The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 57 of 2017 on the file of V Addl. District Judge..ll-Fast Track Court, Warangal at Jangaon pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI C M R VELU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NARENDAR JALLI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CNIL REVISION PETITIO N No.846 of 2022 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - respondents - defendants aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.250 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 by the learned V Additional District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Warangal at Jangaon

2. Tl.re respondents are the plaintiffs

3. The respondents - plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deeds and General Power of Attorneys (for short "GPAs") executed by them in favor of defendants I to 6 and to grant injunction not to alienate the suit schedule A to G properties and not to change the nature of the suit schedule A to G properties till the disposal of the suit and to direct def'endant No.8 - Sub- Registrar not to register any sale transaction with r.egard to schedule A to G properlies. Their contention was that the plaintiff No.1 along with his wife and son entered into an agreement of sale dated 03.06.201 5 with defendants I and 2 @ Rs.l ,50,00,000/- per acre for a total extent of Ac.6-23 guhtas at Jangaon Town and Mandal, Warangal District and received an advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with a condition that the5would enter into another agreement of sale on or before 1 5.06.20 I 5. Basing on the said terms and conditions, the 2 Dr. GRR,J CRP No.846 of2022 plaintiffs and del'endants entered into an agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015. The said original agreement of sale was with the defendants. No photocopy was even given to the plaintiffs. The defendants 2 to 6 in connivance with each other convinced the plaintiffs to register the sale deeds in their favor without paying the sale consideration mentioned in the agreernent of sale clated

03.06.2015. In good faith. the plaintiffs regisrered the sale deeds in their favor. After the execution of the sale deeds, the defendants had not paid any amount to the ptaintiffs. A Memorandum of Understanding (for shoft "MoU") was also entered in the month of August, 2015. In clause No.3 of the MoU, it was recorded that the total sale consideration was not received under the hrst agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 and if the terms were not fulfilled to the entire satisfaction ofthe parties, the agreement shall be treated as null and void. As per clause No,4 of the MoU, the defendants also agreed not to alienate the property to third parties. But the defendants failed to comply the said terms and conditions. As per the sale deeds, the defendants had to pay an amount of Rs.9,86,25,000/- 1@ Rs.1,50,00,000/- per acre but rhe defendanrs paid only an amount ofRs.83,71,000/- to the plaintiffs on different occasions out ofthe said total sale consideration. They had not paid the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.9,02,54,000/- as per the agreement of sale dated 03.06.2015 and

10.06.2015 duly signed by both the parties. The plaintifls conrended thar they were not having the copy of the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 and the Dr. GRR,J CRP N0.846 of2022 original was under the custody of the defendants.

4. The defendants filed their written statement

5. During the course of trial, the ptaintiffs filed I.A.No.250 of 2018 in O.S.No.57 of 2017 under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to produce the original agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 executed by the plaintiffs in favor ofthe defendants

6. The respondents - defendants 1 to 7 filed their counter stating that they had mentioned in their written statement that the agreement of sale dated

10.06.2015 was already handed over to the petitioners - plaintiffs. The respondents were not in possession of such agreement after obtaining registered documents in their favor by paying total sale consideration for the purchase of suit schedule lands. They were not having custody of the agreement of sale The allegation of the petitioners regarding production of original agreement of sale from their custody was sheer imagination and there was no iota of truth in it.

7. Along with the said petition in I.A.No.250 of 2018, the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.348 of 2018 to receive a Compact Disc (for short "CD") and pen drive containing the conversation between them and the defendants' counsel Sri V.Ramgopal regarding the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 stating that the 4 Dr. GRR,J CRP No.846 of2022 same would help in determining in whose custody the said document was, as per the said conversation.

8. The trial couft allowed I.A.No.348 of 201 8 on the same date i.e. on

19.03 .2019 subject to the plaintiffs producing the original device through which the said conversation was recorded. In the present I.A.No.250 of 2018, the trial court considering that the plaintiffs had filed CD and pen drive recording the conversation in between the counsel for the respondents - defendants in I.A.No.348 of 2018, which would reveal that there was an original agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 in between the parties, directed the defendants to produce the original agreement of sale dated 10.06.20i5 for better adjudication of the case.

9. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial cour1, the defendants preferred this revision.

10. Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Narendar Jelli, leamed counsel for the respondents on record.

11. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioners - defendants contended that the suit for cancellation of sale deeds itself was not maintainable on the ground that the total sale consideration was not paid as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindb$!{alyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (Dead) it{; 5 Dr. CRRJ CRP No.E46 of 2022 through LRs. and Othersr. When the suit itself was not maintainable, its offsprings i.e. the I.A.s were also not maintainable. When the sale deeds were executed, registered and possession was delivered, directing the defendants to produce the original agreement of sale is of no use. When once the sale deeds were executed, the agreement of sale need not be looked into. The Court below ought not to have considered the conversation recorded in CD and pen drive, which was recorded without the knowledge of the speaker. The Court below acted itlegally in accepting the tape recorded conversation, which was contrary to the law as laid down in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Telangana2and in Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr.Surinder Kaur3.

12. Leamed counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the principle that once sale deeds were executed and possession was delivered, the vendors could not seek for cancellation of sale deeds, but could only seek recovery of balance sale consideration, had no universal application. The suit was at the stage of trial and the said issue could be gone into during the course oftrial. Ifthe ptaintiffs could establish that the defendants had played fraud on them and not paid the entire sale consideration and if they could prove the circumstances under which the sale deeds were brought into existence, the sale deeds could be cancelled. As per the plaint averments, the sale deeds were '2020 (4) CivilLl 562 '2017 (l) ALT (Criminal) 100 'ArR 1982 (SC) 1043 I 5 Dr. GRRJ CRP N0.846 of2022 preceded by agreement of sale. The understanding between the parties was reduced into writing, as such the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 was material to prove the issue involved in the suit. The petitioners who were the defendants were in possession of the said agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015, but were bluntty denying the same. The conversation between the parties would disclose the existence of the said agreement of sale and that the petitioners were not in possession of the same. It was not the case of the petitioners that there was no such agrecment, they were only contending that they had handed over the same to the respondents - plaintifls after obtaining the registered sale deeds. The conversation recorded in CD and pen drive was admissible in evidence subject to certain conditions. The Court below permitted production of CD and pen drive subject 1o production of original device before the Court as per its order dated 19.03.2019 in I.A.No.348 of 2018. The judgment rendered in Nara Chandrababu Naidu's case has no application, as it was in respect of tapping oftelephone, but not the conversation recorded. The same had no application at alt. The tape-recorded conversation could be relied on, if supported by other evidence. The petitioners had not chosen to assail the order passed tn I.A.No.348 ol'2018 and allowed it to become final and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

13. Perused the record 7 Dr. GRRJ CRP No.846 of 2022

14. The respondents - plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deeds as well as GPAs in respect of suit schedule property executed by them in favor of defendants I to 7. Their contention was that there was an agreement of sale entered between the parties on 03.06.2015 and 10.06.2015 prior to executing the registered sale deeds and that the original agreement of sale dated 10.06.20 I 5 was not in their possession and the same was rn possession of the defendants. The burden lies upon the plaintiffs to prove that l"here was an agreement of sale existing as stated by them on 03.06.20 1 5 and I 0.06.201 5 in which the terms between the parties were reduccd into writing as stated by them. The defendants denied that they were in possession of the alleged agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 and contended that the same was handed over to the plaintiffs prior to executing the registered sale deeds in therr favor by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs relied upon a CD and a pen drive to show that the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 was in possession of the defendants The said CD and pen drive are pertaining to the conversation recorded by the plaintiffs with the defendants' counsel Sri V.Ramgopal without his knowledge and consent alleging that during their discussion with the defendants' counsel Sri V.Ramgopal, he stated that the said agreement of sale was handed over to the defendants. The conversation between the client and the counsel is a privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, both the client and the I 8 Dr. GRR,J CRP No.846 of2022 Attorney are not obligated to disclose the privileged comrnunications to any third party. Such privilege persists even after the termination of the Attorney - client relationship. Secretly recording such conversation by the plaintiffs without the consent of the defendants' counsel amounts to breach of confidentiality and ethical violation. The conversation secretly recorded without the consent of the counsel on the other side over telephone would amount to obtaining evidence illegally. As the order of the trial court would disclose that it directed the de{'endants to produce the original agreement of sale dated 10.06.2015 on thc basis olan evidence, which was obtained illegally and which was a privileged communication and the said privilege was not waived by the petitioners - defendants, the same ought not to have been allowed by the trial cour1. No other independent evidence supporting the existence of the agreement of sale dated 10.06.20 I 5 in the possession ol the defendants was filed by the respondents - plaintiffs apart from the secret recording made by them. The trial court ought not to have compelled the production of a document solely on the basis of a secretly recorded privileged conversation with the counsel for the defendants, unless the privilege was validly waived by the parties. The communication between the respondents - plaintiffs with the defendants' counsel does not fall under the exception to the rule of privileged communication under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act to accept it as it was made in furtherance of an illegal act with an intention to commit crime or 9 Dr. CRR,J CRP No.E46 of 2022 fraud during the Attomey's employment. In the absence of such exceptions, the privilege remains intact, and the court ought not to have allowed the petition. As the trial court passed the impugned order without considering the prohibition under Sections 126 to r29 of the Indian Evidence Act, rg7z, the order passed was without jurisdiction and as such the same was liable to be set aside.

15. In the result, the civil Revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 19.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.250 of 201g in o.s.No.57 of 2017 by rhe leamed v Additional District Judge (Ir Fast Track court), warangar at Jangaon. No order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/. A,V.S.P RASAD EP TY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 V Addl. District Judge,ll Fast Track Cou(, Waranga 2. OneCCtoSRt CMRV 3 one cc to sRr-^-.*o1.J.i'.:",Tli,lli,]",1,,o 4. Two CD Copies I at Jangaon SS,PSL qp- : I HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 -=1-i::'::--:\ ti:,.,irtce sia];-s- . c l\ ,_1.., j. : .; .,, ill o4 rttg 216 '.. ORDER CRP.No.846 of 2022 i\r I I I I i I l ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS h, L