V. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Late v. Narasimha Reddy, Age

Petition under section 148 of c.p.c. praying that ir the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thr: High court may be pleased to extend the time granted by this Hon'ble court f.- depositing of costs imposed by the court below in lA No.4 of 2018 in ASMp rr r.364 of zdtz in Rs No.143 o'f 2017 dated. 20-06-2019 for '10 weeks. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ch. Venkat Raman Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri K. Seetharam Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT .,1 HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.143 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: This Appeat Surit is l-rted challenging the judgment and decree dated 30. 12.2016 made in O'S No 87 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Distri<:t Judge, Ranga Reddy Disttict' al LB Nagar' Thc rrppellant hercin js defcndant, and respondents herein are 2. plaintiifs in O.S.No.87 ol- 2O08 F'or the sake of convenience' thc partit:s hcrein are referred Lrr as arraicd in stlit' Thc brief facts of the case are that the plaintifts filed a suit for ll. cleclaration of titie, recovery of possession' and mestte protits in r'(i:rpect of Lwo plots. ttiz.., Pk:t Nos 63 and 64 in Sy'I"lo 99' Dattatr(r'l/a Ccrlon1,, Malrrpur Villagc, f?'an ga Rerlcl'; Di-strict' adrneasuring 292 and 305 sqttarc yarcl-* respectrvelv Plainriff No 1 purchased PIor No.63 under a 'registered sale det:d dated 31-07- 1989 (trx A6)' and Plaintiff No.2 purchzrsed Plot Ntr'b4 ttnder a registered salc deed rlated 02-04- 1990 {Dx.A7), both from their cornrnon vendor' late K' Raja Ratrram, ',vho hard acquired litle through a registered sale deed dated 12-08- 1968 (Fjx .A5). Possession u'as' rlelivered to the plaintiffs irpon exccr:tion ot iili.r sale cleeds Hou'c"-ir' irl the yeal' 1998' the i-rlaintifls discci';crt:d lh:tt the dr:lendant had ::ncroat:hed upot the I 1 I I 2 suil propertics and was running a school therein )espite legal notice and procecdings under the A.P. Land Grabbin3 (Prohibition) Act, rll'ricl-r initi:rlly clllminated in a favorable judpr renl lor the plaintifls (Ex.A3), the samc was set aside, grantinSl llrertl' to thtr plaintiffs to seek possession through a civil suit (trx.A4l

4. The dcfcn<lant contended that she had purche;ed thc suil. propcrtics tl'rrottgh ttll oral agreement dated 2 t- )2 1985 lor Rs.20,OO0/-, paid Rs. 10,OO0/- initially and Rs 6,OO0,/ erter (Ox.82), :rncl u'irs dt'livcrcd pttssession by Raja Ratnatn lhe claimecl protectron lr ndcr Section 53-A of the Transfer of Prol:rtY Act and relietl on parti:rl dcposition of Raja Ratnam in L()'- pnrccedit.tgs (Ex.83). Hou'cver, she farled to produce the original agrt :ment of sale or lhc originaI titlc deed.

5. The plaintiffs rnarked thirteen exhibits (Ex:;. \1 to A13), inc luding sale dt:e ds, link documents, and subsequer t iransactions shou'ing translcr of prolterty to Sanjeeva Reddy (Exs.A() '.o A11). Thcv cxamrned thcmsclves as PWs. I and 2. The defendant xamined her husb:rnd ar-rd GPA holder as DWl and an indepentl'l rt u'itne ss as DW2, u,ho a(lmitted lack of knowledge about o'*'nersll p. llasing on the m:rlcrial t hcreof, the trial Court framed six issr- :s, including owncrship, cntitlcment to possession an<l mesne profit: and advc rsc possession. I / ) 3

6. After considering material thereof, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs, having valid registered sale deeds and having proved delivery of possession, were entitled to declaration of title and re(iovery of posscssion. The claim of defendant of oral agreement ernd part performance was rejected due to lack of documentary cvidence and failure to fulhll statutory conditions under Section 53-A. The trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners and entitled to possession and mesne profits, while the defendant failed to establish any lawful claim. Aggricved thereby, thc defendant preferrcd this appeal. 7 . Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri K.Seetharam Reddy, learned counsel for respondents. B. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the suit filed by the respondents / plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession over Plot Nos. 63 ancl 64 in Sy.No.99, Dattatreya Colony, Mallapur Village, is misconceived and unsustainable in law. He contended that the appellant/ defe ndant had entercd into an agreement of sale with the original owner, Raja Ratnam, on

27.02.1945 for a valid consideration of Rs.20,000/-, of which tts.16,0OO/- was paid by 08.O7- 1986, and possession of the suit :;chedule properties was delivered to the appellant. The original title deecl dated 12.08.1968 was also handed over to the appellant, and 4 .-\*1 she has been in uninterrupted possession since th :n, runnlng a school on the premises from 1988 onwards. Thc egistered sale decds execr.rted subsequently in favour of the llaintiffs u,ere describecl as nominal and not supported by actua possession or consideration, and Raja Ratnam himself deposed in - iC No 5/ 1999 that those documents were executed under compuls r n and that he had already sold the properties to the appellant' g. l-carned counscl for appellant incessantly subr trial Court erred in shifting the burden of proof ontrr and tailed to framc an issue on limitation, which was ad-jud ication. L{e contended that the plaintiffs neil I r proved the manner of dispossession, nor did ther vendor or his legal helrs to substantiate their litie' I{ .itted tha t the the defendant r,:rucial to thc r plcadcd nor examine their ,r'eliecl on t-hc evictcnce of DW2, an independent witness, conltrming he posscssion of appcllant and use of the property since 1990, ar-rd r ontended that the same u/as not properly appreciated' He claimed pr Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, havir conclitions of part performance The reliance of trial (:' )tection lrnder g fr-rlfi1lcd the r-rrt on Exs.A 1 and A2 u,as challenged as those sale deeds were all : unsupported by possession. The judgment grantinll an<l recovery o[ possession was assailed as being c< 3rdlv voicl ancl mcsne profits [trary to lau/, / 5 evidence, and principles of natural justice, and it was prayed that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned decree. IO. Learncd counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit in favour ol the respondents/ plaintilfs as thcre was no bias and the appellant/defendant utterly failed t<; produce any documentary evidence to show purchase of the suit propcrty from the vendor of thc respondents. He asserted that the trral CoLrrt. considered the certihed copy o[ Documenl No. 3754/ 196tt rlatecl 12.0t3.1968, uarked as Ex.AS, which under Section 63 o[ the Indiiu-r Evidence Act constitutes admissible secondary evidence, :rnd rrpon examining its recitals along with trx-A1 and trx.A2, founcl that the rc sponden ts / plaintiffs had purchased the suit schedule propcrty from lhe owner, Rajaratnam, who executed the sale deeds ernd rlclivercd titlt: and possession to them on the same day. He lamcnted tlurt if thc sale deeds produced by the respondents rvere iorgcd, it s,trs incumbcnt upon the vendor to approach the competent civil Llourt for cancellation, but no such action rx,as taken, thereby, all-rrmirrg thc validity of the sa1e. He averred that in a declaration suit, t[.rc burden lies on the plaintiff to estabiish better title, and the rc spondc n ts / plain tiffs successfully discharged this burden, whereas, the appellzrnt/defendant failed to produce any evidence of possession or titlc. t{c pointed oul" that the respondents had earlier succet:decl 6 \ *.-1 before the Land Grabbing Court in LGC No. O5/ 1999 vhich directed - the appellant lo deliver possession, and thougl-r the zrppcllant challenged thc order in WP No. l79ao l2OOl, this ( ourt obse rved that an agreerncnt of salc does not confer titlc rnd that the respondents could recovcr possession on the strengt r of theil title deecls I L Lcarnccl ('ouns('l for respondents emphasi; ecl that lhe appellant ncithcr filcd a suit for specihc performan :c nor sough t cancellation of lh<: respondents' sale deeds, and irr I -re abscncc of any sale agreenrcnt in hcr favour, the marking of trx. 12 receipt and Ex.B3 dcposition of Rajaratnam cannot advance i e:r case. The eviclt:nc:e of DW3 ltzrd not cstablished ownership or t.l r: in far.ou r of the appellant, nor did thc chief examination of her htt ,band disclosr: cxe culion of an,l agrt'ement or attesters thereof, e I d the alleged pa-\,me nt of Rs. I O,O007'- rcmained unsubstantiated. L[, asserted that the appellant, bcing a housewife, failed to prove the: ource of such pa],ment, did not produce attesters, and did not lr,r gc a ny police complaint regarding thc alleged agreement, all ol which clearly demonstrate that she attempted to grab the p. perty ol the respon dents/ pla in ti ffs u,ithout any lawful basis. Tt :refore, u'hile: advocattng t hat t herc arc no illegalities in impugnetl judgment. he prayecl this Court to dismiss this appeal. f / 1

12. Upon hearing both sides, this Court framed the following ISSLICS: lVhether the plaintiffs are owners of Lhe suit schedule properties, if so, whether they are entitled for declaration of ownership over t-he suit schedule properties ? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule properties, and mense profits ? Wlrcthcr the defendar-rt perfected the titie of suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession ? II III POINT Nos.I to III :

13. Havrng considered the record, the pleadings, and the oral and documenLarl evidence, it is noted that the central controversy under Point Nos.l t. III is rvhether the plaintiffs have established title to plot Nos. 63 and 64 in Sy-No.99, Dattatreya Colony, Mallapur Village, and are consequently entitled to declaration arid recovery of possession.

11. It is scen that the plaintiffs rely upon registered sale deeds, trx.A6 (3 I 07,1989) in favour of plaintiff No. 1 for plot No.63 ancl Ex.A7 (02-04- 1990) in favour of plainriff No.2 for plot No.64, execuled bv their common vendor, late K. Raja Ratnam, who had 4 8 :i\ derived title under the registered sale deed da,r d 12-O8-i968 (Ex.AS/Ex.A8). The defendant disputes these sales, setting up an alleged prior agreement of sale daLed 27-02-1985, p: :t payments of Rs.1O,00O/- on 27-O2-1985 and Rs.6,000/ on 08 Ci i986 (Ex.82), delivery of possession in 1985, and claims protecrro"r under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

15. The material on ret:orcl u.ould show that tl-rr: plaintiffs'title flows from Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, both registered sale de :ds containing clear recitals of receipt ol lull considera[ion and de I r(]ry of vacan t, peaceful possession to the respective vcndees ot-r the dates of execution. 'the link in titlc is eviclenced bv Ex.AS / F > .A8 (registered salc deed dated 12-08 1968), shon,ing the vendor's pr or acquisilion- PW1 and PW2 reiterated thesc facts, PW1 having ph' sical[y verified the property pre-purchasc ar-rd PW2 deposing to hi purchase for valid consideration. Thcrc is nothing in Ex.A6 or O: A7 to suggest any prior agreement or transfer of possession to he defendant. Therefore, it can be helcl that the trial Court rightl., prioritized the probatrve value of registered conveyances with explic t recitals over al unproduced, alleged agreement.

16. The stand of defendant rests on an assertion o a 27-02 1985 agrecment of sale and consequent delivery o[ posst ssion, yet the alleged written agreement was not produced. That a I rrt, it is uoted I I 9 that Ex.B2 (receipt dated 08-07-i986 for Rs.6,0O0/-) does not refer either to the alleged agreement of 27-02-1985, the earlier payment of Rs. 10,O00/-, or delivery of possession. Further, DW1 (husband/GPA holdcr) admits non-paymcnt of balance consideration and non-issuance ol zrny notice to the vendor for execution of a registcrcd sale deed . Though DW 1 claims the original 1968 title deed was handed over to the defendant, only a certified copy (Ex.B1) was produced before the civil Court.

17. Ex.83 is onll, or-rc sheet of thc deposition of late Raja Ratnam as RW.1 in L(iC No.S/ 1999 with cross-examination deferred. It is seer) tha t t hc samc is incomplcte and lacks the cross-examination that, as per trx.A3, rvas extensively conducted. The defendant offered no reason for not llling the entire deposition. In the face of the complete judgment in Ex.A3 and the clear title recitals in Ex.A6 ancl Ex-A7, this incomplete document cannot displace the plaintiffs' registered title or the trial Court's appreciation of evidence.

18. The defendzrnt sought shelter under Section 53-A of thc Transfcr of Propcr-$ Act, claiming part performance. The statutory preconditions therelrv include: a contract to transfer for consideration; the contract in untiry sign-ed by the tra nsferor; terms oscertainable from tle utiting; takitTg possession in part perfonnance; acts in furtherance: and performance or uillingness to perfonn It is seen that _- 10 the defendant had not produced any written zrgrecr t:nt signed by late Raja Ratnam, and u,ithout the foundational writl the defence of part performance is unavailablc. 'lh r docs not supply the missing links; it ncithcr rt:[cr,'tt :n instrument, erpzrrt, Ex.B2 'r:s the alleged contract nor records detivery of possession. DWl's I vn:rdmissions regarding non-payment of the balance and abscrr, c' of steps to enforce the alleged contract lurther erode the claim.

19. In contrast, lhc plaintiffs' case stancls )n registered con\reyances, Ex.A6 ancl Ex.A7, squarel-v fincling plat'.'in Sections 17 and 49 of thc Registration Act, u'hich conler evidenlrr -v clfic:ercv and public notice upon sut:h documcnts afl'ectrng imrnova I c properlv.

20. The defendant relied on possession and Llr, r-ttnning of a school from 1988/ 1990 onwards. DW2, u'as cxanr t t'cl to support posse ssion, but DW.2 admitted lack of kncrrvlcdgt: rl to ou,ncrship and lhat he had not seen any title cieed. His tesl r r()nv ther-efore cannot substantiate la!r'fu[ possession traceaLb]r to a valid agreement, nor can it impeach the plaintiffs' regist('r( I title and the recitals of possession under Ex.A6 and Ex.47. 2I. The defendant's argumcnt that Ex.A6 an<l lt)x./7 are nominal or executed under cornplrlsion is unsubstantiate(I. I o cancellation acrion rvas pursued againsr these registcred sale cltt r : ltr the vendor I 11 or his heirs, nor was any suit for specihc performance pursued to completion by the defendant to perfect title. The absence of such proceedings, coupled w'ith lailure to produce the alleged foundational agreement, lcaves the plaintiffs' registcred title undisputed.

22. That apart, it is seen that the Land Grabbing proceedings (Ex.A3) initially culminated in eviction orders against the defendant; and the decision arrivcd at in writ proceedings (Ex.Aa) set aside th<tse orders whilc cxprcssh rr:serving the plaintiffs' liberty to scck posscssion based on title thror-rgh a civil suit. It was observed that an agreement of sale rloes t.rot confer title aligns with the approach o[ trial Court that registcrcd title deeds prevail, and the civil Court mllst adjudicate [itle and possession on the strength of such documents.

23. Tl-rat apart, thc subsequent transactions traced to the defenclant, uiz., Ex.AlO (gift dced ro her son Jassie), Ex.A9 (AGpA in favour of Sanjeeva Reddy), and Ex.All (sale deed by Jassie to Sanjeever Rr:ddy) occurred pendente lite and cannot confer any superior title uis-ci-uis the plaintiffs' pre-existing registered sales. Thc trial Court rightly viewecl these transactions as incapable oI validating thc defendant's claim or negating the plaintiffs' earlier title and right to possession. l 72 \

24. In vietv of the above discussion, it can br: I 'ld that once the plaintiffs prove title under registered sale deeds, rlr burderr shifts t<; the defendant to shou. a superior lawful claim or.t,r rebut thr: recitals ol delivery of possession, but the defendanr lr rs rrot done so. Accordingly, Point Nos.l to lll are ansr.r,ercd. '[],r 'cfirrc, it can bc observed that there are no illegalitics or rnfirmitics ir-r tI-re inrpugned judgment, warranting interference ol this Court _ 'l'l zr t being so, this Court is of the firm view that there arc no me rits r r rhis a ppezrl, and the same is liable to be dismisscd.

25. IN THtr RESUtil, this Appcal Suit is rlisn-rrs: r l. 'l lrr:rc slrall bt no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pcndinrg .;hall also stancl ckrsed SDL N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 7 SECTION OFFICER at L.B. Nagar. (with //TRUE COPY// To, records, if any)

1. The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy Distri 2. One CC to Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, Advocate tOpUCl ,lri 3. One CC to Sri K. Seetharam Reddy, Advocate [OpUo Lh{) 4. Two CD Copies "Kam/PSL i.-k=:-:l HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.143 of 2017 .)' c O .,', * i '-: aC, J iJ ;i s J '.w-/,/ i), DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT (, 1 v4_) \v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF I'IOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE [ 338s ] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPE AL SUIT NO: 143 OF 2017 Between: Smt. K Rani Pramila Devi, Wo. Sri K Abraham, Age 58 years, Occ: Housewife Rl/o. Ramanager, Hyderabad. ...Appel lanUDefendant AND

1. Sri K Daniel, S/o. K Yesuratnam, Age: 54 years, Occ: Rly Employee, Rl/i' Qrtr. No.'1207lJ, Rly Quarters Chilkalguda, Secunderabad

2. Sri J Subba Rao, S/o. Gurunadham, Age: 57 years, Occ: RTC Employee Rl/o' Narsimha Nagar, Chilkalapudi Post Machilipatnam, Krishna District'

3. V. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Late V. Narasimha Reddy, Age:49 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.6-39/2, Marriguda, Mallapur, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Respondents/Plaintiffs Respondent No.3 is impleaded as per court order dated 25-11-2025 vide l.A.No.1 o12024 in AS.No.143 o12017. Appeal undei Order 41 Rule 1 Fi/w Section 96 of C.P.C' aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 30-12-20'16 passed in o.S.No.87 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B Nagar' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ch. venkat Raman, Advocate for the appellant and Sri K. Seetharam Reddy, Advocate for Respondents' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 't. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. SDA N.SRIHARI DE OUTY REGISTRAR -.,t\-*--- -" \ . : q\rroH oFFtcER //TRUE COPY// tJ,l33il"oJ.o," Judse, Ransa Reddy District at r- B I alar. ro, l. ||,l Kam/PSL )x.,,,,. l HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 DECREE AS.No.143 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT ar(p