The High Court · 2025

Smt. Sumana Reddy, Wo. Shyan Prasad Reddipally, Rlo 16-11-405128' Moosarambagh, HYderabad couimukkala Jasannadha raju, s/o G- Rama -,.,,^"' il:::t":t;:1::::t- R/o. EWS-400, KPHB colony, Hyderabad' B. Sreedhar, S/o. b. Ramasubba Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o EWS-601 KPBH colony, Hyderabad. Maruoakala Ramalinqaiah, S/o. M- Laxmaiah, Occ: Business' R/o- Plot No' 7b, il;h;'", Sai Na!ar, Vanasthalipuram,Hyderabad' Gokulam Krishna, S/o. G. Narasimha, Occ: 9^u^sLl1e^ss, Oel2, XpHe Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad -50OO72' Smt. Y. Anitha, W/o. Late Y. Mohan, Occ: housewife,. R/o Plot No' Sai NAgar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad' is, R/o 1 Phase' 'LIGH- -Srsr'mj ...Respondents/Defendant Nos'1 to 5 Counsel for the Appellant :SRl RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Dr' K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA Counsel for the ResPondent No'2 : - The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE IIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJA,NA APPEAL SUIT NO.762 0F 2013 JUDGMENT: Th s : I p eal is liled by the appellant aggriev,rd try the judgmenr. I r<i clecree dated 22.12.2O1O in O.S.N,r.!l 1.15 of 2006 or t r( fllc of VIII Additional Senior Ci,r I ,.J udge, Rangared cl. [) :;trict at L.B.Nagar.

2. Thc rl:rrrLtif[ filcd O.S.No.2125 of 2006 to cirnc:r] the cancellatirr, o1 sale deed dated 21.04.2O06 and to (lirc( r the Sub-Regt s,tr ar - [ to remove the impugned docLrrrLenL i.e., cancellati,tr ,tI sale deed frorr the register and to rrant perpetual irrjlnr:tion against the clefendants restiainLng rhem from interlc r n: u.ith the peace ltrl possession antl elt-jrr1, nent of the sutt prol ( 11\..

3. For tlrt sakc of convenience the parties herrr:irL ,Lftcr referred to as :rral.ed in the above suit. The appr:[arLt ht rein is the 6th c cle rl,rn t in the said suit.

4. The pl: rr,iff purchased plot No. 76 in tjv.No.4l, at Miyapur 'llrr1l:, ulong u,ith tu,o others, through a sirle <.leed I 2 '.1 executed on 11.O7.2OO5, b5r ths 6trr defendant-M/s B'V'R' Projects, on behalt of defendants I to 5' The plaintiff paid Rs.7,50,0O0/- towards total sale consideration and got registered the sale deed. However, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants colluded with the Joint Sub Registrar-Il to fraudulently cancel the sale deed on 2l 'O4 '2006' without notice or intimation to the ptaintiff' The plaintiff claims that the cancellation deed was registered illegally, in violation of the Registration AcL, and that the defendants bribed the concerned officials to achieve this The plaintiff has hled a report with thc Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta against the Joint Sub-Registrar-ll and seeks to have the cancellation deed cancelled. The 6th delendant hled a written statement denying the 5. allegations made by the plaintiff According to the 6h defendant, the plaintiff and her husband promised to pay the sale consideration of Rs 7,5O,OOO/- within a short time and requested the 6fr defendant to execute the sale deed Believing their words, the 6tr defendant executed the sale deed on 17.07 .2OO5. However, the plaintiff and her husband failed to pay the sale consideration despite repeated demands' 3 r- Therefore, tlr': 6d, defendant, representing defendanr lrrc s. I to 5, executeC ,r rrancellation deed canceling the s€r c dt:ecl.

6. Th e 6 , rlefendant also contended that similar. sale <leeds were exe cut(.(l in favor of two other individuals. B. Lath i Naik and HimzrlrirLrl -r, who also failed to pay the sale conrjLce .ation, cancellalicn C ceds were executed for those sale cler.tls a.; rvell. The 6, cel:rdant denied the allegations oI brbt,r.. and claimed .hr tlLe cancellation deed u,as regislereri:rrl.orcing to law and n e r:t:,y1612n6s with the Registration Act. In r,q111 ,6pt sf his conte n i rr,. Iearned counsel relied on the jurlgn,ren t_ ,.rf the Full Ben,;h n 'fanala Malleshwari and Others V Ananthula Sayamma a rl d others 1, wherein it was held Lhat u n rl ltcral cancellalon ,tI sale deed is valid. The 6th defenclanL r:]irimcd that the tl rirr rfls failure to pay the sale consid,trar on ed to the cancelLari:n deed and that the suit is li:rble trt be disrnissec. 7' Tl-re 1rl rirtiff Iiled a rejoinder to the writtcn sr ,rtelrent, contending riti t the allegations made by the 6e ccferrditr r are false. Acc:rdiog t. the plaintiff, the recitals of Lhc :;aL: deed r 2006 (6) A -r (, 2 I (FtJ) 4 ..1 indicate that she paid the salc consideration' which was received by the 6th defendant The ptaintitf also pointed out that the Sub-registrar-ll made an e ndorsement indicating that the cancellation deed is invalid' The plaintiff argued that unilateralcancellationisnotvalidasperlawandthatshehad suflrcientmeanstopaythesaleconsideration,beingemployed withldeasCellularLtd.Theplaintiffreiteratedherallegations against the Sub-registrar and claimcd that the cancellation deed is invalid'

8. Basing on the above pleadings' thc trial Court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiff Pws l and 2 were examined, Exs.A. I to A'6 were marked ancl on behalf of the 6th defendant Dws.1 and 2 werc cxamined and Exs'B' 1 to B'3 were marked. After hearing both sides' the trial Court decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same' the 6h defendant preferred this aPPeal' g. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi' learned counsel for the appellant-66 defendant and Dr- K' Lakshmi Narasimha' learned counsel for the respondent No l plaintiff' - 5 10 Tlrc r"r r tention of learned counser for th<, 6th rre[, ..dant is that tt e i-pugned judgment is against th,: prrnc:i rles of naLural .1rLsli:: and good conscience. The judgme r.rt s also considereri F (rt-\,erse and palpably wrong, as ir iai ed to consider th I r arure of the claim made by the plaintifi The court belou liamed an additional issue and gave :r specific finding thal tLe facts and circumstances creatr-. grrvr: doubt about th r .,( -r;.on of plaintiff, yet held that plair:trtf Ls r:rrtiLled to havc tl e cirncellation deed canceled. The rjrr, ,lr:fu.ldant argues tha t lr s finding is contradictory and flzirvect :rn :l t he court bclrr,r :rrecl in holding that the rule incorpora.l ecl I :t Lhc year 2oo(' Ir r; rro prospective effect and that thc Jrn rlcli:r dernt cannot ce n :r.l I he document. The court below irlso la il,:d to appreciatr' tl-Lrr. the plaintiff promised to pit-\, -lrr. s.11.. consideraric n i^-ithin 1O days but failed to do so. rr hich amounts I , ..rr; rlng and fraud. 1 1. The firr tlLcr contention of learned counsel firr t hr 6,n defendant is ,hz.t the court below erred in holding _hirt the sale deed cirl .(t be canceled due to non_payrncnt ol sale consideration. 'llre 6e defendant contends that Sr:cticn 5l of the Transfe r o I rroper[r Act and the decisions relie<1 upor b1.. 6 .l the plaintiff are not applicable to the present case' It is further contended that the court below failed to appreciate that there was no bar under the Registration Act, 1908' to execute a deed of cancellation canceling the sale deed for non- payment of sale consideration The 6d defendant seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and decree, arguing that the court below made several errors in larv and fact that the plaintiffs entitlement to have the cancellation deed canceled is not supported bY law or evidence'

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that cancellation deed was executed on the ground that sale consideration was not paid lf the sale consideration is not paid, the recourse available is to hle a suit for recovery of sale consideration, buL not execution of cancellationofsaledeed,whichisnothingbutviolationof Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Andhra Pradcsh Rules under the Registration Act. The said registration is illegal' null and void' The hndings of the trial Court on additional issue of IDBI Loan is not germane and it is irrelevant to the present case' The legal question is whether the registered sale deed can be canceiled unilaterally, even if the loan is not approved has no + I a - 1 bearing o r ir -- lcgal invalidity of the cancellatic,n ot' s:tl, r deed. Hence, 1;r,r,,cc to dismiss this appeal.

13. C,tr si:lering the submissions made by bcth the counsel and thc n atr rial on record, the suit is hled by tl-re plairLtrff for cancellatior ,)-cancellation of sale deed on the 13ror:n<1 ,rf non paymen. r,[ r;rrle consideration. The trial Court initiirll,-. iamed only tu.o is r; tes, later additional issue was framt.d otr sale cor-rsideral ir r -l as the plaintiff therein hled rc-joincter. r;tating that she p rcl total sale consideration of Rs.7,5O,0Or)/

14. Basins rn the above, the following points arir;e for determin il ior-

1. WtLe IL,-- - Lhe plaintiff in the suit is entitle 1 for carrcc lr tion of cancellation of sale deed ?

2. Wt r-- L c ' the judgment of trial Court rr,teds anv int,:rt llnce ? POINT NOs. 1. a.nd 2

15. Thc sr_tLl is fi1ed for cancellation of exer:utir n of cancellatiorr ol sale deed on the ground that urrl;leral cancellation is not valid and it is settled principlc (r..corrtract that if cors irleration is not paid, the recourse is to lilc r. suit ,| 8 n for recovery of the said amount and without giving notice for payment of consideration and without hling a suit for recovery of sale consideration' the 6th defendant executed registered cancellation deed is void' In support of her contention' Pw. I evidence is that she plaintiff examined Pws l and 2 purchasedthesuitschedulepropertyforanamountof Rs.7,50,OOO/ - and Pw 2 who is the husband of Pw' 1 trled chief-affidavitstatingthatplaintiffbeinganemployeehaving monthlyincom.eofRs.25,0oo/permonthpurchasedthesuit schedule property by obtaining loan of Rs IO Lakhs from IDBI Bank, Basheerbagh Branch and paid Rs'7'50'OOO/- to the 6fr defendantatthetimeofregistrationofsaledeedtowardssale of consideratton IS consideration. As such, non-payment baseless and false'

16. On the other hand' Dw 1 who is the 6th defendant hled chief affrdavit stating that the husband of plaintiff approached the defendants for purchase of suit schedule property and requested to execute sale deed and that he would pay the sale considerationafterobtainingloanfromlDBl,withinlodays. The husband of plaintiff is the Regional Manager of IDBI Bank at the time of transaction and believing his words' sale deed 9 was rrgrr,i (.r.ed in favour of plaintiff, but the plaintill and her husban I Iailed to keep up their assuran(e, its I UCh, cancelleI tbe sale deed. Dw.2 was the Brancl.r Ma nager of IDBI Eta'-rr<, lrled his chief affidavit stating th:LL asr pe . record, plainti T a p rroached the Bank for grant of irour;rng loan of Rs. 1 0 Li I h s, the bank sanctioned the loan ltut sh e did not receir.e th, loan amount. pw.2 attested tht: copr, rf bank recorcl arLr, 1;-oduced before the Court to show thc car:cel pay order a t( it ltement.

17. Tlrc cr idence of Dw.2 would show thrLt I,laintiff approachcr l)BI Bank and availed loan of R:;.l0 Lal,:hs for purchasinq ,]re suit schedule propert5r. Hou,ev:r. n the present c: se , L'hcther the plaintiff paid sale consicte.a, ror_r or not is not tlte question before this Court. The queslron before this Court ;:; .vhether unilateral cancellation of sale cl,:eci is valid in tl. e c r-e of law. On this aspect the corllent on of learned co,ltstl for the 6th defendant is that o..r e d rte of execution r I :.ancellation of sale deed, unilatera. ceutceliation is valid. 't'lrc said amendment was made on 29 1 ,.,_',006, r:ancellation of sale deed was exec.uler I on whereas, L r(.

21.O4.20A6. l.lr:refore, it is valid. \? 10 f \

18. In support of his contention' learned counsel for [he 6fr defendant relied on the Full Bench judgment of A P'High Court in Yanala Malleshwari's case' wherein it was observed that when there is no prohibition under the Act for the vendor to get the canceliation deed registered' it cannot be said that unilateral cancellation is void' lg. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand V State of M.P.2, relied on the judgment in Thota Ganga Laxmi V State of A.P.3, wherein it was held in paragraph Nos 46 and 47 as under : "rO7 .,46. tn our considered view, the decision in Thota Oangct L;nni lThota Ganga Lo'wnt v State oJ A P ' (20 10) 1 5 SCC , lZOtll l SCC (Civ) 10631 was dealing with an express provision, as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh and L" 0r.,,.,* with regard to the registration of an deed ln absence of such an express in other State legislations' the Registering ofhcer "*ti.rgri"tt-"ttt ;;.;", would be governed by the provisions in the 19O8 Act Going by the said provisions' there is nothing to indicate that the *.*"*.,,* Off""t i" required to undertake a quasi-judicial enquiry regarding the veraclty of the factual position stated in the document presented for registration or its legality, if the tenor of the document suggests that it requires to be The vatidity of such registered document can' ."*t**t , t2o16) lo scc 767 , izoioi rs scc 207 t1, in( e:d, be put 1ur isr i: ion rn issue before a court oI cor.tpet(:tt 4i7 Jll l-re llresent case, the document in question n() doL l)t iI re r ccl as an extinguishment deed. However, rn effer:t, it i; rrrirnilestation of the decision of the Society t() canccl lre all(trr(rt ()1 the subject plot given to its merrber CL]r) to nor ulnhnent of the obtigatron by the member con( errle:1. Thr sr ljecr document is tinked to the decision oI tlLe Sf,crei, ro canceI the memtership of the allottee of tlre ])l )t grve n I him/her by the Housing Society. In oth(_,r wcrds. it is Llre i:,.ision ofthe Society, which the Society is enritleJ r) e::er r: s e rvithin the framework of the governing ,roop(:rati\ rl lan: iL r I the b_ve laws which are binding on the rnemtrers ,,1 th e S )(.( t] . 'lhe case of Thota Ganga Laxmr [Thcia Gan.(llt k,-n,tt, Stqte of A.p., l2O tO) 15 SCC 2O7: (2013) I SC,t (Cir, )i3l besides the fact that it was dealirg u,ith a r expr:rr; provision contained in the statutory Rul:, namr:l1, Rt )e .2r:(:t)(z') oF the Andhra pradesh Registration Ilules. 196(. .ras also not a case of a deed for canc,illaliln o itllrt,n rnt of plot by the Housing Society. tlut, of i canc'1 .rrii)n of the registered sale deed execute(l betweer priva'c l,arties, which $,,as sought to be cancelle( tur la:crail.,. Even for the latter reason the r:xposiitior io lltotr, (;onga Lo,ymi [Thota Ganga fdxmi v. Stale of A.t, (201(I li, SCC 207 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 10631 rvi hare no apyrJi.arrr,rr to thc fact situation of the present case.,,

20. In the at,ove judgments it was observed tl-Lat regislering authoriry- l Le r; to adjudicating power to cancel r_he rcgir ;tered sale deeci .Ll ,l ullilateral cancellation is not per;nrssible In Thota Gang:r .Laxmi's case also, it was observed tha t the cleed 12 of cancellation of reglstered sale deed cannot be unilaterally executed, the comPetent Court can only nullifY the said document. In the present case' it is not the contention of 6s 21 . defendant that fraud was played' but the only ground is that no sale consideration was paid' even after registration of sale deed. If the sale consideration is not paid' the recourse to the party is to file a suit for recovery of sale consideration' No payment of sale notice was issued to the Plaintiff for recovery of sale suit is liled for consideration and no consideration. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, cven if consideration is not paid' sale is valid as future consideration is also valid' Therefore' the 6ft defendant has to file a suit for recovery of the said amount' In Thota Ganga laxmi's case and in Satya Pal Auand's case' it is reiterated that the sub-registrar has no adjudicatory power to cancel the saledeedonthegroundofnon-paymentofsaleconsideration, even if it is not paid' he has to file a suit for cancellation of registered saie deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration' Therelbre' unilateral cancellation is void and not valid 13 2L. Ilre rrial Cour[ has also discussed at lengr.h a:lout the unilatr-'r rl c: ncellation. Though an additional iss -re r.; framed for de,:rlirrr3 thc point whether consideration is pai< by the plaintiif, ;s the suit is filed on the ground thzLt u nilateral cancel a ior is void, whether consideration il; pard c.r not is not tL (i - r r,:stion before the trial Court. II rr:a lly sale consid()r lti.1r rs not paid, the 6e defendant hirs to lil r a suit, and th:r rl t Court can decide accordingly. Herr:e, he trial court 1. s r ightly decided that unirateral cancellirtior L is not valid czLnc,:llation and it is void- Therefore, I find nr iJI, ,galities in the jurlglrrr:nt of the trial court and there are no qrounds for thjs Ccu -t tc interfere with the impugned jutlgm:nr.. There are no rn:ri,s and the appeal is liable to be clis nissed. However, t- r appellant is at liberty to file suit .br cancr:lration of sale <te:ri.

23. A,:c I -l i 'rgl1., the Appeal Suit is dismissed. Nc cr:rs 1 s Mis :t'ilancous petitions, pending, if an.,r, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII sd/- P. c tI3,tflrHHsB+HiA / I : --:r SECTION OFFICER - I To, 1 The Vlll Adoitionalsenior C ivil Judge, Rangaredd District, at L B Naga(With records, if arry r One CC to SRr ;r\..iA One CC to f r h Lt,K .",?#l-'^Txti,hl,;tgJ::eTJ?i,:i, Two CD Copie; v 2 3 4 ADK/gh s 44 { _1. r, \ HIGH COt,RT DATED:30l(t4tZ}Zs JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.762 of 2013 /'t." /a '.iI r] !'. ti [] Jriri 2025 ')' .c) \. i ' . :.:,/ 2 DFIAFTS DISMISSING 'THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS @JCPP"'9W IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 762 OF 2013 Between: M/s. B.V.R. Projects, Having its Office at fUlG-219, 1't floor, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 5OO 072 Represented by Partner B.V.Rama Rao, Occ. Business. ...Appella nUDefenda nt No.6 AND

1. Smt. Sumana Reddy, Wo. Shyan Prasad Reddipally, Rlo. 16-11-405128, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPlaintiff

2. Gottimukkala Jagannadha raju, S/o. G. Rama Krishna Raju, Occ: Business R/o. EWS-400, KPHB colony, Hyderabad.

3. B. Sreedhar, S/o. b. Ramasubba Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o. EWS-601 KPBH colony, Hyderabad.

4. Marupakala Ramalingaiah, S/o. M. Laxmaiah, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.79. Sushama Sai Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 5- Gokulam Krishna, S/o. G. Narasimha, Occ: Business, R/o. 1 Phase. LIGH- 68/2, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally,Hyderabad.

6. Smt. Y. Anitha, Wo. Late Y. Mohan, Occ: housewife, R/o. Plot No. 15, Sushma Sai NAgar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Defendant Nos.1 to 5 Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 22t1212012 made in OS.No.2125 of 2006' on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds 9f appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, Advocate for the Respondent No'1 and none appeared for the respondent No.2 to 6. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: & '1. That the Appeerl :iUit le and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall L e rc order as to costs in this appeal Sd/- P. CH. N HU13HAMBA RE(:iISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION I:)FFICER To, -r. The Vfl Additiorral rie'rrior civir Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.t3.Naqar

2. Two CD Copies ADK/gh 6 HIGH COUR'I- DATED:30tAil2025 DECREE AS.No.762 ol 201J DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSiTS @)d K1ffi"