In High Court · 2025

.. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 BETWEEN: Seri V_eera reddy, 9/o.Late Ramakrishna Redcly, Age 55 yrs, Occ.Agriculture, Both R/o.Velmela Village, Ramachandrapur Mandal, Sangarerldy Diitrict ..Petitioner/Respondent No.2 AND '1, M/s. Avalon Builders..evJ f!0, .having its office at 12_6-2lZ1gt1. OoD. ro 'tU--dima Kukatpally_Bus Stop,.Hyderabad. Represented by its Dir.ctor Sri rao, S/o. M. Jagadeeshwar rao, aged about 32 years, Occ. busrness, Rlo ptot no.227 , Vivekananda nagar colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad TS. R/o. H.No. 258/8, phase -1, Allwyn colony, Kukatpally, TS

2. Sri. N. Vishwa Kumar, S/o -Veerabhadraiah, aged 36 years, occ. .business, 3. Sri. Sambha shiva shankar, 9fo -Nageshwar Rao, aged about 34 vears occ. business, R/o. H.No. 2-22-68, f. no. 301, Sai Lalmi nesiaenc'v, i-eniOu Society Vijayanagar colony, Kukatpally, Kyderabad, TS 4. Gottimukkala Srinath Rao, S/o. Gottimukkala Narsing Rao, aqed.about 37 years, occ. business R/o. H.No. 5-2-26, Kukatpally, Hyderabad iS. ----' 5. Singayapally C9pj,. Si9 ^p Ramchandar Rao, aged abcut 38 vears. occ. business, R/o. H.No. 1-83, Chinna Gottimukkla village, S,hivamp'et frrfanOaf, Medak District,TS.

6. Seri Balreddy, S/o Late Ramakrishna Reddy Age 57 yrs, Ot;c.Aoricu[rrre R/o.Velmela Village, Ramachandrapur Mandal, Sangareddy Disirict, ... Respondents/petitio ners/Respondent Petition under section '151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supp-ort of petition, the High court rrray oe pleasea io vacate the staygranted on 211o312025 in lA No.1 of 2o2s rn cRF, No 983 of 2025. -the IA NO: 1 0F 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circurrstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High court may b: pteased to siry of .all further proceedings in o.s.No.53 of 2017 pending on the trle of the Hon,ble Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, pendin(r disposal of lhe present Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondents: B SHASHIOHAR The Court made the following: ORDER. THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CTVIL REVISION PE"TITION Nou.983 of 2o25 ORDER: This Civil Re vision Petition is filed against the Order dated

07.O3.2O25 in I.A.No.2827 of 2024 in O.S.No.S3 of 2017, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.2827 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2017, against the respondents before the trial Court under Section Order 7 rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in O S.No.53 ot 2Ol7 ' The trial Court after consiclering the arguments of both sides dismissed the said order, the application. Aggrieved by petitioners / defencian ts have preferred present revision petition' Learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants herein

3. mainly contended that rcspondents / plain tiffs have filed a suit uide O.S.No.53 of 2017, to declare the registered documents bearing Nos.5192 and 5193 of 2017, as invalid as they are executed without sanction and authority and also for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit land. Respondents/ plaintiffs have admitted the r ( \r._.1 \, -t 2 execution of agreement of sale_cum_GpA,s bearing document Nos. 11351 and 1 1352 of 2Ot6 dared 25.05.2016 in prra No.5 ot the plaint and they have also admitted the issuance of notice cancelling the GpA,s and it clearly shows the execution o[ agreement cum GPA. The General power of Attornel. [GpA) was executed in pursuance to agreement of salc after p,2ymgn1 91 sale consideration, therefore GpA is couplecl with tnterest in view of Section 2O2 of Contract Act and it cannot br: cancelled unilaterally and it is barred by law. The registered document can be cancelled through a registered cancellation de,:d and the cancellation by issuance of notice is unknown to [aw. In the plaint, it was stated that petitioner No.5/defendanr. No.S had not been served with notice and it is not returned, therefore GPA of petitioner No.S is not cancelled. Consequently, the sale deeds executed are valid and the suit is liablc to be,lismissed. The trial Court has passed a non_speaking and norL_reasoned order. It was simply held that the plaint averments dis;closes the cause of action. Respondents/ plaintiffs did not soughr. any relief against the agreement of sale cum GpA dated 25.Oii.2Ol6, as such declaration of the sale deed is invalid, erroreous and against the law. The main relief should be regarding agreement of sale cum GPA. As the cancellation of the GpA is not in accordance with law, there is no cause of action. crevcr drafting B. :-:i*r.: .r.i,i ;-i..ri4,':. J of the plaint by the respondents/ plaintiffs created illusory cause of action. The GPA is not cancelled as per law under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, as such respondents/ plain tiffs could not avail the remedy against the sale deed and thus the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

4. Parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.53 of 2017, for the sake of convenience ,

5. Plaintiffs in their plaint hled in O.S.No.53 of 2017 stated that plaintiff No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-38 gts in Sy.No.l20lDE and also to an extent of Ac.2-05 gts in Sy.No. \22/AA2, situated at Velimela Village, Ramachandrapur Mandal, Sangareddy District, thus the plaintiff No.1 is having a total extent oi Ac.3-03 gts. Plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and the possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-38 gts in Sy.No. 12O I A2 ar,d Ac.l-28 gts in Sy.No.l22lA2 and thus he is having total extent of Ac.2-26 gts in the said survey numbers. The lands of the plaintiffs together are forming a big plot measuring an extent of Ac.5-29 gts and it is undivided share ol plaintiffs in total land of , / 4 Ac.S- 15 gts, which includes the share of their elder brother Manik Reddy. The share of Manik Reddy is me .rsuring an extent of Ac.2-26 gts in these two survey numbers. A11 three brothers have together sold some extent of land to tlieir parties and some extent of land was covered by the Manjrra pipeline road. After deduction, the land remained to the thrr:e brothers is Ac.6-00 gts, but more land is appearing in favour :f plaintiffs and their elder brother as per revenue records. The land is still in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and their clder brother.

6. Plaintiffs have offered their undivided share t,) an extent o[ Ac.2-0O gts each out of the suit land at the rate o[ Rs. 1,29,00,000/ - to the defendants in the month ol Mar,, 20 16. All the defendants together accepted the plaintrffs offer. On

25.05.2016, plaintiffs and defendants havc entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit lands. It was agreed between them that the land for sale is only to tl. e extent of Acs.4-OO gts out of the suit land and the sale consideration is Rs. 1,29,0O,00O I - per acre, but taking advantage of illiteracy and ignorance of the plaintiffs, defendants got dralted written agreement of sale cum GPA to the extent of Ac.5 28 gts with specihc boundaries instead of showing it as undivirled share of - ) plaintiffs and the sale consideration was shown as Rs.30,0O,O0O /- per acre. When it was questioned by the plaintiffs, defendants have stated that they mentioned the same only to save the payment of stamp duty and they had issued cheques for a total consideration of Rs'3,66,0O,0O0/ - and executed a Memorandum of Understanding and the photocopy of the same was given to the plaintiffs' It was further stated that defendants have paid only an 7. amount of Rs. 1,5O,OO,0OO/ - to the plaintiffs and got executed agreement of sale cum GPA uide document Nos' 1 1351 and 1 1352 of 20 16 dated 25.05.2016' For the past nine months' plaintiffs requested the defendants to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,66,00 ,OOO I -, but defendants paid only Rs.6O,OO,OO0, as such plaintiffs terminated the GPA given to the defendants. They got issued notices of termination of GPA through registered post to all the defendants, as such defendants are no more and-@t authorized to act as attorneys of plaintiffs. Notice to the defendant No' I was rcturned with an endorsement unclaimed, notice to the defendant Nos 2 and 4 were served to them on 27 .O3.2O17, notice to defendant No'3 was served to him on 28.O3.2017. Notice to defendant No'5 was not yet returned. I I \.1 - 6

8. On 09.04.2017, defendants erected fencing covering major part of the suit land and also erected a board stating that land belongs to them. plaintiffs never intended to alienate the suit schedule property. Defendants have mentionec the specific boundaries in the agreement of sale without the k.nou,ledge of plaintiffs and trie d to make impression that t hey are in posscssion of the land. In fact, plaintiffs and defenclants agreed to the actual extent of land which wiil found after the due measurement only and not more. When plaintiffs approached the defendants and questioned regarding erection o. the fencing and name board in the 1and, defendants stated that they had already got sale deeds executed in their favour and plaintilfs need not executed any sale deeds for them and further stated that they will ltay the balance sale consideration whenever they wish. Plaintiffs never intended to alienate the lancj claimed by the defendants. Plaintiffs have verihed in the ollrce of sub_ registrar and found that sale deeds bearing Nos.S1912 and S193 of 2Ol7 werc executed by the defendants themselves on 28.03.2017 and the stamp paper was purchased on 03.01.2O17 and got mentioned that sale deed was executed on 06.01.2017, which was created by defendants only to show thal sale deeds were executed prior to the termination of their authority under GPA, as such sale deeds were not valid. Defendants have no _''*i.. ;e{ 7 authority to execute the sale deeds. By playing fraud, conspiracy and to gain wrongfully, defendats executed the sale deeds, as such plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare the sale deeds as null and void and also entitled for consequential injunction restraining from mutating the said documents before any government authority' The cause of action arose on 28.03.2017. Plaintiffs have hled 16 documents along with the plaint including the sale deeds and a copy of the memorandum of understanding and also the notice of termination of power of attorney dated 24'03'2O17' They also filed certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA, copy of six pahanies for the year 1425 fasli and gift settlement deeds and also certihed copy ofROR for 1989-90. g. During pendency of the suit, defendants have f-tled an apptication for rejection of plaint. The lrial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also the citations relied upon by them, observed that the documents filed by the plaintiffs are pertaining to the year 2Ol7 and the suit was filed in the same year, as such it cannot be said that suit was barred by limitation. It was further observed that even if it is presumed [hat there are contradictions in the pleas as taken by the defendant No.5, it cannot be the main ground for rejection of '- \. 1 \ 8 the plaint. [n the case on hand cause of action is clearly shown as such it cannot be said that no cause of action was shown and the ingredients of either clause (a) or clause (d) of Order VII were not attracted and accordingly dismissed the ap,1li661gior,.

10. Perusal of the agreement of sale cum GpA dated 25.05.2016, shows that it was executed for a total extent of Ac.5-28 gts for a total sale consideration of Rs.57,011,000/_ and the vendors have paid Rs.5O,00,0O0/- on the same day and the balance amount ol Rs.7,OO,OOO/- was agreed to be paid as and when demanded by the plaintiffs/ vendors. Ve;-rdors have appointed vendees as their GPA in respect of the schedule properties and the vendees have also agreed for the same it was also stated that vendors delivered vacant peaceful pcssession of the suit schedulc propcrty to the vendees. In the GpA, il, was stated that as lhe vendors received major sale consideration executed agreement of sale cum GPA in. favour of r.endees and they are authorized to sign and execute saie deeds, rectification deeds, ratification deeds, agreement of sale, rievelopment agreements etc and they are also authorized to transact with prospective purchasers and to enter into agreement of sale and also to execute registered sale deeds on behalf of the vendors. ,).l.ril+i{t tri:r - i:;,1: I 9 1 I . Learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs mainly contended that the suit is at the stage of arguments, as such the application liled under Order 7 rule 11 is not maintainable' Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants contended that the said application can be filed at any stage of the proceedings and relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Patit Autondtion Priaate Ltd and Others vs Rakheia Engineers Priudte Ltdl, in which it was held th,at the potuer under Order 7 Rule 11 is auailable to the Court to be exercised Suomotu,assuchthecontentionoftherespondents/plaintiffs regarding maintainability is not tenable The counsel for the petitioners / defendants further contended that as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, relief of possession is not asked for and thus, the suit is barred under law of Specific Performance Act. They relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Anathulc Sudhakat vs P. Buchi Reddg (Dead) bg Lrs and Othersz in which it was clearly stated that suit was {iled only for declaration and the relief of possession was not sought for, as such suit is barred by limitation lt is further contended by rhe petitioners/defendants that as per the terms of the agreement of sale cum GPA, upon payment of sale consideration ' 2022(10) scc Para 94.3 ' AIR 2oo8 sc 2033 x l0 possession of the property has been delivered to the defendants. This clearly proves that the GPA is coupled with interest, as such Section 2O2 of conLrac t Act is applicable to the facts of the case. Plaintiffs have no authority to cancel the GPA unilaterally. Plaintilfs stated that out of ba-lance sale consideration of Rs.3,66,00,0OO/ - only Rs.60,O0,OOO/- was paid by the defendants, as such lhey terminated the GPA given to the defendants by issuing notice of termination through registered post. Therefore, defendanls are no more their atr-orneys and they are not authorized to act as attorneys. Plaintiffs have no right or interest to cancel GPA as it is proposed $,ith interest and the cancellation of the GPA through notice is barred under Section 2 of the Contract Act.

72. The contention of the pe[itioners/defendants rs basing on the agreement of sale cum GPA- As registered sale deeds were executed, it can be cancelled only by 'registered cancellation deeds, but not by issuance of notice. The cancellation is not as per law and the present suit is against law and agatnst Specihc Relief Act. They relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandrama Singh & Others us Mirza Anis Altmad 3 arrd. r 20 I I SCC Online All 528 1t also on Mahesh Pakhare us A.S, Gopal & Othersa. It is lurther conte nded that plaintiffs are not par[r to the documents and they could not simply ask for relief of declaration and they have to seek the relief of cancellation of the sale deed as per the decision o[ the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of .Elussain Ahmed Chowdry dnd others as Habibur Rahmans, in which it was held as follows:- "29. Where the executant of a deed utants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed under Section 31 of the Act, 1963. But if o non-execLttant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to only seek a declaration that the deed is inualid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference betuteen a prager for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/ conueAance, can be brought out bA the follouing illustration relating to 'A' and B' - ttDo brothers. 'A' exeantes a sale deed in fauour of 'C'. Subseqtently 'A' udnts to auoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the otLer hand, if 'B', u-tho is not the executant of tte deed, utants to auoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is inualid/ uoid and non est/ illegal and he is not bound bg it. Admittedlg, the Plaintiff being exeattant of the sale deed has to necessaily file a suit for cancellation of the sole deed, therefore, the suit for decloration is baned under the lout of Specific relief oct."

13. It was further contended that the main intention of the plaintiff to fite the suit is to declare them as owners, as such o 20 SCC Onlinc AP 925 ' (2025) scc online sc E92 / t2 plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for cancellation of the sale deeds but not for declaration. In this regard, petitioners/ defcndants relied upon the very same.Jrrdgment as stated above in llusscin Ahmed (supra), in which it was held as follows: "33. In fact, it is logicctLlg impossible for o person uho is not a partA to doaLment or to o decree to astc for its cancellation. This is clearly explained bg Wadsunftl4 J., in the decision rendered in Vetlaga Konar (Died) &, Anr. a. Ramasuami Konar & Anr., reported l9lr9 SCC OnLine Mad 749, thus: "When, the plaintiff seeks to establish a titLe in himself and cannot estoblish that title lDithout remouing an insuperable obstruction such as a decree to which he has been a partA or a deed to tuhich he has been a partA, then quite clearly he must get that decree or deed cancelled or declared uoid 'in toto', and his sui, is in substance a suit Jor the cancellation of tL..e decree or deed euen though it be framed os a suit for declaration. But tuhen he is seeking to establish a title and finds himself threatened by a decree or o transaction bettueen third parties, Le is not in a position to get that cLecree or that deed cancelled'in toto'. That is a thitg uLhich can only be done bg parties to the decree or deed or their representatiues. His proper remedg therefore in order to clear the utag uith a uieu to establish his title, is to get a decloration that the decree or deed is inualid so Jar as he himself b concented. and he must therefore sue for such o declaration and not for the cancellation of the r.Lecree or deed."

14. Learned Counsel lor petitioncrs/delendarrts further contended tha t the suit was hled by creating non ex isting cause of action. Plaintiffs have created a cause of action by allegedly r3 cancelling the agreement of sale cum GpA by issuing notice, which is per sc illegal as a registered document can be cancelled by registered document only. As such issuing notice, created a cause of action for filing the suit is not tenable under law. That apart, plaintiffs have admitted the execution of agreement of sale cum GPA, as such they cannot carcel only GpA and keep the agreement of sale subsisting, thus by cancelling the GpA by issuance of notice, crealed a false cause of action. The entire document of agreement of sale cum GpA has not been cancelled, thereby, suit was filed by clever drafting without seeking the foundation relief of cancelling the agreement of sale cum GPA and thus the plaint is liable to be rejected.

15. Admittedty, plaintitfs executed agreement of sale cum GpA and later cancelled thc GPA unitateraliy. As per the terms of the agreement of sale cum GPA, possession of the suit schedule property was already handed over to the petitioners/defendants and they are enjoying the same, as such respondents/plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for cancellation of the agreement of sale cum GPA and also for delivery of possession. Even though the suit is decreed, as there is no relief of delivery of possession, it cannot be enforced. Petitioners / defendants further stated that there is no document to prove that the agreement is renewed I I t \ and there is no declaration b-v a Court that agrer:mcnt stood renewed automatically on exercise of option lor renewal by the petitioners/defendants. The basis for claiming rhe relief of injunction is a subsistence of renewed agreemcnt. r\s they hled suit for injunction without claiming dcclaration as to their subsisting rights under a renewed agreement, the sr,rit is barred by limitation. Perusal of the plaint clearly shows t hat it was a clever drafting without seeking relief of recovery ot'possession and cancellation of agreement of sale cum GpA. Mr,reover, GpA is not cancelled as per provisions of law under S,:ction 31 of Specific Relief Act, as such plaintiffs could not avail the remedy against the sale deeds. Therefore, the trial Corrrt erred in dismissing the application.

16. In the result, the present Civil Revision pctiticn is allowed by setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated O7.O3.2O25 passed in I.A.No.2827 ot 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2Ol7 . There shall be no order as [o costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, it any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/- N. SRIHARI ,/ , DEPUTY REGISTRAR / \- - . --- : SECTION OFFICER 'L The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy 2. One CC to SRI NARESH REDDY CHTNNOLLA, Advocare IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI B SHASHTDHAR, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies $ ru -L'-1 .. . . -. rti,*i,lllild6ii HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 j ) ORDER CRP.No.983 of 2025 o{' lttt S 14 r( 2 | ,tuu 2n75 o o o,, THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED a

6. 16