Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Sangisapu Seetarama Rao and Others - Appellant
Vs.
B. V. S. Murthy - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO: 332/2005 and IA 1 OF 2024, TRANSFER APPEAL NO: 635/2008
Decided On : 25-03-2025
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Cancellation of sale deed - The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of property based on a registered sale deed executed on 31.03.1995 for Rs.4,75,000/-; defendants claimed cancellation of the deed due to non-payment of balance consideration - The trial court decreed the suit for possession, holding that the cancellation was invalid as it was not executed through a competent civil court. (Paras 13, 17, 48, 56)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 64 - The court noted that the original sale deed was not produced by the defendants, which is essential for their claim - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the cancellation. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff purchased property from the defendants and paid part of the sale consideration, but the defendants later claimed the sale deed was void due to alleged misrepresentation and non-payment of the full amount. The trial court found that the sale deed was valid and the cancellation was ineffective. (Paras 5, 6, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale deed was valid and the defendants' unilateral cancellation was not legally binding. The plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property. (Paras 48, 56)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the cancellation of the sale deed and the plaintiff's entitlement to possession of the property. (Paras 17, 48)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a registered sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally and that the remedy for unpaid consideration is to sue for recovery, not to cancel the deed. (Paras 24, 48)
Result: Appeals dismissed; defendants ordered to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff within three months. (Paras 75)
Key Points: - The judgment holds that unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed is invalid and that the proper remedy for unpaid balance is a suit for recovery, not cancellation. (!) (!) - The court addresses recovery of possession and delivery of the original sale deed to the purchaser where cancellation is void, affirming entitlement to possession based on a valid registered sale deed. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses procedural requirements for cancellation, emphasizing that cancellation of a registered deed must be by civil court with proper notice to parties and cannot be done unilaterally or via sub-registrar without court order. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Common Judgment :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
The A.S. No.332 of 2005 is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 against the common judgment, dated 21.04.2005, passed in O.S. No.242 of 1999 and O.S.No.339 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.
O.S.No.242 of 1999 is filed by the plaintiff by name Bulusu Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy against Sangisapu Sitarama Rao, Sangisapu Venkata Satya Surya Ganesh Kumar, Sangisapu Meena (died), Mangipudi Radha Krishna Sandhyavathi and Sangisapu Annapurna Devi, for seeking relief of recovery of possession and delivery of original sale deed to the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the Suit. A.S.no.332 of 2005 is filed against the decree passed in O.S.No.242 of 1999.
2. The Transfer A.S.No.635 of 2008 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the common judgment, dated 21.04.2005, passed in O.S. No.242 of 1999 and O.S.No.339 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.
O.S.No.339 of 2001 is filed by S.V.V.S.S. Ganesh Kumar, M.R.K.Sandhyavalli and S. Meena against B.V.S. Murthy and two others for simple suit for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The trial Court dismissed the said suit. The Transfer A.S.No.635 of 2008 is filed against the decree passed in O.S.No.339 of 2001.
3. The trial Court clubbed both the suits i.e., O.S.No.242 of 1999 and O.S.No.339 of 2001 and common evidence is recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.242 of 1999, on a memo filed by both the parties as per orders, dated 04.02.2002. Both the appeals i.e., A.S.No.332 of 2005 and A.S.No.638 of 2008 were filed against the common judgment, dated 21.04.2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, therefore, this Court clubbed both these appeals are heard together being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suits.
5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.242 of 1999 connected with A.S.No.332 of 2005, is as follows:
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the tiled house appurtenant site bearing D.No.17-23-15 for total extent of 435 sq. yards at Sitampeta, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation limits. The plaintiff purchased the said property from the defendants for a total consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-. The plaintiff at the time of settlement of transaction paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque to 1st defendant. Subsequently, on 28.12.1994, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,61,000/- to M/s.Krishna Chaitanya Corporation for the amount due from the 1st defendant to it and again on 11.01.1995 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the said Corporation which delivered the title deeds relating to the plaint schedule property to 1st defendant, who in turn delivered the same to the plaintiff. At the time of making payments to the said Corporation, the 1st defendant represented that there was an agreement of sale executed by him in respect of schedule property and that it was executed as security for the amounts borrowed by them from the said Corporation. Subsequently, before registration of sale deed, plaintiff paid total amount of Rs.22,000/- on different dates either to the 1st defendant or his son, 2nd defendant, who acknowledged the receipt of the same in the diary maintained by plaintiff in token of receipt of amount. The plaintiff purchased Non Judicial stamp worth Rs.100/- on 23.12.1994 and handed over the same to 1st defendant for preparing agreement of sale. The 1st defendant received the stamp paper and later informed the plaintiff that the value of the properties would be increased by the State Government from 01.04.1995 and therefore advised the plaintiff to complete the sale transaction before 31.03.1995 to avoid paying more sta
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
