Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar rnd Others I

judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous in law and against the facts of the case, the Court below without considering the facts, documents and legal position passed the impugned judgment. Appellant No. l-plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015 dated 2O.OI.2Ol5, as on the date of filing of the suit he was in possession of the suit schedule property and the Court below did not look into the same. As per the recitals of the sale deed (Ex.A4) the value of the property shown is Rs. 17,27,000/- but the respondent- 21L7 BRMR.J AS. No 2OOa-2018 defendant has taken a plea that he has purchas( I the schedule property for Rs.36 Lakhs and he has not placecl z ny material on record to substantiate his contention.

3.2. The learned trial Court lhiled to see that as ;:r the evidence brought on record that the plaint schedule pro1,t r[r was under mortgage with Deccan Grameena Bank as on tht Cate of alleged registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015, which estat [ished that the registered sale deed obtained by the respondent { efendant from the appellanl No.l-plaintiff is by playing fraud rr ,on him. The learned trial Court erroneously gave a frnding thrr the appellant No.1-plaintiff has not examined his family member:, r'ho too signed on the original sale deed (Ex.Aa). The judgment anl decree passed by the Court below is devoid of merits on Law and acts. Counsel to substantiate his contention, has relied on the rl .r:isions in the cases of (1) Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar rnd Others I , (2) Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs Goran zs. Jagan Devi and Others z , (3) A.Jeevan Reddy Vs. State of ' ', langana 3 and prayed to allow the Appeal.

4. karned counsel for the respondent-defendat r submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated tf e facts of the ' ZO2t LawSUitlSCl zS2 'z zoz5 Lawsuitlscl r2s2 j Criminal Petit,on Nos.5708 and 5709 of 2024, datd 79.02.2025 of tr High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad BRMR,J 45.No.2008 2018 case and the appellant No.l-plaintiff has received the total sale consideration under Ex.A4 and executed registered sale deed in his favour and furthermore, the sale deed (Ex.A4) is attested by the family members. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeai.

5. Learned counsel on record have filed their written submissions.

6. Now the points for consideration are : (1) Whether the appellant No.1-plaintiff has estabiished through evidence that the registered sale deed dated 2O.Ol.2Ol5 uide document No.560 of 2015 is devoid of consideration? If so, (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by ttre learned tria.l Court in OS.No. 107 of 2015 dated 08.1O.2O18 suffers from any perversit5z or illegality and does it requires interference of this Court? 7 .1. Appellant No. I -plaintiff stated in the plaint that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same from Vemulawada Shalkaraiah (open plot) and thereafter he obtained permission, got constructed a house. Appellant No.1- plaintiff was in need of money and the respondent-defendant induced him by promising to pay Rs.2 Lakhs but on condition of executing registered agreement of sale for the suit schedule property. The appellant No. 1-plaintiff believed the version of the \ - +----1 4177 BRMR,.J AS No 2008 2Ol8 respondent-defendant and executed document before the Sub-Registrar, he was under an impression that the ; rid clocument is an agreement of sale. While so on 10.06.2015, tt ( respondent- - defendant threatened him to vacate the suit schedul property on the ground that he obtained the registered sale d': cl from him. Appellant No. 1 plaintiff was shocked and approachetl the police on

11.06.2015 but the police have advised him to appr< ach the Civil Court zrnd thereafter he obtained the certified copy o he sale deed (Ex.A4) and EC and noticed that the respondent-rl 'fendant has playcd fraud on him.

7.2. Suit schedule property is land bearing S]'. \ :.738 to an extent of 185.83 Square yards consisting with hou:;r bearing No 8-5-57 1 having ground floor and hrst floor in PIot No 2 situated at Kotirampur locality of Karimnagar Town with specihc ,oundaries.

8. Respondent-defendant stated in the written st ttement that the appellant No. 1-plaintiff and his son have ir .r urrcd debts thereby they u,anted to sell the suit schedule l ropcrty and approached him through Sri. Pudari Srinivas of Katlz rampur area and thereafter he agreed to purchase the same and 1ri id the entire sale consideration in presence of the above said pt r son and thc appellant No.1-piaintiff executed registered sale deed n his favour on 2O.O 1.2O 15, on the said date possession was de1 r :recl to him. sl17 BRMR,J AS.No 2008_20I8 Appe.llant No. 1-plaintiff has promised the respondent_defendant that he will vacate the suit schedule property in a month and also pleaded that the property is mortgaged with Deccan Grameena Bank by the date of execution of the sale deed. Appellant No. 1_ plaintiff promised to clear the mortgage loa_n and accordingly, on the next date of the registered sale deed dated 2O.O1.2O15 he discharged the loan due to the Bank and the tsalk in turn has executed registered Re_conveyance Deed on 27 .O1.2OlS. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff has handed over the original documents to him. Appelrant No. 1-praintiff fa ed ro vacate the suit schedule property as promised by him and he is taking steps to evict them. Respondent-defendant has mutated his name in the Municipal Records on 30.04.2O 15. 9 The learned trial Court basing on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the defendant advanced a_n Rs:2.OO Lakhs to plaintiff and as a paynent of the said amount asked the plaintiff to execute an agreement of sale in respect of plaint schedule property and instead obtained a registered sale deed by playing fraud on plaintifp security amount (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ask for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.56O of 2015, dated 2O.Ot.2OlS on the ground that it was obtained by defendant by playing fraud on plaintilp 6lt7 t}RMR.J AS No.2OO8 2Ol8 i0. Appellant No.l-plaintiff is examined as PW. I got examined. PW.2 Gorre Laxman, PW.3-Katla Satheesh and got r Larked Exs.Al to A5. Responden t-defendant is examined as DW. I rnd examined DW.2 Pudari Srinivas, DW.3-Pallerla Thirupathi a I i go[ marked Exs.B I to 85- I 1. The learned trial Court after analysing the evrc ence adduced by thc parties has dismissed the suit of the plairr iff rvith costs which is impugned in the Appeal

12.1. Ex.B1 is the original registered sa,le deed be:rr ng document No.390 I of 1992 dated 20.O8.1992 executed by Pendyala Madhr,rsudan Rao in favour of Vemulawada Shankar : ah in respect of open plot No.2 and Survey No.738 in an extent of I 85.ti3 Square yrds. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed beari; ,g No. 1961 of I995 ciated 22.O3.1995 in respect of the schedule pr( perty covered under Ex. B 1 and is executed by Vemdlawada S -r rnkaraiah in favour of Satla Komuraiah (appellant No.l-plaintifl) There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the suit sch : lule property by the appellant No. I -plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the cerl Iied copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.56O of 2O15 dated 2O.O1.2015 executed by the appellant No.1-plaintiff i I favour of the respondent-defendant. Ex.B3 is the original regist,: ed sale deed of the respondent defendant. Ex.A4 is the certihr:rl cop,y of, the -/ 7lL7 I]RMR,J AS.No.2008 20l8 original of Ex.B3, dated 2O.01.2015. Ex.B4 is the original Re-conveyance Deed bearing document No.787 of 2015 dated 27 .Ol.2Ol5. Ex.BS is the proceedings of transfer of title of property in respect of house bearing door No.8-5-571 in favour of respondent-defendant vide dated 30.04.20 15.

12.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1- plaintiff is the owner of the open plot covered by Exs.Bl and 82 and thereafter he constructed the house which is assigned as house bearing No.8-5-571 having ground floor and first floor. Ex.A2 is the electricity receipt bills (6) in number dated 19.05.2O15 and 19.06.2015 and Ex.A3 is the Municipal Tax receipts dated

25.06.2015 that is after the execution of Ex.A4 sale deed on

20.0 I .201s.

13. The evidence of the Appellant No. l-plaintiff is the same with that of the plaint averments. In his cross-examination, he stated that he never intended to enter rnto agreement with the defendant and the respondent-defendant never came to his house nor requested him to lend money and he approached Sri Mohan Reddy, brother of the respondent-defendant, requested him for a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs, who in turn asked him to mortgage his house property to lend money and accordingly the said Mohal Reddy obtained his signatures on some papers and later converted the same into the I i l 8l17 t]RMR,J AS.No.2ooa 2018 sale deed which is now questioned by him. I t went to the Registrar Office alone, later all his family members Llso visited the office and his gra-nd-daughter by name Sandh 'a Rani is a Graduate, Mohan Reddy did not come to the Rc11; ;trar officc on 2O.Ol .2Ol5 and all his family members have signerl in the original of Ex-A4 sale deed, their signatures, thumb impre s sion and Irish photos were obtained inside the Registrar office. \t the time of registration of Ex.A4 sale deed his house was unde - mortgage with Deccan Grameena Bank and hence the original dorr ments related to thc house werc in the said Bank and he releas,: i the same by making payment of Rs.4,32,164/- to the Bank on 1 -O1-2O15 and the original documents are not available with hi r and he also released the gold ornaments from Manapuram Golc -oan F\t. Ltd. by making payment on 21.01.2015. He knows Puda r Srinivas who is resident of the same localiry. PW.1 denied the rr rggestion that he has sold the suit schedule property under Ix.A4 to the respondent-defendant and also delivered possession t r him.

14. 1. PW.2 deposed that the respondent-defendan t , long with his cousin by name Mohal Reddy doing Finance busin:;s and during the course of arranging the money they used to takt signatures on the blank papers and also used to execute docu:r ents in their favour saying that the same is for security purpose tr: <1 he came to know t-hat the appcllant No.1-plaintiff obtained som(. oan from the 9177 tsRMR,J AS.No 2008 20r8 respondent-defendant and his cousin Mohan Reddy, for surety sake they created a document in their favour and after paying the entire amount by the appellant No.1-plaintiff, the respondent- defendant did not return the documents and tried to occupy the property of the appellant No. 1-plaintiff- Respondent-defendant and Mohan Reddy have no right over the property of the appellant No. 1-plaintiff.

14.2. ln his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know anything about the case ald on the request of the appellant No.1- plaintiff he is giving evidence.

15.1. PW.3 deposed that as the appellant No.l-plaintiff was in need of money of Rs.2 Lakhs to clear the loan amount thereby approached the respondent-defendant. Respondent-defendant insisted him to execute registered agreement of sale in his favour till the amount is realized and the document was kept with him as securiry and thereafter, the respondent-defendant threatened the appellant No. I -plaintiff under the influence of his cousin Mohan Reddy to vacate the schedule property. Appellant No.l-plaintiff obtained the certified copy of sale deed and EC and found that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him by executing registered sale deed in his favour. As a matter of fact, appellant No.l-ptaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on tol17 IJRMR,J 4S No.2008_20I8 the date of filing of the suit and the suit schedulc I rope rly is more l than Rs.50 Lakhs.

15.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that ert -he time of the appellant No.1 plaintift, respondent-defendant 1as advanced Rs.2 Lakhs, the daughter-in-law, grand-children c I the appellant No.l-plaintiff were also present along with him, whi :h was made in the house of the borrower and he do not knr v whether any document was rcduced into writing and if so, whzrl s the nature of the said document. lle denied the suggestion thrr tht: daughter- in-law of the appellant No. 1-plaintiff was runnin 3 Chit business and she suffered loss and thcreby the entire family r f the appellant No. l-plaintiff was badly in need of money dut to which the appellant No.1-plaintiff has mortgaged the properr . PW.3 denied the suggestion that appellant No. 1-plaintiff has so ( suit schedule property to the rcspondent-defendant under Ex.A4 i fter taking the entire sale consideration.

15.3. It is to be noted here that it is not the case I the appellant No. 1-plaintiff that he has obtained loan jointly frorr Mohan Reddy and the respondent-defendant. The evidence of PW I is not helpful to the case of the appellant in any manner.

16.1. The evidence of the respondent-defendant is he same with that of his ',\,ritten statement. 7tlt7 BRMR,J AS.No.2OOa 20la

16.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has no prior acquaintance with the plaintiff prior to the date of agreement of sale which was entered into about 40 to 45 days prior to the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 and he agreed !o purchase the suit schedule property lor Rs.36 Lakhs and on the date of agreement he paid Rs. 1O Lakhs to the appellant No. 1-plaintiff and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registering the sale deed, before entering the agreement of sale, he knew that the suit schedule property was under mortgage arld he did not issue paper publication about his intention to purchase the suit schedule property. After 15 days of the agreement of sale, he has paid another Rs. 1O Lakhs to the appellant No.l-plaintiff and all the payments are made in cash and the appellant No.I-plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to him as of now (01.05.2018) and the consideration found in Ex.B3 sale deed is Rs.17 ,27 ,OOO / -.

17.1. DW.2-P.Srinivas deposed that he knows the appellant No. 1- plaintilf and the respondent-defendant and the appellant No. 1- plaintiff informed him that he wants to sell his property to discharge the debts and other family necessities and asked him to see for prospective purchasers, after few days he took the appellant No. 1-plaintiff to the house of the respondent-defendant LZltT BRMR,J AS No 2OOB 20l8 and the negotiations took place and the total sal consideration was hxed at Rs.36 Lakhs and the respondent, efendant paid Rs.1O Lakhs to the appellant No.l-plaintiff under rgreement and the balance was paid in two occasions. Appella- - No. l-plaintiff executed registered sale deed on 20.01.2015 irL lavour of the respondent-defendant, on the date of execution ol sale deed, an amount of Rs. 16 Lakhs is paid to the appellant N: 1-plaintiff and he attested the sale deed (Exs.A4 and 83). The wife r f the appellant No.1-plaintiff by name Kalavathi, his son Srinivas, ,; n's wife Jyothi and son's daughter namely Sandhyarani and one L ari Ashok also attested the sale deed. Appellant No. 1-plaint.il t has paid an amount of Rs.4,32,164/- towards loan On 21.O I 2015 (Deccan Grameena Bamk) and the Re-conveyance deed u a ; executed on 27 .O1.2O15 and at the request of the appellant I{ r. l-plaintiff he went to the Registrar Office. The appellant No. 1-1 I rintiff received the original title deeds and its link documents fror I t he Bank and handed over the same to the respondent-defendant.

17.2. ln his cross-examination, he stated that he r as suspended from service on the complaint given by the appellarr No.1-plaintiff while he was working as a Home Guard in the Polic I Dcpartment. The appellant No.1-plaintiff and his son along wrth rther relatives have signed the agreement of sale which was go t typed by the appellant No.1 plaintiff and he has gone through 11 , ag;66rn"rr, ot 73117 f]RMR,J AS.No.2OO8 201a sale. The respondent-defendant has paid Rs.lO Lakhs towards advance to the appellant No. 1-piaintiff and after 10 or 15 days he again paid Rs.1O Lakhs. The baiance sale consideration of Rs.16 Lakhs was paid to the appellant No. l-plaintiff by the respondent-defendant at the lime of registration of sale deed (20.01.2015). He denied the suggestion that he acted as a witness to the registered sale deed dated 2O.O1.2O15 but not at any other date. He also denied the suggestion that the respondent-defendant did not pay Rs. 16 Lakhs to the appellant No.1-plaintiff on the date of registered sale deed dated 2O.0i.2O15.

18.1. DW.3 deposed that he knows the appellalt No.1-plaintiff, respondent-defendant and DW.2-Srinivas. Appellant-plaintiff has called him on 27.O1.2075 stating that he mortgaged his house with Deccan Grameena Bank and sold the same to Karunakar Reddy (respondent herein-defendant) and the Bank Authorities are executing a Re-conveyance Deed and requested him to come to the Registrar Office for attesting the documents and he took the Manager of the Bank to the Registrar Oflice on his Bike, Ex.A4 is executed on 27.O7.2015 and he attested the document. Thereafter, he accompanied the appellant No. 1-plaintiff to the said Bank and he received the original title deeds and thereafter handed over the same to the respondent-defendant at his house. t4177 BRMR,J AS.No.2OO8 2018 -=]

18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that h,: came to know about the registered sale deed dated 2O.O1.2015 e:e :uted in favour of the respondent-defendant when he was in the l rnk along with Sri komuraiah. The Bank Manager has handed or,e : the sale deed tci the appellant No.1-plaintiff. After receipt of , he same, they returned the originals to the respondent-defendant

19.1. In Kewal Krishanl, the Supreme Court obse - ed that "a sale of al immovable property has to be for a pnce. TL e price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the -emaining part cal be made payable in future. The paymenl rf price is al essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of 1l e TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable properg is er :cuted without payment of price and if it does not provide for the 1> yrnent of price at a future date, it is not a saie at all in the eyes o aw. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It v, :l not effect the transfer of the immovable propertSr".

79.2. Io Shanti Devi's2, the Supreme Court obsenr C that "in the absence of sale consideration being tendered, the ; rle deed would be void".

19.3. In A.Jeevan Reddys, the High Court observed hat "according to RBI guidelines related to Prevention of Mo:r.y Laundering (Maintenancebf Records) Rules, 2OO2, specificallv S r ction 2695T of \ L5lt7 BRMR.J AS No 2008 2018 Income Tax Act, any cash withdrawal exceeding Rs.2 Lakhs should be done through an Online transaction". 20- The recitals of Ex.A4/B3 goes to show that the total sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property is fixed at Rs. 17,27,OOO /- and the same is received by the appellant No.l- plaintiff ald delivered possession on the date of execution of sale deed dated 2O.Ol .2015 . It is apt to note that the witnesses to the above said sale dced is S.Srinivas, S/o.Komuraiah and S.Sandyarani, D/o. Srinivas. Srinivas is none other than the son of the appellant No. 1-plaintiff and S.Sandhya Rani is none other than his grald-daughter. They made their thumb impressions in the Registration ofhce. The document further goes to show that S.Jyothi, S.Kalavathi, P.Srinivas (DW.2) and H.Ashok have also signed on Ex.A4/B3 as witnesses. S.Kalavathi is none other than the wife of the appellant No. 1 -plaintiff and Jyothi is the daughter- in-law and H.Ashok is a third parQu. Ex.A4/B3 is signed by the family members of the appellant No. l-plaintiff. Appellant No.1- plaintiff has not examined any of the family members to show that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him at the time of execution of registered sale deed dated 2O.01.2015 and also failed to adduce any evidence that the sale deed is void document. Appellant No. l-plaintiffls family members are residing in the suit t6117 t]RMR.J\ AS.No 2OOa 2018 schedule property, the respondent-defendant has stated in his -.1 cross-examination that he is taking steps to evicl tlr m.

21. Though the appellant No.l-plaintiff has cro; examined the respondent-defendant and DW.2 about the agreerr( rts of sale anrl the mode of payment made by the respondent-def,' Ldant, they are not much helpful to his case.

22. I have gone through the decision cited bv he appellant's counsel, they are distinguishable from the facts of rc presept case and thus the ratio of those cases would not appl ., in the present Appeal.

23. The evidence adduced by the respondent-dcr, ndant coupled with DW.2 goes to show that the appellant No. 1 p rintiff sold the suit schedule property to the respondent-defendar t zrftt:r receiving the sale consideration. Though the respondent le fendant and DW.2 were cross-examined, no incriminating ma, nal is elicited from them. DW.3 acted as witness to the Re c,; rvel ance Deed under Ex.B4 and the original title deeds of thr. suit schedule property were handed over to tJ.e respondent-ck 1 :ndzrnt by the appellant No. 1 -plaintiff after clearing the loan arn r: rnt to Deccan Grameena Bank. Appeilant No. 1-plaintiff at r ritted in his cross-examination that after execution of Ex.A4/ Bi, re has cleared 711t7 BRMR,J AS.No 2008 2018 the loan in the Bank and a'lso redeem the gold ornaments which were pledged.

24. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the suit. The appellant No 1- plaintiff failed to prove his case that the respondent-defendant has played fraud on him at the time of execution of registered sale deed under Ex.A4/Et3.

25. This court is of the view that the iearned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed the suitoftheappellantNo.l-plaintiffandthisCourtisnotinclinedto interfere with the same in view of the reasons stated supra' Hence' points are answered accordinglY.

26. In the result, Appeal is dismissed without costs Interim Orders if any stands vacated Miscellaneous application/ s stands ciosed //TRUE COPY// SD/. N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGIS SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar 2. One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ASRT?SL \w HIGH COURT DATED:01 11212025 JUDGMENT AS.No.2008 of 2018 r L o() ii( 5 \ I DE C: DISMISSING THE APPEAL 6 ,i w lo le lu- I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO FIRST APPEAL NO: 20 08 0F 2018 Between 1 SATLA KOMURAIAH (Died per LR Appellant No.2), S/ o. ilaiah. Aoe- 64 years, Occ- Retired RTC Conductor, R/o. H No g-S-571, Kotirampur lScality, Karimnagar town and proper, Karimnagar District. Satla Srinivas, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 51 years, Occ pan Shop, R/o. H. No. g_ 5-571, Kothi Rampur Locality, Karimnagar proper, Mandal and District. (:Appellant No.2 is brought on record as Legal Rbprbsentative of deceased Sole Appellant as per Court Order dated 01 .O7 .2025, vide lA No.1 ot ZO23 ii AS.No.2008 of 2018) AND APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF BOBBALA KARUNAKAR REDDY, S/ o. Ram Reddy, Age- 38 years, Occ_ Business, R/ o. Ramchandrapur Village, Koheda Mandil, Karimnagar Diskict. ... RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 96 RA/V Order 41 Rule 1 of C.p.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in o.s.No.107 of 2015 on the flle of-the Distriit Judge, at Karimnagar. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon peru5ing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgment and Decree ofthe [,ower court and the material papers in the petition and ,pon hering the argumcnts of Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri M_ Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That this appeal is be and hereby dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// DE ( SD/- N SRIHARI R R To I . The Principal District Judge. Karimnagar 2r Trvo CD Copies. \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:01 11212025 DecRtz AS.No.2008 of 2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL lo n"lar