The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.24 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the 2nd respondent and his daughter, the appellant herein, for cancellation of sale, deed dated 01-09-1998, executed by the 2nd respondent, in favour of the appellant, by declaring it as a fraudulent transaction. It was pleaded that the 2nd respondent was indebted to the 1st respondent, and several suits came to be filed for recovery of the amount. She pleaded that, in spite of filing of the suit, the 2nd respondent executed sale deed, dated 01-09-1998 in favour of his daughter, the appellant herein, with a view to keep the property away, from being proceeded against. It was her case that she came to know about the alleged sale, only when it was mentioned by the 2nd respondent in a counter filed in I.A.No.278 of 2000, filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C., for attachment before judgment, in O.S.No.174 of 2000.

2. The 2nd respondent and the appellant contested the matter by filing written-statements. The trial Court decreed the suit on 05-09-2005. The appellant filed A.S.No.8 of 2006 in the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 31-08-2009. Hence this Second Appeal.

3. Sri K. Sudharshan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit filed by the 1st respondent was not maintainable, since he has no locus standi to file it, not being a party to the document, and because no consequential relief was prayed for. He contends that the sale deed was executed much prior to the institution of suits, by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent, and the transaction was supported by consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court made several observations, which are not at all supported by evidence, and there is nothing unnatural about a father selling the property to his daughter.

4. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the sale deed in question was executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of his daughter, the appellant, only with a view to defraud the 1st respondent. He contends that Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the T.P.Act’) is substantive as well as procedural in nature, and the suit is referable to that provision. He further contends that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act (for short ‘the S.R.Act’), particularly Section 34, has no application to the facts of the case.

5. The prayer in the suit filed by the 1st respondent is that the sale deed, dated 01-09-1998, executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the appellant, be cancelled. It was alleged that the sale deed was executed only with a view to make the property not available for being proceeded against, in the suits that are filed by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent and the appellant i.e. defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, filed separate written-statements. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff on the suit pronote is barred by Law of Limitation?

3. Whether there is no cause of action to file this suit?”

6. The 1st respondent deposed as PW-1 and she filed Exs.A-1 to A-6. Out of them, Ex.A-1 is the copy of the order in I.A.No.278 of 2000 in O.S.No.174 of 2000, and Exs.A-2 and A-5 are copies of decrees in various suits, obtained by her, against the 1st respondent. Ex.A-6 is the document, which is sought to be cancelled. On behalf of the 2nd respondent and the appellant, DWs 1 to 3 were examined, and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were filed. Exs.B-2 to B-6 relate to the transaction with the Andhra Bank. The suit was decreed, and the appeal filed against it was dismissed.

7. The first contention urged on behalf of the appellant, is referable to Section 34 of the S.R.Act. It was pleaded that the suit became untenable, since there is no relief consequential to the one, of declaration,