Telangana High Court
Smt. B. Laxmibai vs Jaya Ram on 31 January, 2024
* THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
+ APPEAL SUIT No.1065 OF 2018
% 31.01.2024
# Smt.B. Laxmibai,
W/o.B. Balaji Prasad, Aged about 58 yrs,
Sri Nilayam, Kalyan Nagar,
Phase-I, Vengal Rao Nagar,
Hyderabad
.. Appellant/Plaintiff
And
$ Jaya Ram S/o.Not Known to plaintiff,
Aged about 61 yrs, Occu : Bank Manager,
(Andhra Bank), Peerjadiguda Branch,
Boduppal, R.R.District & another
.. Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant : 1. Sri Vedula Srinivas
learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Jogram
Tejavat, learned counsel
on record
Counsel for respondents : Sri Muddu Vijay
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Citations:
2003 (6) ALT 62 (DB)
(2012) 1 SCC 656
2
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
********
Between :
Smt.B. Laxmibai,
W/o.B. Balaji Prasad, Aged about 58 yrs,
Sri Nilayam, Kalyan Nagar,
Phase-I, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad
.. Appellant
And
Jaya Ram S/o.Not Known to plaintiff,
Aged about 61 yrs, Occu : Bank Manager,
(Andhra Bank), Peerjadiguda Branch,
Boduppal, R.R.District & another
.. Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 31.01.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes / No
may be allowed to see the Judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes / No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether her Lordship wish to : Yes / No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
3
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
APPEAL SUIT NO.1065 OF 2018
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by
the judgment dated 04.06.2018 in O.S.No.285 of 2008 on the
file of IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar. O.S.No.285 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff seeking
declaration of title and for perpetual injunction against the
defendants 1 and 2. The trial Court dismissed the said suit.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are
referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.285 of 2008.
3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.285 of
2008. She filed the suit alleging that she is the absolute
owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 300 Sq. yards
in Sy.No.11/23, 11/27 and 11/25 of Khanamet Village,
Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; she
purchased the same from one R. Limbia Nayak for a sale
consideration of Rs.2,700/- through an unregistered sale
deed dated 27.07.1982 and the said sale deed has been
validated under Section 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, before
the District Registrar, on 15.02.2007 and from the date of
purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property.
Originally the land covered by Sy.No.11 of Khanamet Village,
Rajendra Nagar Mandal is held by Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust.
The said trust was conducting its activities by earning money
from the land held by it and in that process, the said trust
has engaged the services of Limbia Nayak, who is the vendor
of plaintiff. The name of the plaintiff's vendor's father is
reflected in the pahani for the year 1966-67 as possessor.
The said Trust through its GPA had executed a Gift
settlement deed dated 08.06.1982 in favour of the vendor of
the plaintiff in respect of Ac.0.27 guntas of land covered by
Sy.No.11/23, 11/27 and 11/25. As there is ban on
registration of sale deeds, the plaintiff has been enjoying the
possession of suit property through sale deed dated
27.07.1982 and possession was delivered. Plaintiff also
constructed a compound wall and two rooms in the schedule
property, obtained electricity connection and name of the
plaintiff is also shown in the revenue records, whereas the
defendants along with their henchmen tried to interfere with
the peaceful possession of the suit property on 15.03.2007 at
11.00 a.m. As such, she filed O.S.No.787 of 2007 on the file
of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar, for perpetual injunction and the said suit was
dismissed for not filing the process. Further the defendants
without any right tried to interfere with the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff. As such, she field the present
suit.
4. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the
averments of plaint and according to him, he purchased the
plaint schedule property from Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust
under registered sale deed dated 05.03.1982 vide document
No.1165 of 1982 and from the date of purchase he is in
possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant
No.1 executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant
No.2 on 18.06.2002 agreeing to sell the said property. Thus,
the plaintiff is not the rightful owner of the suit schedule
property and defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the
property. Moreover, the sale deed of the defendant No.1 was
executed by the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust on 05.03.1982.
The sale deed of defendant No.1 is earlier to the sale deed of
plaintiff. Therefore, the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust has no
right to execute the sale deed again in favour of the plaintiff.
The sale deed of the plaintiff is not a valid one and it is a
fabricated one. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the
suit. The defendant No.2 adopted the written statement filed
by defendant No.1.
5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed three
issues and decided that plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs
prayed.
6. To prove the case, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff
herself was examined as Pw.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.12 are
marked on her behalf. The husband of the plaintiff was
examined as Pw.2 and attesting witness to the sale deed was
examined as Pw.3. On behalf of the defendants, the
defendant No.2 was examined as Dw.1 and got marked
Exs.B.1 to B.7 on their behalf. No evidence was adduced on
behalf of the defendant No.1.
7. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Jogram Tejavat, learned counsel for the
appellant on record and Sri Muddu Vijay, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the plaintiff is in physical possession of the property and she
purchased the property from Limbia Nayak through an
unregistered sale deed. As there is ban on registrations,
plaintiff could not register the same. The said Limbia Nayak,
acquired the property through unregistered gift deed which
was executed by Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. Therefore, the
plaintiff is the rightful owner and possessor of the suit
property. The trial Court without considering the same
erroneously dismissed the suit. As such, prayed this Court to
set aside the judgment of the trial Court by allowing the
appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants would
submit that defendant No.1 purchased the suit property from
its original owner i.e., Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, prior to the
document of plaintiff and also entered into an agreement of
sale with defendant No.2. As the document submitted by the
appellant is an unregistered one and the document of the
defendants is registered sale deed, there is no illegality in the
judgment of the trial Court and there are no merits in the
appeal and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by both the
counsel, now the point for consideration is whether the
appellant is entitled for declaration of title and perpetual
injunction as prayed for ?
POINT :
11. There is no dispute that originally the land covered by
Sy.No.11/23, 11/27 and 11/25 of Khanamet Village,
Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belongs to
Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. The said Trust was conducting its
activities like imparting education etc. The suit schedule
property is admeasuring 300 Sq. yards in Sy.No.11/23,
11/27 and 11/25 of Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nagar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The defendant No.1
purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale
deed dated 05.03.1982 from the GPA holder of the Gurukul
Ghatkesar Trust which was registered in the year 1983 vide
document No.1165/1983 which was marked as Ex.B.2.
Subsequently, as per the order under G.O.Ms.No.703 Rev.
(Endowment-II) Dept., dated 30.09.2000, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh declared that the sale deed dated 05.03.1982
as null and void.
12. According to the plaintiff her vendor Limbia Nayak, was
in long standing possession of the property and for the
services rendered by him, the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust has
executed an unregistered gift deed on 08.06.1982 in favour of
Limbia Nayak in respect of Ac.0.27 guntas of land and he in
turn sold the suit property to the plaintiff under an
unregistered sale deed dated 27.07.1982 and delivered
possession to her. Earlier when the defendants tried to
disturb the possession of plaintiff, she filed O.S.No.787 of
2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar, seeking permanent injunction, but the
same was dismissed for non-payment of process. The
contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the
document proves that plaintiff purchased the property and
she is in possession of the same. The plaintiff has also
submitted an application to the Urban Land Ceiling Authority
for regularization of sale deed and the sale deed relied on by
the defendants i.e., Ex.B.2 was cancelled, thus, the original of
Ex.B.2 is non-est. Thus, the defendants have no right over
the plaint schedule property.
13. On the other hand by virtue of Exs.A.2 and A.3 the
plaintiff has got right and title over the plaint schedule
property.
14. The contention of learned counsel for the defendants is
that Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust, has no authority to execute
the gift settlement deed under Ex.A.2 and the sale deed under
Ex.A.1 are unregistered documents. Even those documents
are not validated and no title is passed and those documents
are in admissible in evidence.
15. Both the parties herein are claiming rights over the
property by virtue of their proposed sale deeds from their
vendors. As the suit is filed by the plaintiff, she has to prove
her case that she is the owner and possessor of the property
and the defendants have entered into her property without
any right. According to the plaintiff as there was ban to
register the suit schedule property, the sale deed under
Ex.A.1 has not been registered, whereas, Exs.A.1 and A.2
have been validated, therefore, they are admissible in
evidence. Sofar, the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust people have
not been questioned the execution of the gift settlement deed
under Ex.A.2 and the defendant No.1 did not come to the
witness box, therefore, the defendant No.1 cannot challenge
the same. The weaknesses of the defendants cannot give any
right to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove her case
independently. As seen from the documents filed by the
plaintiff, Ex.A.1 is an unregistered sale deed for a total sale
consideration of Rs.2,700/- and the recitals of Ex.A.1 would
show that the stamp duty of Rs.1050/- has been levied by the
District Registrar of Ranga Reddy and there are two witnesses
to the said document. Ex.A.2 is an un registered gift
settlement deed dated 08.06.1982 executed by the Gurukul
Ghatkesar Trust, rep., by its President Sri B. Kishan Lal in
favour of Limbia Nayak to an extent of Ac.0.27 guntas out of
love and affection and towards the services rendered by him
for the past several years. To prove the possession, plaintiff
got marked Exs.A.3 to A.10 which shows that appellant
obtained service connection and also the photographs would
show that she constructed a compound wall and two rooms
in the schedule property. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A.12 to
show that she applied for regularization of the subject
property and copy of application for allotment of excess land
taken possession by the Government under Urban Land
Ceiling (C and R) Act, 1976 and it was obtained by the
plaintiff under Right to Information Act, wherein the land was
shown as 250.80 Sq Mtrs. in Sy.No.11/23, 11/25 and 11/27.
16. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the
Act') deals with sale of immovable properties. According to
Section 54 of the Act in the case of tangible immovable
property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards or
in the case of revision or other intangible things, can be made
only by registered instrument. Therefore, the statute requires
a registered sale deed for effecting sale. In this case, the
plaintiff has examined Pws.2 and 3. Pw.2 is the husband of
plaintiff and Pw.3 is an attesting witness. Pw.1 reiterated her
contentions as in the plaint by way of chief affidavit and in
cross examination she admitted that there is ban on
registrations therefore, she could not get registration of sale
deed. Pw.3 deposed that he is a witness and attested the sale
deed and Ex.A.2 is an unregistered gift deed and according to
him, plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
17. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.2 was
examined as Dw.1. In cross-examination he deposed that he
do not know whether in the year 1982 the Gurukul
Ghatkesar Trust people had obtained grampanchayat layout
in respect of part of their land as they were in need of money,
and he also deposed that he do not know about execution of
Ex.A.2 gift deed in favour of Limbia Nayak by the GPA of
Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust.
18. The plaintiff relied on Exs.A.1 and A.2 to show title over
the suit schedule property. Admittedly, Exs.A.1 and A.2 are
the unregistered documents and to that effect their defense is
that there is ban on registration. In support of her
contention, no document is filed to prove that the
Government banned registration during that period. The
defendants contention is that Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust
cannot execute gift deed as per provisions of the Act 17 of
1966 and Act 30 of 1987 and there is a judgment of this
Court in The Secretary to Government Vs Sri Swamy
Ayyappa Co-operative Housing Society Limited and
others 1, wherein batch of writ appeals and writ petitions are
filed before this Court in respect of the properties of the
Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust and the Division Bench discussed
2003 (6) ALT 62 (DB)
various aspects including applicability of provisions of Act 17
of 1966 and Act 30 of 1987 and also mode of alienation of the
Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust property and held that the
alienation of immovable property belongs to the Gurukul
Ghatkesar Trust made by its President is totally void and in-
operation.
19. In view of the judgment of this Court, it is made clear
that the Act 17 of 1966 and Act 30 of 1987 are applicable to
the Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. Therefore, the alienation of
immovable property belonging to any charity, institution or
endowments without prior sanction of the Government or
Commissioner of Endowment shall be null and void, whereas
the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that even though
it is applicable there are some observations in the judgment
that the transactions prior to 30.09.2000 would not affect.
Though the transaction between the plaintiff and Limbia
Nayak was before 2000, which is an unregistered sale deed,
as the property is valued about Rs.100/- which is an
immovable property, unregistered sale deed cannot confer
any right on the plaintiff as she has purchased the property
from Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust. Therefore, Exs.A.1 and A.2
are no way useful to the appellant to prove that she
purchased the property for valid sale consideration and
Ex.A.12 is the application of the plaintiff for regularization of
her property. Further, the Apex Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries (P) Ltd., Vs State of Haryana 2, wherein it was
observed as follows :
"15. .....
"18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable
property by way of sale can only be by a deed of
conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of
conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by
law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property
can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is
not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would
fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of
the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any
interest in an immovable property (except to the limited
right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act).
According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether
with possession or without possession, is not a
conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of
immovable property can be made only by a registered
instrument and an agreement of sale does not create
any interest or charge on its subject-matter."
20. This Court in Swamy Ayyappa Co-operative Housing
Society Limited case observed that the writ petitioners have
to approach the Commissioner of Endowments as well as the
Government seeking appropriate relief. In the present case,
(2012) 1 SCC 656
there is no evidence on record to show that Limbia Nayak, or
the plaintiff have applied to the Commissioner of Endowment
or Government to regularize their property, whereas they
purchased urban ceiling land. Further there is no evidence to
prove that Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust land was acquired by
the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, as such Ex.A.12 is not
useful to prove the case.
21. As there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff or her
vendor complied the directions issued by this Court in
Swamy Ayyappa Co-operative Housing Society Limited
case and there is no evidence on record to show that the
Commissioner of Endowment or the Government had issued
any sanction order in respect of the plaint schedule property.
Even on Ex.A.12 application there is no order passed by the
Urban Land Ceiling Authority. As such there is no evidence
on record to prove that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
suit schedule property and therefore she is not entitled for
the relief of declaration.
22. According to the plaintiff, she is in possession and
enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by virtue of Exs.A.3
to A.10 and on the other hand, the contention of the
defendant No.2 is that he is in possession of the plaint
schedule property by virtue of Ex.B.2 sale deed and Ex.B.3 to
B.6 photographs. Both the parties are claiming possession
over the suit schedule property. The defendants also relied
on the photographs under Exs.B.3 to B.6. To grant
injunction possession must be lawful. The documents filed
by the appellant i.e., electricity bills though showing
possession, injunction cannot be granted as he failed to prove
the title. It is needless to say dismissal of suit does not confer
any right to the defendant. To decide possession it has to be
lawful possession, whereas Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not proving
the ownership of plaintiff. As such, this Court cannot grant
injunction in favour of the plaintiff. There is no illegality in
the judgment passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit
for grant of perpetual injunction. There are no merits in the
appeal and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The
point is accordingly, answered.
23. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :31.01.2024
Rds
Note : L.R.Copy to be marked
