Fraud allegations in execution proceedings must be substantiated; compliance with procedural requirements under CPC validates the sale deed execution.

ORDER :

V R K Krupa Sagar, J.

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the Executing Court in registering the sale deed vide Document No.5088 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Tadikonda, Guntur District in favor of the Respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous as it was registered on fraudulent means and consequently cancel the sale deed registered vide Document No.5088 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019 before the Joint Sub Registrar, Tadikonda, Guntur District by setting aside the order dated 21.06.2019 made in E.P.No.61 of 2018 in O.S.No.111 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District and allow the Civil Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

3. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, the learned counsel for revision petitioners put forth his contentions stating that the execution court grossly violated the terms of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC. The draft sale deed was not served on JDr but the regular registered sale deed was executed and registered through process of court and such sale deed cannot be sustained and cited Rajbir Vs. Suraj Bhan , [ ]. That the execution court ordered for presentation of draft sale deed and non judicial stamps and directed the matter to be listed on 26.07.2019. However, much earlier than that and precisely on 06.07.2019 itself, the execution court got the sale deed registered and fraud was played on the court. Execution court dealt with the matter without proper verification of its own records and no opportunity for JDrs was granted to raise objections about the terms of the draft sale deed.

4. It is further contended, Sri Philips Nethagani who represented DHr society was not entitled to represent the society and that aspect of the matter was not considered by the execution court. For all these reasons, they pray to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.

5. As against it, Sri M.Rammohan, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/DHr submits that the contentions raised by the JDrs/revision petitioners are incorrect and they do not have any merit. That the impugned order itself would disclose that the said order came to be passed only after delivering a copy of the draft sale deed to the JDrs and that based on few words incorrectly recorded in the dockets of the execution court, the JDrs took opportunity to perpetuate the litigation and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

Whether the impugned order of the execution court is in violation of Order 21 Rule 34 CPC and thereby it requires interference?

POINT: -

7. Master Printer Building Society, Guntur filed O.S.No.111 of 2015 against defendant Nos.1 to 3 based on an agreement for sale dated 19.08.2014 and prayed for a decree of specific performance and such other reliefs.

8. After due contest, by a judgment dated 09.10.2015, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms.

In the result, the suit is decreed. But in the circumstances, without costs, directing the defendants to execute regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff society within 60 days from the date of judgment after receipt of balance of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Failing which, the plaintiff society is at liberty to obtain a regular sale deed in its favour through process of law as prayed for. PW1 has no right to seek regular sale deed in his personal capacity.

9. Aggrieved defendants preferred A.S.No.272 of 2015. After due hearing and contest, learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur dismi