Telangana High Court
Boinapally Papa Rao vs Boinapally Sadwi Rao on 20 January, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
SECOND APPEAL No.21 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
I have heard Mr.M. Saleem, learned counsel on
record for the appellants, on admission.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the decree and
judgment dated 30.09.2024 in A.S.No.01 of 2024 passed
by the learned Principal District Judge, Mulugu, whereby
the decree and judgment dated 22.11.2023 in O.S.No.67 of
2021 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-
JFCM (Mobile), Mulugu District, has been confirmed.
3. The appellants are plaintiffs before the trial Court.
The suit in O.S.No.67 of 2021 was filed for cancellation of
registered sale deeds bearing Nos.4596/2020 and
4595/2020 dated 13.08.2020.
4. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the plaintiff No.1
is father, plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are his
children. As per the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter the
NTR,J
plaintiffs), they have filed a suit seeking perpetual
injunction over the suit schedule properties against the
respondents/defendant Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter the
defendant Nos.1 and 2) claiming that the schedule
properties in the registered sale deeds are joint family
properties. Pending the suit i.e., O.S.No.53 of 2020 the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold away the property in favour of
(hereinafter defendant Nos.3 and 4), thus, contesting that
the rights of the plaintiffs are substantially effected, filed
the suit for cancellation of registered sale deeds executed
by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The trial Court on
considering the materials held that the evidence on record
is insufficient to favourably determine the suit claim,
dismissed the suit.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.1 of
2024. The appellate Court on re-appreciation arrived at the
same conclusion by observing that the rights and interest
NTR,J
of the plaintiffs against the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are
secured by the principle of Lis Pendens.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
trial and appellate Courts failed to properly appreciate the
plaintiff's case that the sale of the schedule properties by
the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would affect their rights and as
per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act though not a party
to the document if a party claims that their substantive
interests are at stake can file suit for cancellation of an
instrument. Thus, the Courts below erred in dismissing the
suit claim.
7. I have perused the materials on record.
8. The relationship between the parties and the fact of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 as title holders selling away the
schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4
under the disputed sale deeds during pendency of the suit
filed by the plaintiffs are not in dispute. As per the
pleadings, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.53 of 2020 seeking
perpetual injunction claiming that the defendant
NTR,J
Nos.1 and 2 cannot claim exclusive rights as the suit
schedule properties are joint family properties. This stance
itself is making out prima-facie agreement that the
schedule properties in the sale deed are in the names of
defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, in the present suit before
the trial Court the plaintiffs, except for self-serving claim
and filing the certified copies of plaint and written
statement in O.S.No.53 of 2020/Ex.A1, A2 no other
material demonstrating the fact of joint family status of the
suit schedule properties or any precipitated right in their
favour has been placed.
9. That being the position, in the absence of evidence
reflecting substantial right over the suit schedule
properties, merely basing on the pleadings in the other
suit, which is pending adjudication, seeking cancellation of
sale deeds is found premature. For this reason, the
conclusions drawn by the Courts below are found
appropriate. Additionally, in the impugned judgment, the
appellate Court had rightly observed that, in case the
NTR,J
plaintiffs proves their claim over the suit schedule
properties, the principle of lis-pendens will guard their
interests. Therefore, as the plaintiffs failed to prove the suit
claim, no impropriety or illegality is found in the impugned
judgment.
10. In consequence, as no tenable ground for deliberation
much less substantive question of law is made out for
admission, this Second Appeal is liable to be and is
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
___________________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 20.01.2025.
krl
