IMPORTANT POINT
A sale of immovable property requires a registered deed, and agreements without consideration are void, impacting the validity of subsequent transactions.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2023 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 (new - O.S.No.782 of 2022) (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the defendant preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the appellant to file the present appeal, are as follows :

(a) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.90 of 2012 (new - O.S.No.782 of 2022) against defendant Nos.1 and 2 claiming specific performance of deed of cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA vide document No.4471 of 2007, dated 21.09.2012 and consequently cancelling the sale deed vide document No.5470 of 2012 dated 29.10.2012 in favour of defendant No.2. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:

(i) Plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land in Sy.No.135 (Ac.7.18 guntas), 136 (Ac.4.24 guntas), 137 (Ac.6.06 guntas), 138 (Ac.2.27 guntas), 139 (Ac.0.11 guntas) and 140 (Ac.6.12 guntas) total admeasuring Ac.27.18 guntas in Edulapally Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District having acquired the same by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.7554 of 2006. The plaintiff being owner of the suit schedule property and as he was in need of money, agreed to sell the suit schedule property. The defendant No.1, who is father-in-law of daughter of the plaintiff was interested to purchase the suit schedule property. As defendant No.1 and his son were in real estate business, they promised the plaintiff that they are in a position to find a purchaser and pay the money. However, defendant No.1 could not identify a buyer and could not bring the property to sale. Therefore, the plaintiff was regularly in contact and requesting defendant No.1 either to sell or get the agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No.4471 of 2007 executed on 05.03.2007 be got cancelled or otherwise pay the consideration what was agreed which was not paid at the time of execution of document. Defendant No.1 neither sold the property nor paid the money, as such, the defendant No.1 agreed to come and execute the cancellation agreement before the Sub-Registrar, Shadnagar.

(ii) On 21.09.2012 the defendant No.1 has executed the deed of cancellation of agreement of sale cum GPA, where under the defendant No.1 had accepted that he did not pay any sale consideration in respect of the document that was executed vide document No.4471 of 2007 dated 05.03.2007 and that it was not acted upon and both the parties have agreed to treat the document as cancelled. It was also stated in the document that the document was never acted upon and no transaction took place out of the said document. However, the defendant No.1 did not come to the registration office to get the document presented and admitted for registration as required under law within.

(iii) The plaintiff got issued a telegraphic notice to defendant No.1 to attend registration office on 25.10.2012 failing which the plaintiff will be compelled to seek enforcement by an appropriate direction from the court. Despite receipt of the notice, the defendant No.1 did not come forward to attend the registration office, though the plaintiff waited with the document at registration office. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking a specific direction directing the defendant to get the deed of cancellation to present and get it admitted or else present the document on behalf of the defendant and get it admitted and registered as per law.

(iv) After issuance of telegraphic notice, the defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2, got executed sale deed bearing document No.5470 of 2012 dated 29.10.2012 in favour of defendant No.2 to an extent of Ac.25.1