Unilateral cancellation of sale deeds is void; a suit for cancellation must follow legal procedures, and claims barred by limitation cannot be entertained.

ORDER :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in I.A. No.313 of 2022 in O.S. No.217 of 2018 by the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Intro: Petitioner is the Defendant No. 1. The suit O.S. No.217 of 2018 was filed by the Respondents seeking declaration of title of suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession with regard to two house plots of an extent of 440 square yards and 295 square yards respectively in Sy.Nos.19/1, 19/2, 10/5, 10/4, Plot No. 215 at China Waltair Village, Visakhapatnam.

3. Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying the claim. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed I.A. No.313 of 2022 seeking to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. The said application, on contest, was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that there are triable issues. Hence, the present Revision is filed.

4. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Respondents.

5. Before going into the contentions of the respective counsel, the pleadings in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The Respondents/Plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having succeeded to the same after the death of the husband of the first Plaintiff and father of the second Plaintiff by name Raja Rao. It is their case that during the life time of late Raja Rao, the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority had issued land acquisition notification in respect of the schedule mentioned properties and at that stage, late Raja Rao approached this Court along with other land owners challenging the land acquisition proceedings and the same was allowed by this Court on 14.07.1983 and the land acquisition proceedings were quashed and the said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 806 of 1984 and batch dated 30.03.1995.

6. It was further pleaded in the plaint that when the Plaintiffs came to the suit schedule properties, they were surprised to see a compound wall constructed by the Defendants on the eastern side (100 feet road side) and upon questioning, the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 informed them that late Raja Rao had executed registered sale deeds in his favour in the year 1985. On being informed of the same, the Plaintiffs pleaded that they had applied for Encumbrance Certificate and upon reading of the extracts of the Sale Deeds, it is noticed that late Raja Rao alone executed above Sale Deeds during the pendency of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs also pleaded that the said Sale Deeds were cancelled unilaterally by way of registered documents bearing Nos. 111/1999 and 1112/1999 dated 19.03.1999 by late Raja Rao since no consideration was passed under the Sale Deed of 1985.

7. It is further pleaded that late Raja Rao had executed a Will dated 02.05.2012 where under item No. 1 of the scheduled property devolved on the second Plaintiff and item No. 2 of the scheduled property devolved upon the first Plaintiff. On 18.10.2013, Raja Rao expired and it was further pleaded that on 05.03.2018, the Plaintiffs issued legal notice calling upon the Defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the scheduled properties and the same were returned as un-served. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration and consequential reliefs.

8. Contentions: Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 Sri K.S. Murthy contended that there is no dispute that late Raja Rao had executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner. In the said document, there are recitals of delivery of receipt of sale consideration and delivery of possession. As the receipt of consideration is admitted, there was no occasion for late Raja Rao to cancel the Registered Sale Deeds unilaterally. It was further contended in the plaint that there is no mention