[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Satla Komuraiah Died Per Lr Appellant ... vs Bobbala Karunakar Reddy on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.2008 OF 2018
BETWEEN :
1. Satla Komuraiah, S/o.Ilaiah, (died per LR-appellant No.2)
2. Satla Srinivas, S/o. Komuraiah,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Pan Shop,
R/o.H.No.8-5-571, Kothi Rampur Locality,
Karimnagar Proper, Mandal and District.
... Appellant No.2
AND
Bobbala Karunakar Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy
Age: 38 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Ramchandrapur Village, Koheda Mandal,
Karimnagar District.
...Respondent/Defendant
2/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
A.S.NO.2008 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w
Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC')
aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.No.107 of 2015, dated
08.10.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar.
2.1. Appellant No.1 is the sole plaintiff and the respondent is the
sole defendant.
2.2. During pendency of the Appeal, appellant No.1 died, his LR
is brought on record as appellant No.2.
3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous in law and
against the facts of the case, the Court below without considering
the facts, documents and legal position passed the impugned
judgment. Appellant No.1-plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of
registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015 dated
20.01.2015, as on the date of filing of the suit he was in possession
of the suit schedule property and the Court below did not look into
the same. As per the recitals of the sale deed (Ex.A4) the value of
the property shown is Rs.17,27,000/- but the respondent-
3/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
defendant has taken a plea that he has purchased the schedule
property for Rs.36 Lakhs and he has not placed any material on
record to substantiate his contention.
3.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that as per the evidence
brought on record that the plaint schedule property was under
mortgage with Deccan Grameena Bank as on the date of alleged
registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015, which established that the
registered sale deed obtained by the respondent-defendant from
the appellant No.1-plaintiff is by playing fraud upon him. The
learned trial Court erroneously gave a finding that the appellant
No.1-plaintiff has not examined his family members who too signed
on the original sale deed (Ex.A4). The judgment and decree passed
by the Court below is devoid of merits on Law and facts. Counsel
to substantiate his contention, has relied on the decisions in the
cases of (1) Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others 1 ,
(2) Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs Goran Vs. Jagan Devi
and Others 2 , (3) A.Jeevan Reddy Vs. State of Telangana 3 and
prayed to allow the Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submits that
the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the
2021 LawSuit(SC) 752
2025 LawSuit(SC) 1252
Criminal Petition Nos.5708 and 5709 of 2024, dated 19.02.2025 of the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
4/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
case and the appellant No.1-plaintiff has received the total sale
consideration under Ex.A4 and executed registered sale deed in his
favour and furthermore, the sale deed (Ex.A4) is attested by the
family members. No interference is called for and prayed to
dismiss the Appeal.
5. Learned counsel on record have filed their written
submissions.
6. Now the points for consideration are :
(1) Whether the appellant No.1-plaintiff has established
through evidence that the registered sale deed dated
20.01.2015 vide document No.560 of 2015 is devoid of
consideration? If so,
(2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Court in OS.No.107 of 2015 dated 08.10.2018
suffers from any perversity or illegality and does it
requires interference of this Court?
7.1. Appellant No.1-plaintiff stated in the plaint that he is the
absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased
the same from Vemulawada Shankaraiah (open plot) and thereafter
he obtained permission, got constructed a house. Appellant No.1-
plaintiff was in need of money and the respondent-defendant
induced him by promising to pay Rs.2 Lakhs but on condition of
executing registered agreement of sale for the suit schedule
property. The appellant No.1-plaintiff believed the version of the
5/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
respondent-defendant and executed document before the
Sub-Registrar, he was under an impression that the said document
is an agreement of sale. While so on 10.06.2015, the respondent-
defendant threatened him to vacate the suit schedule property on
the ground that he obtained the registered sale deed from him.
Appellant No.1-plaintiff was shocked and approached the police on
11.06.2015 but the police have advised him to approach the Civil
Court and thereafter he obtained the certified copy of the sale deed
(Ex.A4) and EC and noticed that the respondent-defendant has
played fraud on him.
7.2. Suit schedule property is land bearing Sy.No.738 to an
extent of 185.83 Square yards consisting with house bearing No.
8-5-571 having ground floor and first floor in Plot No.2 situated at
Kotirampur locality of Karimnagar Town with specific boundaries.
8. Respondent-defendant stated in the written statement that
the appellant No.1-plaintiff and his son have incurred debts
thereby they wanted to sell the suit schedule property and
approached him through Sri. Pudari Srinivas of Kattarampur area
and thereafter he agreed to purchase the same and paid the entire
sale consideration in presence of the above said person and the
appellant No.1-plaintiff executed registered sale deed in his favour
on 20.01.2015, on the said date possession was delivered to him.
6/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
Appellant No.1-plaintiff has promised the respondent-defendant
that he will vacate the suit schedule property in a month and also
pleaded that the property is mortgaged with Deccan Grameena
Bank by the date of execution of the sale deed. Appellant No.1-
plaintiff promised to clear the mortgage loan and accordingly, on
the next date of the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 he
discharged the loan due to the Bank and the Bank in turn has
executed registered Re-conveyance Deed on 27.01.2015.
Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff has handed over the original
documents to him. Appellant No.1-plaintiff failed to vacate the suit
schedule property as promised by him and he is taking steps to
evict them. Respondent-defendant has mutated his name in the
Municipal Records on 30.04.2015.
9. The learned trial Court basing on the pleadings of the parties
has framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the defendant advanced an amount of
Rs.2.00 Lakhs to plaintiff and as a security for
payment of the said amount asked the plaintiff to
execute an agreement of sale in respect of plaint
schedule property and instead obtained a registered
sale deed by playing fraud on plaintiff?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for cancellation
of registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of
2015, dated 20.01.2015 on the ground that it was
obtained by defendant by playing fraud on plaintiff?
7/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
10. Appellant No.1-plaintiff is examined as PW.1, got examined.
PW.2-Gorre Laxman, PW.3-Katla Satheesh and got marked Exs.A1
to A5. Respondent-defendant is examined as DW.1 and examined
DW.2-Pudari Srinivas, DW.3-Pallerla Thirupathi and got marked
Exs.B1 to B5.
11. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced
by the parties has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs
which is impugned in the Appeal.
12.1. Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed bearing document
No.3901 of 1992 dated 20.08.1992 executed by Pendyala
Madhusudan Rao in favour of Vemulawada Shankaraiah in respect
of open plot No.2 and Survey No.738 in an extent of 185.83 Square
yrds. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed bearing No.1961 of
1995 dated 22.03.1995 in respect of the schedule property covered
under Ex.B1 and is executed by Vemulawada Shankaraiah in
favour of Satla Komuraiah (appellant No.1-plaintiff). There is no
dispute with regard to the purchase of the suit schedule property
by the appellant No.1-plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of
registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015 dated
20.01.2015 executed by the appellant No.1-plaintiff in favour of the
respondent-defendant. Ex.B3 is the original registered sale deed
of the respondent-defendant. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the
8/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
original of Ex.B3, dated 20.01.2015. Ex.B4 is the original
Re-conveyance Deed bearing document No.787 of 2015 dated
27.01.2015. Ex.B5 is the proceedings of transfer of title of
property in respect of house bearing door No.8-5-571 in favour of
respondent-defendant vide dated 30.04.2015.
12.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant No.1-
plaintiff is the owner of the open plot covered by Exs.B1 and B2
and thereafter he constructed the house which is assigned as
house bearing No.8-5-571 having ground floor and first floor.
Ex.A2 is the electricity receipt bills (6) in number dated 19.05.2015
and 19.06.2015 and Ex.A3 is the Municipal Tax receipts dated
25.06.2015 that is after the execution of Ex.A4 sale deed on
20.01.2015.
13. The evidence of the Appellant No.1-plaintiff is the same with
that of the plaint averments. In his cross-examination, he stated
that he never intended to enter into agreement with the defendant
and the respondent-defendant never came to his house nor
requested him to lend money and he approached Sri Mohan Reddy,
brother of the respondent-defendant, requested him for a loan of
Rs.2 Lakhs, who in turn asked him to mortgage his house property
to lend money and accordingly the said Mohan Reddy obtained his
signatures on some papers and later converted the same into the
9/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
sale deed which is now questioned by him. He went to the
Registrar Office alone, later all his family members also visited the
office and his grand-daughter by name Sandhya Rani is a
Graduate, Mohan Reddy did not come to the Registrar office on
20.01.2015 and all his family members have signed in the original
of Ex.A4 sale deed, their signatures, thumb impression and Irish
photos were obtained inside the Registrar office. At the time of
registration of Ex.A4 sale deed his house was under mortgage with
Deccan Grameena Bank and hence the original documents related
to the house were in the said Bank and he released the same by
making payment of Rs.4,32,164/- to the Bank on 21-01-2015 and
the original documents are not available with him and he also
released the gold ornaments from Manapuram Gold Loan Pvt. Ltd.
by making payment on 21.01.2015. He knows Pudari Srinivas who
is resident of the same locality. PW.1 denied the suggestion that
he has sold the suit schedule property under Ex.A4 to the
respondent-defendant and also delivered possession to him.
14.1. PW.2 deposed that the respondent-defendant along with his
cousin by name Mohan Reddy doing Finance business and during
the course of arranging the money they used to take signatures on
the blank papers and also used to execute documents in their
favour saying that the same is for security purpose and he came to
know that the appellant No.1-plaintiff obtained some loan from the
10/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
respondent-defendant and his cousin Mohan Reddy, for surety
sake they created a document in their favour and after paying the
entire amount by the appellant No.1-plaintiff, the respondent-
defendant did not return the documents and tried to occupy the
property of the appellant No.1-plaintiff. Respondent-defendant and
Mohan Reddy have no right over the property of the appellant
No.1-plaintiff.
14.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know
anything about the case and on the request of the appellant No.1-
plaintiff he is giving evidence.
15.1. PW.3 deposed that as the appellant No.1-plaintiff was in
need of money of Rs.2 Lakhs to clear the loan amount thereby
approached the respondent-defendant. Respondent-defendant
insisted him to execute registered agreement of sale in his favour
till the amount is realized and the document was kept with him as
security and thereafter, the respondent-defendant threatened the
appellant No.1-plaintiff under the influence of his cousin Mohan
Reddy to vacate the schedule property. Appellant No.1-plaintiff
obtained the certified copy of sale deed and EC and found that the
respondent-defendant has played fraud on him by executing
registered sale deed in his favour. As a matter of fact, appellant
No.1-plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on
11/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
the date of filing of the suit and the suit schedule property is more
than Rs.50 Lakhs.
15.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of the
appellant No.1-plaintiff, respondent-defendant has advanced
Rs.2 Lakhs, the daughter-in-law, grand-children of the appellant
No.1-plaintiff were also present along with him, which was made in
the house of the borrower and he do not know whether any
document was reduced into writing and if so, what is the nature of
the said document. He denied the suggestion that the daughter-
in-law of the appellant No.1-plaintiff was running Chit business
and she suffered loss and thereby the entire family of the appellant
No.1-plaintiff was badly in need of money due to which the
appellant No.1-plaintiff has mortgaged the property. PW.3 denied
the suggestion that appellant No.1-plaintiff has sold suit schedule
property to the respondent-defendant under Ex.A4 after taking the
entire sale consideration.
15.3. It is to be noted here that it is not the case of the appellant
No.1-plaintiff that he has obtained loan jointly from Mohan Reddy
and the respondent-defendant. The evidence of PW.2 is not helpful
to the case of the appellant in any manner.
16.1. The evidence of the respondent-defendant is the same with
that of his written statement.
12/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
16.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has no prior
acquaintance with the plaintiff prior to the date of agreement of
sale which was entered into about 40 to 45 days prior to the
registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 and he agreed to purchase
the suit schedule property for Rs.36 Lakhs and on the date of
agreement he paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and
agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of
registering the sale deed, before entering the agreement of sale, he
knew that the suit schedule property was under mortgage and he
did not issue paper publication about his intention to purchase the
suit schedule property. After 15 days of the agreement of sale, he
has paid another Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and
all the payments are made in cash and the appellant No.1-plaintiff
did not deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to him
as of now (01.05.2018) and the consideration found in Ex.B3 sale
deed is Rs.17,27,000/-.
17.1. DW.2-P.Srinivas deposed that he knows the appellant No.1-
plaintiff and the respondent-defendant and the appellant No.1-
plaintiff informed him that he wants to sell his property to
discharge the debts and other family necessities and asked him to
see for prospective purchasers, after few days he took the
appellant No.1-plaintiff to the house of the respondent-defendant
13/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
and the negotiations took place and the total sale consideration
was fixed at Rs.36 Lakhs and the respondent-defendant paid
Rs.10 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff under agreement and
the balance was paid in two occasions. Appellant No.1-plaintiff
executed registered sale deed on 20.01.2015 in favour of the
respondent-defendant, on the date of execution of sale deed, an
amount of Rs.16 Lakhs is paid to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and
he attested the sale deed (Exs.A4 and B3). The wife of the appellant
No.1-plaintiff by name Kalavathi, his son Srinivas, son's wife Jyothi
and son's daughter namely Sandhyarani and one Hari Ashok also
attested the sale deed. Appellant No.1-plaintiff has paid an
amount of Rs.4,32,164/- towards loan On 21.01.2015 (Deccan
Grameena Bank) and the Re-conveyance deed was executed on
27.01.2015 and at the request of the appellant No.1-plaintiff he
went to the Registrar Office. The appellant No.1-plaintiff received
the original title deeds and its link documents from the Bank and
handed over the same to the respondent-defendant.
17.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was suspended
from service on the complaint given by the appellant No.1-plaintiff
while he was working as a Home Guard in the Police Department.
The appellant No.1-plaintiff and his son along with other relatives
have signed the agreement of sale which was got typed by the
appellant No.1-plaintiff and he has gone through the agreement of
14/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
sale. The respondent-defendant has paid Rs.10 Lakhs towards
advance to the appellant No.1-plaintiff and after 10 or 15 days he
again paid Rs.10 Lakhs. The balance sale consideration of
Rs.16 Lakhs was paid to the appellant No.1-plaintiff by the
respondent-defendant at the time of registration of sale deed
(20.01.2015). He denied the suggestion that he acted as a witness
to the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 but not at any other
date. He also denied the suggestion that the respondent-defendant
did not pay Rs.16 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff on the date
of registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015.
18.1. DW.3 deposed that he knows the appellant No.1-plaintiff,
respondent-defendant and DW.2-Srinivas. Appellant-plaintiff has
called him on 27.01.2015 stating that he mortgaged his house with
Deccan Grameena Bank and sold the same to Karunakar Reddy
(respondent herein-defendant) and the Bank Authorities are
executing a Re-conveyance Deed and requested him to come to the
Registrar Office for attesting the documents and he took the
Manager of the Bank to the Registrar Office on his Bike, Ex.A4 is
executed on 27.01.2015 and he attested the document. Thereafter,
he accompanied the appellant No.1-plaintiff to the said Bank and
he received the original title deeds and thereafter handed over the
same to the respondent-defendant at his house.
15/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he came to know
about the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 executed in favour
of the respondent-defendant when he was in the Bank along with
Sri komuraiah. The Bank Manager has handed over the sale deed
to the appellant No.1-plaintiff. After receipt of the same, they
returned the originals to the respondent-defendant.
19.1. In Kewal Krishan1, the Supreme Court observed that "a sale
of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be
payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part
can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an
essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a
sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without
payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price
at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no
legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the
transfer of the immovable property".
19.2. In Shanti Devi's2, the Supreme Court observed that "in the
absence of sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would
be void".
19.3. In A.Jeevan Reddy3, the High Court observed that "according
to RBI guidelines related to Prevention of Money Laundering
(Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2002, specifically Section 269ST of
16/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
Income Tax Act, any cash withdrawal exceeding Rs.2 Lakhs should
be done through an Online transaction".
20. The recitals of Ex.A4/B3 goes to show that the total sale
consideration in respect of the suit schedule property is fixed at
Rs.17,27,000/- and the same is received by the appellant No.1-
plaintiff and delivered possession on the date of execution of sale
deed dated 20.01.2015. It is apt to note that the witnesses to the
above said sale deed is S.Srinivas, S/o.Komuraiah and
S.Sandyarani, D/o. Srinivas. Srinivas is none other than the son
of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and S.Sandhya Rani is none other
than his grand-daughter. They made their thumb impressions in
the Registration office. The document further goes to show that
S.Jyothi, S.Kalavathi, P.Srinivas (DW.2) and H.Ashok have also
signed on Ex.A4/B3 as witnesses. S.Kalavathi is none other than
the wife of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and Jyothi is the daughter-
in-law and H.Ashok is a third party. Ex.A4/B3 is signed by the
family members of the appellant No.1-plaintiff. Appellant No.1-
plaintiff has not examined any of the family members to show that
the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him at the time of
execution of registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 and also failed
to adduce any evidence that the sale deed is void document.
Appellant No.1-plaintiff's family members are residing in the suit
17/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
schedule property, the respondent-defendant has stated in his
cross-examination that he is taking steps to evict them.
21. Though the appellant No.1-plaintiff has cross-examined the
respondent-defendant and DW.2 about the agreements of sale and
the mode of payment made by the respondent-defendant, they are
not much helpful to his case.
22. I have gone through the decision cited by the appellant's
counsel, they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case
and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present
Appeal.
23. The evidence adduced by the respondent-defendant coupled
with DW.2 goes to show that the appellant No.1-plaintiff sold the
suit schedule property to the respondent-defendant after receiving
the sale consideration. Though the respondent-defendant and
DW.2 were cross-examined, no incriminating material is elicited
from them. DW.3 acted as witness to the Re-conveyance Deed
under Ex.B4 and the original title deeds of the suit schedule
property were handed over to the respondent-defendant by the
appellant No.1-plaintiff after clearing the loan amount to Deccan
Grameena Bank. Appellant No.1-plaintiff admitted in his
cross-examination that after execution of Ex.A4/B3 he has cleared
18/17 BRMR,J
AS.No.2008_2018
the loan in the Bank and also redeem the gold ornaments which
were pledged.
24. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of
the case and rightly dismissed the suit. The appellant No.1-
plaintiff failed to prove his case that the respondent-defendant has
played fraud on him at the time of execution of registered sale deed
under Ex.A4/B3.
25. This court is of the view that the learned trial Court has
properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the
suit of the appellant No.1-plaintiff and this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same in view of the reasons stated supra. Hence,
points are answered accordingly.
26. In the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs.
Interim Orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
1st December, 2025
PLV
