No.491. So as seen from

Exs.A.1 and A.2, Hakeemuddin perfected title.

20 Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated

12.4.1996 executed by Hakeemuddin in favour of first plaintiff,

Bharathi Reddy and Abdul Kareem in respect of the said land.

Out of them, Bharathi Reddy sold the property to second

plaintiff under Ex.A.4. Abdul Kareem sold his land to the third

plaintiff under Ex.A.5 sale deed. Ex.A.6, which is under

challenge in the suit by the plaintiffs, is the certified copy of

registered sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the

defendant on behalf of Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy for an

extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.491. Exs.A.7 to A.9 are the pattadar

pass books and Ex.A.10 to A.12 are the title deeds stand in the

name of plaintiffs. A.13 to A.17 are the pahanis for the years

from 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2004-2005. Ex.A.18 is the

proceeding of the Recording Authority for the suit land in favour

of Hakeemuddin. Exs.A.19 to A.21 are the proceedings issued by

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division,

granting permission in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 for

conversion of the land use. Ex.A.23 is the letter, dated

03.4.2006, addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Shameerpet Mandal, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R. East

Division. Ex.A.24 is the tax receipt dated 22.4.2008on the name

of plaintiff No.3, Exs.A.25 and 26 are the electricity bills and

receipts. Ex.A.28 is the permission dated 22.11.2008 accorded

for construction of wall and room. Ex.A.29 is copy of registered

sale deed dated 11.10.1988 in favour of Khaja Hakeemuddin by

Vanga Malla Reddy, Vanga Buchi Reddy, Vanga Bhoomi Reddy.

Ex.A.30 is the copy of agreement of sale dated 27.9.1987 said to

have been executed in favour of the defendant by Buchi Reddy

and Bhoomi Reddy. Ex.A.32 is the legal notice dated 11.7.1990

got issued by the defendant to Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy.

Ex.A.33 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.422 of 1990

instituted by the defendant herein against Buchi Reddy and

Bhoomi Reddy. Ex.A.36 is the certified copy of the orders passed

in I.A.No.701 of 1999 in O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the file of the

Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District

at Saroornagar permitting the defendant to amend the plaint by

incorporating the boundaries to the schedule of property.

21 The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is

that the purchase of property by the plaintiffs is pendent lite,

therefore, the plaintiffs cannot assail the decree as their sale

deeds are clearly void under Section 52 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882. But as seen from the cross examination of

P.W.1, though he admits that subsequent to the filing of the suit

O.S.No.422 of 1990 only he purchased the suit schedule

property, but he immediately adds that by that time he has no

knowledge with regard to pendency of the said suit. The very

cause of action for the plaintiffs to institute the present suit was

in the year 2005 when the defendant came to the property and

proclaimed that he purchased Ac.4.00 of land in Sy.No.491 from

Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy. In the cross examination P.W.1

further stated that in the year 2006 they received notices from

the Mandal Revenue Officer for surveying their lands and then

only he came to know with regard to O.S.No.422 of 1990. Hence

the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is

negatived on this aspect.

22 Coming to Ex.A.30 dated 27.9.1987, it does not show the

boundaries of the land alleged to have been purchased under

this document from Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy. So also,

Ex.A.32 notice, the plaint as well as the registered sale deed

Ex.B.7 executed by the Court in O.S.No.422 of 1990, also do not

contain the boundaries in the schedule of property. The

defendant got incorporated the boundaries subsequently by

filing amendment petition. Ex.A.30 cannot be given any

weightage. It is not known under what circumstances the Court

entertained the plaint and under what circumstances the court

also passed a decree with a defective schedule of property.

Moreover, the said decree was an ex parte decree.

23 In Ex.A.30 dated 27.9.1987 the condition was that the

defendant has to get the registered sale deed executed within

two months i.e. in the first week of December 1987 by paying

the balance sale consideration. But the defendant herein got

issued a legal notice to the defendants in the said suit on

11.7.1990. However, V.Malla Reddy, Buchi Reddy, Bhoomi

Reddy and K.Venkat Reddy who were the original owners and

the alleged vendors of the defendant herein sold Ac.4-17 ½

guntas and Ac.1.06 guntas of land under two separate registered

sale deeds, vide document Nos.7503/1988 and 7504/1988, both

dated 11.10.1988 to one Kaja Hakeemuddin. Therefore, the sale

deeds executed in favour of Hakeemuddin are much prior to the

registered notice said to have been given by the defendant herein

to Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy. Therefore, it can be said

that the said notice has become infructuous in the eye of law.

Further, Ex.A.30 is titled as land agreement. It is not known

whether it is an agreement of sale, or agreement for lease. The

present suit was filed to declare the decree and judgment in

O.S.No.422 of 1990 and the consequential sale deed executed in

favour of the defendant as null and void. Since the plaintiffs are

not parties to the said suit, they cannot appeal or seek review of

the said judgment and decree. Therefore, Section 20 CPC does

not prohibit filing a suit to set aside the decree obtained by the

defendant, which was not against the plaintiffs, but was against

some others. Further, the defendant failed to establish that he

has taken any steps within two months as shown in Ex.B.2

paper publication to get the document registered in his name

after paying the balance sale consideration. All these

circumstances seem to be suspicious and remained

unexplained.

24 Coming to the documents marked on behalf of the

defendant, Ex.B.8 is the warrant issued by the Court to the

Bailiff in Form No.11 to give possession of the land to the

defendant. Ex.B.9 is the panchanama conducted in the presence

of panchas while delivering possession of the property to the

defendant by the Bailiff. Ex.B.10 is the receipt given by the

defendant acknowledging the delivery of possession of the

property.

25 Subsequent to the sale deed executed by the Court in his

favour, the defendant approached the Mandal Revenue Officer

for mutation of his name in the revenue records. However, as

seen from Ex.A.23, letter No.B/229/05 dated 03.4.2006 goes to

show that plaintiffs are in physical possession and occupation of

an extent of Ac.5.23 guntas in Sy.No.491 and hence he was

unable to mutate the name of the defendant in revenue records

on the basis of sale deed and panchanama of Bailiff produced by

him. It was further mentioned in Ex.A.23 that above all

boundaries of the land claimed by the defendant through court

decree, followed by sale deed and panchanama conducted by

Court Bailiff are not tallying with actual boundaries of the land

available on site which is in physical possession and enjoyment

and occupation of the plaintiffs. It was also mentioned that the

boundaries of the land claimed by the defendant through the

Court decree are not capable of being implemented on the

available land at site. It was also mentioned in Ex.A.23 that the

defendant purchased the said land from Vanga Buchi Reddy and

Vanga Bhoomi Reddy as seen from the sale deed document. The

vendors are no more pattedars as per revenue records. It is

surprising to note that the defendant did not question Ex.A.23

in any court of law.

26 In the light of Ex.A.23, it is very much doubtful how the

Bailiff delivered the physical possession of the property to the

defendant. All this goes to show that the defendant is not clear

about the land alleged to have been purchased by him from

Vanga Buchi Reddy and Vanga Bhoomi Reddy.

27 When there is a claim and rival claim, the revenue records

and the corresponding entries in the records cannot be ignored.

As per Ex.A.23, the competent authority clearly stated that the

plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property.

Exs.A.7 to A.9 Pattedar pass books stand in the name of the

plaintiffs. Moreover, A.13 to A.17, the pahanis for the years from

1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2004-2005 show the names of plaintiffs

in possessory column. Ex.A.18 is the proceeding of the

Recording Authority for the suit land in favour of Hakeemuddin.

Ex.A.18 is dated 18.12.1992. In that document, the said

Hakeemuddin was shown as the possessor and occupier of land

an extent of Ac.5.23 guntas in Sy.No.491. So it is not elicited

from any quarter how Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy executed

Ex.A.30 in favour of the defendant in respect of the land in

Sy.No.491 to an extent of Ac.4.00. Moreover, both the parties

have not taken steps to examine any competent authority to

show the total extent of Sy.No.491 i.e. whether Sy.No.491 is

more than five acres and odd or something more. When Ex.A.18

does not show Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy are pattedars of

the extent shown in Sy.No.491, question of executing Ex.A.30 in

favour of the defendant does not arise at all because they cannot

transfer title to the defendant which they do not have. In

addition to that in O.S.No.422 of 1990 the said Buchi Reddy and

Bhoomi Reddy who were defendants, have not chosen to contest

the said suit may be unaware of the institution of the suit as

notices were not served on them admittedly. That was why the

said suit was decreed ex parte. The defendant in the present suit

categorically admitted in cross examination by the plaintiffs that

notices were not served on Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy.

This is also a suspicious circumstance which spreads cloud on

the genuineness of Ex.A.30.

28 During cross examination the defendant admitted that he

has no acquaintance with Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy.

Further Ex.A.30 does not disclose that the defendant verified the

link documents of the property from Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi

Reddy. So also it is his admission that he cannot say the scribe

of the agreement and that he does not know the attestors of

Ex.A.30. When Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy became ex

parte even in the earlier suit, the contention of the learned

counsel for the defendant that the plaintiffs failed to examine

them and the suit is not maintainable for non joinder of

necessary parties is incongruous.

29 The claim of the defendant was that when Hakeemuddin

tried to alienate the suit property, he got issued paper

publications. When the case of the defendant itself was that

Hakeemuddin was trying to alienate the property in Sy.No.491,

what prevented him to bring that fact to the notice of his

vendors Buchi Reddy and Bhoomi Reddy is also not known.

Moreover, the defendant has also not clarified when he obtained

encumbrance certificates with regard to the suit schedule

property i.e. whether it was before or after execution of Ex.A.30.

In such circumstances, the defendant ought to have impleaded

Hakeemuddin in O.S.No.422 of 1990 even at a belated stage.

30 In view of the disputed questions of fact with regard to

Ex.A.30, and it being an unregistered document, the same

cannot be looked into in its entirety also for the reason that it

became infructuous due to non-performance of the contract by

the defendant within the time stipulated therein.

31 Exs.A.19 to A.21 are the proceedings issued by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, granting

permission in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 for conversion of the

land use. All these documents obviously strengthen the case of

the plaintiffs.

32 As seen from Exs.A.1 to A.3 the plaintiffs are the bona fide

purchasers of the land. The amendment of schedule in

O.S.No.422 of 1990 was carried out behind back of the plaintiffs

as well as the defendants therein. The decree having attained

finality, the trial court would be rendered functus officio. It would

not be able to entertain any application for amendment of plaint

/ decree. It is only in the executing Court the defendant ought to

have filed such application seeking amendment but not in the

trial Court. Of course, only in the event of any clerical or

arithmetical mistakes can be rectified, but it cannot allow the

party to fill up the lacunae.

33 Coming to the question of limitation, the plaintiffs pleaded

in the plaint followed by the evidence of P.W.1 that they have

been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property and only in the year 2005 when the defendant

proclaimed adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs, they came to

know about the decree and judgment in O.S.No.422 of 1990 and

immediately they filed the suit in 2006. Hence the suit is within

the period of limitation.

34 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and in the light of the above discussion, it can safely be held

that the plaintiffs are certainly entitled to seek declaration that

the decree and judgment in O.S.No.422 of 1990 on the file of the

Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District

at Saroornagar, and the consequential sale deed executed by the

Court in favour of the defendant as null and void as the same

was obtained by playing fraud and it will not bind the plaintiffs.

35 Consequent upon the above finding, I am of the

considered view that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of

declaration of title in their favour though they did not seek it

specifically, in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. So

the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant on this

aspect also holds no water.

36 The voluminous documentary evidence in the form of

pahani patrikas - Exs.A.13 to 17, tax receipt - Exs.A.24,

Electricity Bills - Exs.A.25 and A.26, more particularly Ex.A.28

permission accorded for construction of wall and room in favour

of the plaintiffs by the gram panchayat concerned, the plaintiffs

are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction in their favour.

Accordingly, all the points are answered in favour of plaintiffs.

37 The decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for the

defendant, are not applicable to the fact and circumstances of

the case on hand.

38 For all the above reasons, I see no merit in this appeal and

accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed.

39 In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the

judgment and decree dated 22.3.2010 delivered in O.S.No.437 of

2006 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. No order as to costs.

40 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

shall also stand dismissed.

__________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date: 04.10.2021 Kvsn