The High Court · 2025

Sri G Jayendra Balaji Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M P Kashyap The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.285 of2O2O JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 in O.S.No.816 of 2015, passed by rhe learned XVl-Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-tll -Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Malkajgiri.

2. The suit uide O.S.No.816 of 2O15 was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff against appel{an ts/ de fe ndan ts for recove ry of possession of suit schedule property and for damages with costs. Respondent/plaintiff was examined himself as P.W. I and also got examined P.W.2 and C.W. I on his behalf and marked Dxs.Al to A14 on his behalf. Appeilant No.3/defendant No.3 was examined herself as D.W. I and marked Exs.B1 and 82 on behalf of defendants. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of both sides, decreed the in part. Regarding recovery of possession, appellants/defendants were directed to handover the vacant possession to the respondent/ plaintifl u,ithin trvo months lrom the date of Judgment and the suit regarding damages rvas dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Judgrnent and decree, delendants therein preferred the present appcal. \ \ 2

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants mainly contended that in a sale certificate dated 3l.Of .2OO4, there are lot of defectives and errors, but they were not considered by the trial Court. He also stated that when appellants made enquiries with the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, regarding the registration of document No.I of 2OO4 of sale certificate dated 31.01.2004 issued to the respondent/plaintiff, they came to know through a letter uide Lr.No.135 of 2Ol9 dated, 3O.l2.20l9,,that the said document wa s not registered in their office, as such respondent/ plaintiff colluded with the authorities and brought into existence of the said sale certificate and played fraud against the appellants. Though the respondent/plaintiff did not pay the entin: sale consideration of Rs. lS,OO,0OO/-, sale certihcate was issued to him and sale was not confirmed.

4. Learned ()ounsel for the appellants further contended that the conducr of the sale itself is not in accordance with the law and $,ithout proper verihcation confirmed tJre sale straight away and thus handing over of the possession does not arise. It was also stated by C.W.l that the entire auction amount of Rs. I5,OO,O0O/ - \vas not credited to the loan account. Though the respondent/ praintiff stated that he paid the amount in cash, he has not filed pavmcnt receipt issued by the Bank. The name , of the respondent/ plaintiff was not reflected in the encumbrance certilicate, as the sale certificate was not registered in his narne. Out of total bid amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, respondent/plaintiff had paid only Rs.7,9 1,a93l-. If at all, the respondent/plaintiff has paid rhe entire sale consideration, his title deeds would have been released, but they are still with the Bank. On Page No.2 of Ex.A I , Registrar's Stamp was strike off, which clearly shows that it was not registered properly and irregularities were committed. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.

5. Parties hereinafter referred to as respondent-ptaintiff and appellants-defendants as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

6. Initially, plaintiff had filed O.S.No.816 of 2Ot5 againsr dcfendants for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for damages stating that defendant No.l is the owner of the house bearing No.24-91/2 (old) and 24-Ba/tO (new), situated at Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. Delendanr No. t had availed a loan of Rs.3,5O,O0O/- from Sri Bharathi Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. One 4 B.Shiva Kumar, K.V.Ramana Babu stood as co_obligants to the loan availed by defendant No. l. B.Shiva Kumar is the owner of the house bearing No.26-lZOl43, admeasuring 222 Sq.yr.ds, situared in Safitguda, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. Defendant No. 1 had committed default in repayment of the loan amount, as such Bank initiated proceedings under Section 61 of the ApCS Act 7 of 1964 for recovery of loan amount of Rs.4,92,S66/_ with interest. The Arbitrator passed an award on 2o.oz.2oo2 under Section 62@) ot ApCS Act Z of 1964. The Senior Inspector and Sales Officer oonducted the sale of house bearing No.24_91/2 (old) 2a- 138/ t0 (new), siruated at Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, ou,ncd by defendant No. I . Before confirmation of sale, defendan r No. I filed Claim perition No.2 of 2003 in E.P.No.32O of 2OO3 on thc llle of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Golconda Division, Hyderabad under rute 52(14)(t) of A.p.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, to set aside the sale conducted on 27.1O.2OO3, on the ground of material irregularitl., mistake and fraud both in publishing and conducting of the salc, but the claim petition was dismissed on 31.12.2003.

7. Plaintiff further stated that he had raised loan from LIC Housing Financt: Limited by offering the property purchased bv 5 him in the auction as a securit5r, but he committed default in payment of loan. Thereupon, LIC Housing Finance Limited initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation Act, 2OO2. They approached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for assistance in taking possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Act and the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner in Crl.M.P.N o.26 of 2OO7 to handover the possession to LIC Housing Finance Limited. Defendant No.1 trled W.P.No. 10281 of 2O07, against the Order dated 02.O5.2007 passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2OO7 and also filed an appeal before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, with condone delay application, but the said application was dismisse d on 2l .O9 .2OO4. Against the said Order, defendant No. I hled W.P.No. 17239 of 2OO4. Defendant No.1 had also hled W.P.No. I61O I of 20O5, questioning the award of the Aribitrator and all the three Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court on

20.o2.2009.

8. Thereafter, L.l.C Housing Finance Limited, has filed a suit uide O.S,No.547 of 2OO9 and it was decreed in their favour on 27 .O4.2OlI. Subsequently, E.P.No.44 of 2Ol4 was filed and when the suit property was about to be sold, plaiiltiff had borrowed huge amounts from the third parity and paid the \ 6 ( same to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd-, and received the original documents- Plaintiff contended that defendant No. I was in illegal occupation, as such he filed C'C.No.1O83 of 2O06' On that defendant No.I and his wife and daughter filed Crl.P.No.2885 of 2}ll and also obtained stay in Cr1.M.P.No.3O27 of 2Ol1 in Crl-P.No.2885 of 2011. Defendants No.1 and 2 occupied the suit schedule property and caused damages physically and mentally. Defendant No' 1 never paid any property Lax and thus plaintiff paid dues of property tax amounting to Rs. 12,365 l- uide receipt No.O3OO49O77 dated O5.O2.2OO4. Defendants No.l and 2 are troubling him from 2OO4 i.e., for 11 years and thus he requested for damages of Rs.1O,OO,0O0/-. He further requested the Court for dispossession of the defendants from the suit property and for handover of thc possession to him. g. In the written statement filed by defendants, they denied the averments of the plaint and stated that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to irle the suit and the trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Plaintiff failed to establish the t-itle and possession and thus not entitled for injunction and the suit is to be rejected under Order 7 rule 1l(b) of cPC. Thel, also stated that suit was liabie ton be I ( 7 dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parLies and it ,:1:1:gr#;is:s{*'giEr,*rriri+rH""-eefrrasr,b&$ed*by.ittiitti&itiort'q{fld€risstielc{.@itr:].:i,J3.:inl:':, They further stated that defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner of the suit property. He availed loan of Rs.3,5O,OO0/- from Sri Bharathi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad. When he became default in repayment of loan amount, Bank initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs.4,92,566/- with interest and the Arbitrator passed an Award on 2O.O7.2OO2. He had filed a claim petition in E.P.No.320 of 2003, before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Golconda, Hyderabad, to set aside the sale conducted on 27.10.2OO3 on the ground of material irregulariry, mistake and fraud both in publishing and conducting the sale, but the same was dismissed on

31.12.2003. He had also liled three writ petitions and the same were also dismissed. Defendants further stated that though the ptaintiff purchased the property in the auction as highest bidder, the sale was not. conhrmed. Even without confirmation . plaintiff obtained loan from the LIC by mortgaging the suit schedule property which is not permissible under law. They also stated that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and they are residing in the same, plaintiff is no way concerned with the said propert5z and he has no locus-standi to file the suit and thus requested thc Court to dismiss the suit. \ 8 ('

10. The Bank Manager of Sri Bharathi Co_operative Bank was examined as C.W. 1. He stated that the entire auction amount of Rs. 15,OO,OOO/- was not credited to the loan account, but added ttrat the entire due amount of said particular loan account was deposited. He further admitted that Shiva Kumar was the brother of Subramanya Sastry and he was the guarantor. In the Cross-examination of P.W. l, he stated that he purchased ttre suit propert5r for a sum of Rs. I5,0O,O0O/-. Ex.Al was marked through him. I 1. Admittedly, plaintiff purchased the suit property by a public auction in execution of the Award dated 2O.OZ.2OO2 on 27.1O.2OO3 and paid the full amounr of purchase i.e., Rs. 15,00,O00/- and the sale was duly confirmed on 16.01.2OO4 and it was registered on 31.O 1.2O04 itself. Merely there was strike of on the back side of the page, it cannot be stated tJlat document itself is false. The endorsement regarding Rs. 15,00,OOO/- is made by Divisional Co-operarive Officer, Golconda Division, Hyderabad. Therefore, the argument of the defendants that sale was not confirmed and the entire sale consideration was not paid cannot be accepted. plaintiff had also paid the Stamp duty of Rs.g2,4OO/-. perusal of the writ petitions dated 2O.O2.2OO9 shows rhat the Order in claim I I / /t 9 petition No.O2 of 20O3 was not challenged, as such the argument regarding material irregularities in conducting the auction is not tenable and the said fact attained finality. Though defendant No. I tried to file an appeal, it was dismissed by not condoning the delay application. I (

12. Admittedly, defendant No. I has not challenged the sale certificate issued in favour of auction purchaser. Legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to the de fendants on 25.05.2015 under Ex.AS, in which plaintiff stated all the facts in detail and requested for handover of the vacant possession and also for damages of Rs. 10,0O,0OO/-, but defendants have not given reply to that, as such plaintiff {rled the suit. There is no dispute regarding availing of loan and an Award passed by the Arbitrator to the extent of Rs.4,92,566/- with interest from 2O.O7.2OO7 till the date of realization and ttre said order attained finality. The trial Court rightly considering the oral and documentary evidence in detail held that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Though the plaintiff claimed for damages of Rs. i0,00,OOO/- including rents for 11 years, as there was no evidence placed before the trial Court, his plea regarding damages was rejected. This Court \ I I I t0 finds no reason to interfere with the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. t

13. In the result, the present appeal suit is devoid of merits and is dismissed by confirming the Judgment and decree dated 13.12.2019 in O.S.No.8l6 of 2015 passed by the trial Courr. There shall bc no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions Pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. T. SRINIVAS TY REGISTRAR //? CTION OFFICER //TRUE C,OPYII \ To,

1. The XVI Additionat i c",,r' jil;;,iiyi;t"rHji?,r"3*ffi

2. One CC to Sri G Jayendra Balaji, Advocate [OpUC] 3. OneCCtoSri Mpt 4. Two cD copies (ashyap' Advocate [.PUC] ::,,"fi,"i_:13,?ffi ,lll"1i,l:,?l,fri,", VAlgh @X I HIGH COURT DATED:201O112025 f 5TATE q tr'€ ? o -ri' 4 tt tt$ Tfr ,c, ,dl t. DrsPi ( 2 DRAFTS ) JUDGMENT + DECREE AS.No.285 of 2O20 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 1^ W l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT NO: 285 OF 2020 Between:

1. Mr. K. Subrahmanya Sastry (Died) per LRS D3 & D4 2. Smt. K. Vidya Rani, D/o. Late K. Subrahmanya Sastry, Wo. Anant Nag, Aged 33 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 24-138/10, Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, R.R.District 3 Smt. K. S. Lalitha Devi, D/o. Late K. Subrahmanya aged 38 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.24-138/ R.R.District Sastry, Wo. Basha Goud, 10, Anandbagh, Malkajgiri,

4. Smt. K. S. Priya Kalyani, D/o. Late K. Subrahmanya Sastry, Wo. Sridhar, Aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.l,lo.24-138/10, Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, R.R.District ...Appellants / Defendants AND Mr. R.V.S. Chandra Sekhara Rao, S/o. Late Subba Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ, Retd. Lecturer, R/o. H.No. 1 -1 -33671, Viveknagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad ...Respondent / Plaintiff Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated '13- 12-2019 made in O.S.No.B16 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional Diskict and Sessions Judge-cum-lll Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G Jayendra Balaji, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri M P Kashyap, Advocate for the Respondent. .7./ ,/_ This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13-12-20 19 in O.S.No.816 of 2015 passed by the trail Court, and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. SRINIVAS REGISTRAR DE TION OFFICER To,

1. The XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-lll Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Matkajdiri

2. Two CD Copies u \ I -t HF- S 14.. o 2 0 FIB 2025 \\,:, \,: HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 DECREE AS.No.285 o12020 DISMISSING ,THE APPEAL W