The High Court · 2025

Petition rrn:rer :lection 151 cpc praying that in thr: cirlum itances stated in the affidavit lile:d ir support of the petition, ine Higr' court ,xay be pleased to appear on beh;rlf c.f ny brother named VIZ Mr. Regati Naveen Kumar in the above mentroned cF t'> by deposing on beharf of my biother, riring affidavit, Etc., on behalf of for acijrrc ii;ation the above mentioned CRp. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition unrre' fiection '151 cpc praying that in th€, cirr:u mr,;tances stated in the affidavit f re,i irr support of the petition, ine H,gn ccurt rnay be preased to rmplead the prrtp:se ,cl petitioner herein as petitio-ner No. .2 b.ing'the iegal Representative rf the Jeceased civil Revision petitioner \i,iz., sr t la jati lvlalre"sh in the above mert crrr:rl CRP and all other connected lAS. Counsel for the Pr:,titicner: Sri. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana Counsel for the Rr:'spondents: Sri. T C D Sekhar The Court made the f tllowing: ORDER ? ORDER TIIE HONOI'RABLE SIUTJUSTICE IL SUJANA CWIL RE[/I$ON PETIIION No.47l2 OF 2013 This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated

13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2Ol2 in tr P'No'15 of 2011 in R.C.No. 182 of 2OO7 on the hle of the Principal Rent Controller cum Xll Junior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/ third party, fiied tr.A.No.2 I of 2Ol2 in E P'No' 15 of 201 1 in R.C.No. la2 of 2OO7 under Order XXI Ruies 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 23(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, 196O, seeking declaration of ownership and possession over a property bearing Municipal No.1-8-430/ 14, situated at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad' comprising a ground, hrst, and second floor, with a total extent of approximately 160.35 square yards' The claim arose in the context of an eviction execution petition (E'P'No' 15 of 2011 in R.C.No. 182 of 2OO7l ltled by the legal heirs of a previous owner' The petitioner contended that he had lawfully purchased the I I I i I I I i I I I I i I I i I I l ; i I I i l, l I I I 1 ; 2 SKS,J (l tt'. \o .+; l2 OF 2013 said prr:rtr t', uide registered sale deed dated 21.C7.! 004 from one Srr il l- a shikala, who was represented by lrer registered Generetl Power of Attorney GPI') hoider, Sri Ba a !l,t,1dile ti / respondent No.6. The salc \\,a s ba;ed on an earlier :, qrl ( ment of sale-cum-GPA dated 1ti.06 2O0,1. It was furthel r or r :,rncled that the vacant possession $'asi ha 'rded over to the pr tit oncr at the timc of the sale, and hc had l ince then been in rrr i rl errupted possession. It was strlted thi t he had mutal( d h :; namc in municipal records, pairl tr xes, and obtain,)d r: lrousing loan by mortgaging Lhe properry thereby, alhrmin;r I is orvnership. Hou,ever, it came to liglrt rl'rat an earlier registere(l r zrlc cleed dated 16.07.1988 (DocumerLl Nt.3961 of 1988) ii rl been executed in flvor of Smt (1. ll,:r' (,l.rlra/ rr: sponden I No.1 lor an extenl o1 li0 square vards.

3. It ,r'a; the specific contention of petitioner hat the 1988 deed u a' lr r v a nominal transaction executed to liecu re a loan, and ro prssession had been delivered undcr tlrat sale. Subse<1u,:r tl.', Sarojana had executed an irrevor:a1t1,: General Power ot Attorney dated 27 .O4.1991 ir hvor of Smt Fia a llamulamma, authorizing her to d,:a1 with the ? SXS,J CRP.No.a7l2 OF 2013 property, and based on this GPA, a ratification deed dated

22.09 .2OO7 was executed confirming the sale in favor of the peti[ioner and conveying the title of Sarojana to him. The petitioner alleged that respondents No.2 to 5 had hled E.P., and obtained ex parte orders behind his back, suppressing material facts and creating a false narrative. He asserted that the execution of the eviction order was illegal and sought protection under Rule 23(71 of the Rent Control Act. It was further stated that the ex parte decree had become infructuous as the alleged tenant - Respondent No. 6 had vacated long before the decree was passed.

4. The respondents in trA., contested the petition, contending that the 1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G. Sarojana was still valid and had not been cancelled, and that neither the petitioner, nor his vendors, had any legal right to se1l the property in 2OO4 as it had already been sold to Sarojana. The exislence of any valid GPA by Sarojana in favor of Ramulamma was denied and the validity of the ratification deed was challenged as being collusive and self serving. Further, that the petitioner was not a bona fde purchaser and that his title I I i I I I i i I I i I 4 ix: SKS,J iP.\o 47i2 OF 2013 '-l documel t:; rvere fabricated to oy6..o-. defects ir thc chain of

5. 'J'hr: ?r ncipal Rent Controller recorded e,..idencc iom both parties. 'i:t petitioner was examined as pW1, :rnd d rcuments includingr -l t sale deed, GpA, ratification deecl, ta> no iccs, and municiplrl r::ords were marked as trx.p1 to Ex.p 1. ()n behalf of respo; :cle r ts RW 1 and RW2 were examir-rccl a ncl Ex. R 1 to Ex.R12 r,,c-: marked. The principal Rent Con r-oll,:r ntted that both pz.rr ie s "elicd on registered sale deeds_orLe fr rrn 9gg and anothel lio r 2oo4-creating a direct confli<.t o- 1itte. Upon analyzn'tg 1 'l : evidence, the principal Rent Controll:r c tncluded that the Re r t Control Court lacks jurisdiction to a,ljr-rdicate comple:: ,1trr stions of title, and emphasized thrrt rrrtcle . Scction 48 of .hc ''-ansfer of properly Act, 1gg2, ulre r-r t tere are multipkr or- rtcting transfers, thc earlier in tirne 1rrcr. rrls, ancl since the 1!) l3 sale deed was registerecl first, and 1 a<j ror been la'"r'fullv c r.t r llcd, the subsequent sare in 2oo4 co, cr n rt confer better 1it e. 'lhe Principal Rent Controller c,pint.d ,har the petitionr:r hi c also not taken any legal steps to rhallenge or cancel t1( r:: rlir:r sale deed, nor had he initiatcd a( tiur against his vendor.s f I - misrepresentadon, and that the ratif icat on deed ? 5 SKS,J CRP-No..1712 OF 2013 relied upon by the petitioner was executed only after the ex parte evictron decree had been passed, and in addition' the petitioner had not notihed or disputed the rights of Respondent No.1 at the relevant time, further weakening his claim'

6. The Principal Rent Controller uide impugned order dated l3.0g.2013heldthatwhilethepetitionerclaimeduninterrupted possession and submitted certain documents' his title to the property remained under a cloud and could not be conclusively established within the iimited jurisdiction of the Rent Controller' Further, that the petition raised substantial questions regarding ownership and title, which must be determined by a competent Civil Court. Accordingly, E'A No'21 of 2Ol2 was dismissed' with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for rights. Aggrieved thereby, this revision adjudication of his petition is filed. 7 Heard Sri A. SaLyanarayana, Iearned counsel for revrsron Sri TCD Shekhar, learned counsel for petitioner, and respondents.

8. Learned counsel for revision petitioner' submitted that thatthedismissaloftheE'A.,lrledbyrevisionpetitioneris 6 SKS,J C lP.l'.io 4712 Ol'2013 .t, contra:r' to the law, weight ol evidence, and probz bilr ie s of the case, e n:1 : l rt the Rent Controller erred in dismis';ing the claim petitio'r :;o1 r v on the ground of jurisdiction. Flc c,rntcnded that the Reel (l( rrtroller has the authority to clecicle on he rbjections raised b,. t re petitioner who is in possessiorL ol- the property, under R r1r: !/3(7) of the Rent Controller Ru1es, ani th. t the said rule ern1,r,i, r:rs the Rent Controller to address sr ch rb.lections and eve r reject the E.P., if necessary. Ile l:rne rtec that the E.A., r,,a'; c isn-rissed withouI propcrly considcrinq t1-rr oral and documert:r '" evidence presented in the casc. He rcii:d on the obsen,llio:.rs made by the Rent Control Appellatr: Court in I.A.No.9l'Ct cf 2OO7 in R.A.No.251 of 2OO7 datcd Cr2.O4-2OO9, whererrr ft:r , liberty was granted to the petitior er o file an appliczLti,r'i rrnder Rule 23(71 of the Rulcs, r,,,i'ric:h u'ould irnply that tlLe Iit nt Controller failed to take thcse obs rr\-a rions into account. r,''rich further supports the ca:le ,rl retitioner. Therefrrr '. . r'-- prayed this Court to allorv the rcr. sior p"1i1ior-r, setting . sic ( 1-he impugned order dated I3.O9.2C I il tassed in E.A.No.2 I r f 2072 in E.P.No.15 ol 2Oll in R.C.No 82 { 2OO7.

9. ()r L lLe contrary, learned counsel [crr res rondents, vehemr:n:l', opposed the submissions made b.,, leiirne I counsel (1 7 SKS,J CRP.No.'1712 OF 2013 for petitioner and contended that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order dated 13'09'2013 and that the E.A., frled by petitioner was rightly dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach competent civil Court He further contended that the 1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G Sarojana remains valid and un-canceled, which in fact would render any subsequent sale of the properry by the petitioner or his vendors h 2OO4 illegitimate. He asserted that the said contention is based on the principle that a prior sale deed takes precedence over any subsequent transactions involving the same property' He asserted that Sarojana's prior purchase of the property nullifies any claims of ownership or transfer rights by the petitioner or his vendors, and that this assertion is grounded in the idea that once a property has been soid, the seller no longer has the right to transfer ownership to another party' That apart' he disputed in relation to existence of a valid General Power of Attorney (GPA) from Sarojana to Ramulamma, and divulged the ratihcation deed as collusive and self-serving, implying lack of authenticity in the transactions' He averred that the GPA and ratification deed were created to manipulate the property's ownership, rather than reflecting a genuine transfer of rights' He reiterated that petitioner does not qualify as a bona frd'e 8 SKS,J C iP \o 4712 OF 2013 purch.rs r ( lr te to the questionable nature of his tit e ck,cuments, and tha - I L e documents appear to be fab rica. ed to rectify defects irr tle chain of title. Thercfore, he prayecl this Court to dismiss 1: r, revision petition stating that there nrc no llegalities in impu,lnr rl order dated 13.09.2O13 passed in El.A.No-21 of 2Ol2 r:'t I f . \o.15 of 2011 in R.C.No. 182 of 2Ot)7 . 1O. Il. ,,:r t, rcgard to the rival submissions n arle , and on perusing 1h I n'raterial placed on record, it is to bc lrote,l that the petitioncr' lirrci purchased the entire properlr, ,rf v hich the petitiorr -c' r edule property forms a part, under a r:gis ered sale deed car z<1 21.O7.2OO4 (Ex.Pl) executed by Sm SL ashikaia, represinIc(] rt1 her Agreement of Sale-cum-GPr\ hcldr_:r, Sri Baja Madclil:t i I li.:spondent No.6, contending Lhat poss,tssion was delivcrr:d 1() rim pursuant to the said transaction an I that he has bccl ir uninterrupted possession and enjo.-mctt of the petrtior :;r'h : lule property ever since, having nruta Leci his name in murri, ir)ir records and paid properLy ta>:es r:egr larl1,. To substar)t a1t the same, reliance was piaced upon :ixs. ?1 to pg, includi:r; :l c Sale Deed (Ex.Pl), Agreement c,f Srrle r:um GpA (Ex.P2) Ir-r,r zrcable GPA executed by Smt G. Srrroiirn:l in lavour of Baja Rarr rrlamma (Ex.P3), the Ratification [)ced err cutecl by ( o SKS,J CRP.No.4712 OF 20l3 Ramulamma (Ex.P ), the Certihed Copy of Sale Deed dated

16.07.1988 (Ex.Ps), and municipal tax notices (Exs.P6 to P8).

11. It is the speciltc contention of petitioner that the earlier registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988 (Ex.P5) executed by Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti in favour of Smt Sarojana/ respondent No. 1, to an extent of8O square yards, was a sham and nominal transaction, intended merely to secure a loan and not to effectuate a transfer of title or possession. Further, that no possession was ever delivered to the Iirst respondent pursuant to Ex.PS, and that respondent No.1 never exercised any ownership rights over the property. Furthermore, that the execution of an irrevocable GPA by Smt Sarojana in favour of Baja Ramulamma(trx.P3) and the subsequent Ratilrcation Deed dated 22.O9.2OO7 (Ex.Pa) executed by Ramulamma in favour of the petitioner reinforce the claim that the 1988 transaction was not acted upon and that the petitioner validly derived title through the 2OO4 saie deed. However, on meticulousiy perusing the evidence, inciuding the cross-examination of PW 1, it becomes evident that the petitioner was aware of existence of the prior registered sale deed dated

16.07.1988 in favour of respondent No.l. That apart, PWI 10 SKS,J CF r \. '7t2 OF 2013 categoric Lllr admitted in his cross-examination that he had obtaint d a r t rtified copy of the 1988 sale cleed atrc lc:a -ncd that ov ner and the re;ptrr 1:nt No.1 had becom. 11'" 'lfscrlutr posses lo" r,1 lhe properqy covered under E:r.P'-: H : further stated tlra' lre u,as informed by Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddilet r i t ,. at the said transaction \ ras nominal :rn d cxecuted to sccl ro a loan. However, this assert o1-r remains uncortolror-r r ed by any inclependent documentirn' t virlt ncc

12. lii ,r.ri i:erntly, despite having knou'ledgic r I tlrc e:rrlier transaci o;r, the petitioner admittedly did not init att: an-v steps to get th : 1 !'88 sale deed cancelled or declare<l nr- II :rr Ld void by any con'P:':,'rnt Court. The petitioner neither iss-red anv 1ega1 notice t,) ',rspondent No.1 disputing her t tle' tror initiated proceccl a1t; aSlainst Smt Shashikala or Sri Baja N'tarldilctti for havinll r ru illed property which they had alreirdv 'rlicr ated'

13. T]'t, t rrpart, though the petitioner contcn<is to I rave relied on tt,c R rtification Deed dated 22.O9.201)7 (!)x. )4), it is notertor -trr that the same was executed after t }-re er porte evictii,n o'r1cr dated 30.08'2007 in R C No L82 of 2OO7 ' Morec vcr, I he said Ratification Deed was exe( ute( I by Baja Ramul:r'-r.r r r, u.ho is admittedly not a Fart\ lo the sale ,f 11 SKS.J CRP-No.4712 OF 2Ol3 transaction of petitioner, under Ex.P1, thus rendering its legal efficacy questionable

14. At this juncture, it is significant to note that the sale deed dated 16.O7.1988 (Ex.Ps) is a registered and regular sale deed, and as per Lhe settled principle embodied under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, when two competing claims are based on registered sale deeds, the doctrine qui pior est tempore potior est jure (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law) shall app1y. It is a weli-estabtished principle that once a valid transfer is made, the transferor cannot confer any right or title upon another person in derogation of the earlier transfer'

15. Reverting to the facts of case on hand, no doubt, it follows that Smt Shashikala and Sri Baja Maddiletti had no subsisting right to convey title under Ex.Pl in favour of the petitioner in 2004, having already conveyed the property to respondent No'I under Ex.PS in 1988. Further, the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that thc obstruction to execution proceedings was raised in good faith. Though he examined himself as PW 1 and a third party as PW2, the evidence of PW2 does not inspire conltdence, as he disclaimed knowledge of the afhdavit and admitted that he had not given 72 SKS,J (l1P l\o +712 OF 2013 ( ..,.i any inst|rt( tLons lor its preparation. No indep,:ndrrnl or reliable er.iden,-t lri s been placed before this Court to deniolts trate that the I 9 3li s: l'] dced was never acted upon or that llre Lr ansaction was m3r:l\.z securi[r for a loan. 16- r r r,l j ition, it is imperative to record that thc petilioner filed E.A . L a perlLs lr rrcler Rule 23(71 of the A.P. Rent Contr ol F ulcs, and r ' the said provision makes it c1e ar t h:L t the Rent Contrc 11, r r s required to conduct a sumrnar- cr rquiry to ascertrrir \\ l,eLher the resistance or obstructi()n to cx rcution of the evic ir;r empo\\1-- 1 decree is bona fide. The said provir;ior-r does not : e Rent Controller to adjudicate u pon complex questi()1' r ( f title, and in the present case, bcth the petitioner and th c -cs p ondent no.1 asserl rival claims ol ovr rc:'s iip based On SC[,2] it I ( registered sale deeds, as such, the I\'inr ipal Rent Contrc 11, r t rsrnissed the petition observing that the ltc tittoner is entitle I tr r".ail appropriate remedy available to l:im rnder law bcforc L rr: ( ompetent civil Court to decide hc title over the propert\ t petitio 1( ' i ()\4.ever, instead of availing the ;aid rer'-redy, the l,:ci this revision petition challenging t.rc s lid order. That apr rrt. ('ven prior to this, rvhen the petitioner file d petition under O rcle r I Rule 10 of CPC., the appeilate '3ou-t arlvised the I 13 SKS,J CRP.No.4712 OF 2O13 petitioner to approach competent civil Court, but instead' he hled this revision petition. Thus, in view of the above discussion' this Court is of the firm view that there are no irregularities or illegalities in the impugned order dated 13'09 2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2Ol2 in E.P.No. 15 of 2011 in R'C No 182 of 2OO7' There are no valid grounds in this revision petition to entertain the same, warranting interference of this Court, and the same is iiable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shali also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Rent Controller-cum-Xll Junior C Causes C6urt, HYderabad Judge, CitY Small

2. One CC to Sri. Ambadipudi Satyanarayana Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri. T C D Sekhar Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies W IVIKN/gh HIGH COIJ R'I' DATED:1 5tA,412025 I .\\ ...\ , ',..\ 2 0 ;tttl 20fr t- a, j ( o J uu,9 ORDER CRP.No.4'l'liL ot 2013 CIVIL REVISiI()N PETITION IS DISMISSEET x \? Izt b I :