B. Prakash Rao, J.

The plaintiff who is unsuccessful, is the appellant in this appeal which is sought to be filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 177 of 2000, dated 30-8-2007 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge ( Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in dismissing the suit filed by him seeking for declaration as against the document in question namely the alleged deposit of title deeds dated 24-11-1982 as illegal, void and unenforceable and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant-1st respondent namely the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Ltd., from interfering with possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for further direction against the defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from 9-8-1999 till the date of realization and the costs. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The case of the appellant-plaintiff as per the averments contained in the plaint which has been filed on 23-8-1999 is to the effect that the appellant (herein after called as the "Plaintiff" ) is a registered partnership firm constituted on 2-4-1994 for the purpose of manufacturing pipes, tubes, cycle parts, hospital equipment etc., which has been carrying on business in LUX-1 Shed, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad admeasuring to an extent of 8319.11 sq. yards of land together with Industrial Shed in Plinth area of 3126.66 square yards. The Shed was purchased by the 2nd Defendant and 3rd defendant under the Sale Deed, dated 28-3-1987 and subsequently partners of the said firm purchased the said property under two different sale deeds and shown them as the joint stock property of the firm. The said property was mortaged with the State Bank of Hyderabad for obtaining working capital loan to a tune of Rs.2 Crores. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of the purchase, though sufficient enquiries were made, but nothing has come to their notice nor disclosed by the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is a bona-fide purchaser. However, on 14-12-1992 some of the officials of the defendant No.1 came to the premises in the afternoon and stated that the property would be seized for realization of the goods. Further, the seizure was effected against the property without any notice. It is further pointed out that the defendant No.1 never visited or inspected the suit premises from 1987 to till 1992. The plaintiff had approached before this court by filing W.P.No. 16269 of 1992 challenging the said action, where in the counter affidavit filed by defendant No.1, it is stated that the defendant No.2 had created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds namely depositing the agreement of sale on 24-11-1982. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of on 23-6-1999 directing the plaintiff to go to civil Court for appropriate reliefs. In the said proceeding as per the direction given by this Court, the plaintiff deposited Rs.12,00,000/- with defendant No.1 on 9-8-1999. It was stated that the alleged agreement of sale dated 23-11-1982 was preceded by letter dated 23-11-1982. As such, they have no objection to defendant No.2 to mortgage with defendant No.1 provided the balance amount is paid.

The Defendant No.1 has not paid the balance and cost to the said defendant No.3. Therefore, on the face of it, according to the plaintiff the alleged deposit of title deeds does not create a mortgage, since it is unstamped, unregistered and quite contrary to the provisions of the Stamp Act and Registration Act and therefore, the 1st defendant Corporation cannot proceed against the said property under the foot of the said mortgage. Hence, the suit for declaration that the said transaction does not amount to a valid mortgage and unenforceable and for consequent relief as stated as above.

Defendant No.1 contested the suit claim and