Sri I.Vishnuvardhan Reddy vs Sri P.Laxman Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 6418 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                APPEAL SUIT No.393 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

A.S.No.393 of 2014 is filed against the Judgment of

the trial Court in O.S.No.1211 of 2006 dated 25.09.2013.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of the registered sale

deed dated 20.04.2006 and for mandatory injunction. Plaintiff is

examined as P.W.1 and he also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and

marked Exs.A1 to A5. Defendants examined as D.Ws.1 & 2 and

marked Exs.B1 to B5 on their behalf. The trial Court

considering the entire evidence on record and the arguments of

both sides dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment,

this appeal is preferred and the appellant contended that the

trial Court misinterpreted provisions of law and not considered

the document filed in support of the case and also not

appreciated the crucial point arising out of the dispute in

question. He filed suit for cancellation of sale deed on the

ground of non-receipt of the sale consideration and filed

document to show that the remaining sale consideration was

not received by him even after execution of the sale deed, but

the trial Court without considering the same dismissed the suit. The defendant No.1 undervalued the document to avoid stamp

duty and took advantage of the same. The trial Court has not

observed that there will be difference between market value and

the Government value of the property, the first defendant has

paid the Government value i.e, value shown in the document.

The trial Court erred in observing that even in the case of non-

receipt of payment of sale consideration the remedy is recovery

of money and he cannot file suit for cancellation of the

document. Appellant also stated that he gave legal notice, but

defendant No.1 did not give any reply. The defendant No.1

played fraud upon him in getting sale deed registered without

paying sale consideration. In the cross-examination the

defendant No.1 stated that he does not know contents of the

document and it is prepared by the document writer. He further

stated that market value and the Government value are one and

the same and he paid the suit amount. It clearly shows that he

awaded the payment of balance sale consideration and tried to

take advantage of his wrong. Therefore, requested the Court to

set aside the Judgment.

3. O.S.No.1211 of 2006 is filed against the defendant No.1

and the Joint Sub - Registrar i.e, defendant No.2 for

cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 20.04.2006 and

for injunction. Plaintiff stated that he is absolute owner and

possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2 - 28 gts in

Sy.No.62 and Acs.2 - 28 gts in Sy.No.72 total measuring an

extent of Acs.5 - 16 gts at Gudur Village, Kandukur Mandal,

R.R.District (from hereinafter called as Suit Schedule Property).

He further stated that as his mother executed the registered gift

deed vide document No.13/2005 dated 03.01.2005 in his

favour, from then onwards his name is entered in the revenue

records as pattedar and possessor vide ROR proceedings

No.B/103/2005 dated 19.03.2005 issued by the M.R.O,

Kandukur Mandal, R.R.District. Since then he is in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The defendant No.1 entered into an agreement with him

in October, 2005 agreeing to purchase the property for total sale

consideration of Rs.41,85,000/- at the rate of Rs.7,75,000/- per

acre and paid Rs.10,00,000/- each on two occasions i.e,

Rs.20,00,000/- towards part payment/earnest money. The

defendant No.1 agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to

the plaintiff within 4 months from the date of Agreement of Sale

and after receipt of the said sale consideration, plaintiff has to

execute the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1.

Plaintiff further stated that defendant No.1 agreed to pay the

balance sale consideration before the defendant No.2 i.e, Joint

Sub-Registrar, R.R.District at Moosapet, as he brought the

same and shown to the plaintiff, he informed to the plaintiff that

as soon as the sale deed was registered, the same will be paid to

him and for the purpose of safety he kept the same in his car.

Believing his words, plaintiff accepted for registration and

informed to the defendant No.2 as he received the sale

consideration, but after the registration on the pretext of getting

money from the car which is parked on the roadside in front of

the office of the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 left office

and ran away in his car without paying sale consideration and

thus he played fraud upon him in getting sale deed registered

without paying balance sale consideration with a malafide

intention to cheat and defraud him. Immediately he informed

the same to the defendant No.2 in writing by way of protest

letter. On his representation defendant No.2 kept the registered

sale deed document pending vide No.P/605/2006 dated

20.04.2006. The defendant No.2 also informed that the said

document will be delivered to defendant No.1 only on confirming

of the payment of balance sale consideration, as such he gave

legal notice on 22.04.2006 with a direction to pay the balance

sale consideration within 3 days from the date of receipt of the

notice. In spite of receiving the legal notice, he has neither paid

the agreed sale consideration nor given any reply, as such he

filed suit for cancellation of pending registered sale deed and

also for mandatory injunction.

5. It seems during pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 filed

an appeal before the D.R.O and he gave direction for release of

document, accordingly, original document was given to the

defendant No.1. As such, in I.A.No.1955 of 2010 dated

28.10.2010 the word pending was deleted and the document

number was corrected as document No.2415 of 2010 by way of

amendment.

6. In the Written Statement filed by the defendant No.1, he

stated that plaintiff is a chronic litigant and is in habit of

creating litigations and he filed suit only to harass and gain

wrongfully. He sold the property only after receiving total agreed

sale consideration and thus he has no locus standi to file suit,

as such suit itself is not maintainable. The plaintiff has made

the Joint Sub-Registrar - I as defendant No.2 and he is no way

concerned with the suit schedule property or with the

cancellation of the pending registered sale deed, he has no

jurisdiction to keep the document pending, but only on the false

complaint he kept document pending. Initially he has given a

number as 9364/2003 to the document in question, but later

he kept it pending without any reason. In fact, the second

defendant after verifying the entire document, asked the

executant whether he received the sale consideration, also

satisfying with the contents of the sale deed, after obtaining

signatures of the witnesses and also signatures and thumb

impressions of the plaintiff he gave the said registered number.

Defendant No.1 has not disputed the ownership of the plaintiff

or the gift deed executed by his mother in his name and the

ROR proceedings in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff

admitted in his plaint that he informed to defendant No.2 that

he received the entire sale consideration and thus he cannot go

back and say that he has not received the sale consideration. He

denied the said facts as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint.

Plaintiff has not even signed on the sale deed stating that only

after receiving the entire sale consideration, he will sign on the

document and thus he paid the entire sale consideration in the

presence of the witnesses and then only he signed on the sale

deed and admitted the receipt of entire sale consideration and

affixed his thumb impressions on the document and also in the

books of the Joint Registrar in the presence of witnesses and

the Sub Registrar. Even when the second defendant questioned

him regarding the balance sale consideration, he clearly

admitted that he received the entire sale consideration, but

created a false story, he has not given any complaint and not

initiated criminal proceedings against him. After execution of

the registered sale deed, he demanded more amount as the

prices are increased in that area, when defendant No.1 refused

to oblige his request, he filed an application before defendant

No.2. Plaintiff has no cause of action to the suit. Therefore,

requested the Court to dismiss the suit.

7. P.W.1 reiterated the facts of plaint in his evidence, but

during cross - examination he stated that one Shankaraiah is

the mediator while dealing with the suit transaction. One

Santhosh and Mahender also signed on the sale deed. When he

was questioned regarding the date of agreement of sale, he

stated that he has no idea, he has not mentioned about the

agreement of sale in the registered sale deed, only after going

through the contents of the registered sale deed he signed and

Sub-Registrar executed the document and he has not filed the

agreement of sale either in the Court or anywhere. He also

stated that registered sale deed was executed between

3 to 4 P.M on 20.04.2006, by that time first defendant had left

the registrar office in his car, he cannot say the number of the

car, but the make of the car was Scarpio. He gave complaint to

defendant No.2 at 4:05 P.M. He further stated that he went to

the police station, but he did not give any complaint as

defendant No.1 telephoned to him that he will pay the amount

on the next day. Even afterwards, he has not given any

complaint before the police against defendant No.1. Ex.A1 is

scribed by one Srinivas, he knows the contents of Ex.A1, but he

has not mentioned anything regarding the agreement of sale or

balance sale consideration either in Ex.A1 or under Ex.A2. He

also admitted that after execution of the registered sale deed

endorsement was made in the Passbook regarding registration.

Basing on his complaint second defendant kept the registered

document pending. The District Registrar asked for clarification

from the Government Pleader, High Court on 15.09.2009.

20 days after the registration i.e, 20.04.2006 he filed suit. He

admitted that defendant No.1 filed an appeal before D.R.O. He

also filed counter before the District Registrar. The District

Registrar also examined two attesting witnesses of the registered

sale deed and passed order vide No.11/E/2008 dated

22.03.2010 and released the document in favour of defendant

No.1. He further admitted that he has not pleaded fraud under

Ex.A1 or any other document except in the plaint for the first

time. It was also suggested by him that due to increase of

prices, he demanded more money but defendant failed to pay

the same, he filed the present suit but he denied it.

8. Plaintiff also examined one G.Narsimha Reddy as P.W.2

who accompanied him to the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar on

20.04.2006. Though, he supported the version of plaintiff in the

Chief - Examination regarding non-payment of the sale

consideration by defendant No.1 after the execution of the sale

deed and filing of application before defendant No.1 by P.W.1, in

the cross - examination he clearly admitted that he was not

present at the time of negotiation of the sale prior to

20.04.2006. He along with plaintiff and three other persons

went to the registrar office, but he did not go inside the office

and stayed outside only. P.W.1 informed him that defendant

No.1 has not paid the amount at about 3 or 4 P.M. He along

with other three persons went to Balanagar Police Station, but

they have not given any complaint to the police. P.W.1 gave

complaint to the Sub-Registrar, but Sub - Registrar has not

given any acknowledgment to the plaintiff. He simply put round

mark with red ink in the register.

9. P.W.3 also accompanied plaintiff and P.W.2 to the office of

the Joint Sub - Registrar on 20.04.2006. The chief affidavit filed

by the P.W.2 and 3 are almost similar. In the cross-examination

he has admitted that his wife Sridevi is the own sister of plaintiff

and thus he is the brother - in - law of plaintiff. He stated that

agreement of sale was executed in the month of October and he

cannot say the date on which it was entered in between the

parties. He signed as witness in both receipt and agreement. He

has not signed as witness in the registered sale deed. He did not

sign on the complaint given by the plaintiff which is given to the

registrar. He did not know the name of scribe of the complaint.

Complaint is typed by one and it is in English. He further

admitted that they have not given any police complaint.

10. P.W.4 is the alleged Mediator J.Shankaraiah, he stated

that father of the plaintiff sold Acs.10 - 00 gts of land to his wife

and to his sister - in - law. He did not do any mediation

between plaintiff and the first defendant and he did not receive

Rs.2,00,000/- as commission from plaintiff or car as gift from

the first defendant. He stated that he has not signed as witness

in the agreement of sale along with Bal Reddy. It was suggested

to him that the first defendant gave Ac.1 - 00 gts of land in

Sy.No.8 for deposing in favour of the defendant No.1, but he

denied it. He also stated that he has not attended for the

registration of the sale deed. He further stated that all

registrations of lands in their village will be done at

Maheshwaram Register's Office but not at Moosapet.

11. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. He stated that

plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule property for

Rs.8,10,000/-. He paid the total sale consideration and it was

registered in his name on 20.04.2006. He stated that plaintiff

also filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga

Reddy East Division vide appeal No.A2/3024/2010 and the

same was dismissed by order dated 03.03.2012 and later the

land was mutated in his name under Exs.B1 to B3 and he has

also filed Pahanies for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 under

Exs.B4 and B5. In the cross - examination he admitted that

there is reference under Ex.A5 sale deed that he obtained

receipt for Rs.8,10,000/-. It was also suggested to him that he

came to know about pendency of partition suit between plaintiff

and his brothers in Maheshwaram Sub-Registrar's office, as

such he kept registration before Moosapet registrar office which

is at distance of 50 kms but he denied it. He also admitted that

he received legal notice dated 22.04.2006 issued by the plaintiff

but, he has not given any reply. He further stated that he has

not given any complaint to the police stating that plaintiff is

making illegal claim for the balance of amount. It was suggested

to him that even now plaintiff is in physical possession of plaint

schedule property and he is cultivating the same but, he denied

it. He also admitted that before purchase of the land, he did not

survey the land.

12. D.W.2/Mahender supported the version of D.W.1 and

stated that he is one of the attesting witness to the registered

sale deed. In the cross - examination he stated that he is having

acquaintance with defendant No.1 for the last 8 or 9 years.

When he went to Sub - Registrar office on personal work, first

defendant asked him to sign on the registered sale deed as

witness, but he did not know the contents of the sale deed.

Again he stated that contents of Ex.A5 were read over to him

and then only he signed on it. He also stated that one Santhosh

also signed along with him, but he has no acquaintance with

him. He further stated that plaintiff informed him that

Rs.1,00,000/- paid as advance and received balance sale

consideration. He also stated that he was residing in his

ancestral house and the first defendant has not obtained any

receipt from the plaintiff in the registrar office.

13. Basing on the above evidence, it is for the Court to decide

whether Judgment of the trial Court was on proper appreciation

of the facts or not.

14. There is no dispute regarding the fact that plaintiff is the

absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, as

he received it from his mother. He also filed gift settlement deed

dated 03.01.2005 executed by his mother in his favour. The

case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 had entered into

agreement of sale with him in October, 2005 for purchasing the

suit schedule property for total sale consideration of

Rs.41,85,000/- @ Rs.7,75,000/- per acre and paid

Rs.10,00,000/- each on two occasions and thus he received

Rs.20,00,000/- as part payment and defendant No.1 agreed to

pay the balance sale consideration to him within 4 months from

the date of agreement of sale and then he has to execute the

registered sale deed. Both of them went to office of defendant

No.2 at Moosapet. Defendant No.1 brought the amount, shown

to him and kept it in his car for the purpose of safety and

informed that he will hand over the same after the registration

of the sale deed. Believing his version, plaintiff informed to

defendant No.2 that he received the sale consideration and thus

defendant No.2 registered the sale deed. Later defendant No.1

fled away in his car without paying balance sale consideration

and immediately he gave complaint to defendant No.2. Plaintiff

has not filed the agreement of sale and receipt for

Rs.20,00,000/- before the Court and he has not stated any

reason why he could not file them. Though, he stated the month

and year of execution of the agreement of sale, the date of

execution was not mentioned. P.W.3 is the brother - in - law. He

stated that he signed on the agreement of sale and receipt

executed between the parties, but the said receipt was also not

filed. Though, he stated that Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on two

occasions but, whether it is paid in cash or by Cheque was not

mentioned clearly. He clearly stated that the balance sale

consideration has to be paid within 4 months from the date of

execution of agreement of sale but the date of agreement of sale

is not stated anywhere. As the plaintiff filed suit for cancellation

of the sale deed on the ground that defendant did not pay

balance sale consideration, it is for him to file the agreement of

sale and receipts passed by him after receiving the part

payment of Rs.20,00,000/- merely because he has given

complaint to the defendant No.2 under Ex.A1 on the same day

or he has issued legal notice under Ex.A2 on 22.04.2006 and it

was received by defendant No.1 under Ex.A3 along with the

certified copy of the sale deed under Ex.A5 and certified copy of

the pahanies under Ex.A4, it cannot be said that he proved his

case. Though, plaintiff stated that P.W.4 is the mediator

between both the parties for the suit transaction, P.W.4 did not

support his conversion and clearly stated that he never

mediated between both the parties. P.W.2 deposed that he was

outside the registrar office and P.W.3 is his brother - in - law

and he did not know about the transactions done prior to

20.04.2006. As per the documents under Ex.A5, sale deed was

executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant on 20.04.2006 for

an amount of Rs.8,10,000/-. It was clearly mentioned in the

sale deed that he received entire sale consideration by way of

cash and thus defendant No.2 executed sale deed after

confirming the market value of the land on 20.04.2006 was

Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and accordingly same amount was also

paid.

15. No doubt, plaintiff gave complaint to the defendant No.2

immediately after execution of the sale deed on the same day.

When an appeal was preferred by defendant No.1 before the

District Registrar, he passed an order vide proceeding No.

11/E/2008 in which it was clearly observed that civil suit filed

by the plaintiff in O.S.No.100 of 2006, later it was numbered as

O.S.No.1211 of 2006. The defendant No.2 has given the

document No.9364 of 2006 and it was executed on 19.04.2006.

But when plaintiff gave complaint, he gave pending

No.P/605/2006. As defendant No.1 gave complaint to the

District Registrar he issued notice to defendant No.2 and also to

the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 in letter dated 04.08.2008

informed about the complaint made by the plaintiff. When they

came to know about filing of the suit by the plaintiff, the District

Registrar observed that it is for the Court to decide the issue as

it is pending before the Court and allowed the appeal with a

direction to the defendant No.1 to receive the document from

the Joint Sub - Registrar, RO, R.R.District within 30 days.

Accordingly, the registered sale deed was released in his favour.

Regarding the jurisdiction aspect District Registrar observed

that in view of Government Orders creating new registration

district viz Ranga Reddy East, in whose jurisdiction S.R.

Maheshwaram falls, the District Registrar, R.R.District East,

transmitted the appeal to him on 15.05.2008. Plaintiff has not

raised any objection regarding jurisdiction. The objection

regarding jurisdiction is to be taken up only at the earliest point

of time, as he failed to do so, at the first appeal stage it need not

be dealt with. In view of execution of Ex.A5 in favour of

defendant No.1, Pattedar Passbook and Title deeds were issued

in his favour and he also filed pahanies under Exs.B4 and B5.

As the plaintiff failed to prove before the Court regarding

execution of agreement of sale and regarding the payment of

Rs.20,00,000/- by defendant No.1 prior to the registration of

sale deed. He has not filed any market value certificate to show

that the value of the land was Rs.7,75,000/- per acre as on the

date of agreement of sale and thus they entered into an

agreement for Rs.41,85,000/- and the registered sale deed was

also executed by him before defendant No.2 in favour of

defendant No.1 the trial Court rightly held that he is not entitled

for cancellation of the sale deed and dismissed the suit. The

Judgment of the trial Court suffers from no infirmity and needs

no interference.

In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the

Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.1211 of 2006 dated

25.09.2013.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________

JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED: 05.12.2022

tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No. 393 of 2014

DATED: 05 .12 .2022

TRI