JUDGMENT :

Shameem Akther, J.

This Family Court Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’), is filed by the appellant, challenging the order, dated 30.06.2010, passed in FCOP No.456 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, whereby, the subject FCOP filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Act against the respondent No.1/wife and the respondent No.2/purchaser seeking (a) declaration that the appellant is the owner and possessor and the respondent No.1 is the Benamidar of the property bearing No.619-A, forming part of Survey No.403/1 (old) 120 (new) of Shaikpet Village and 102/1 of Hakimpet Village admeasuring 1478 square yards or 1236 square metres situated within the approved layout of the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited (for short, ‘the Society’) at Road No.33, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (hereafter referred to as ‘petition schedule property); (b) to direct the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule property and on their failure, to evict them and put him in possession thereof; (c) to declare the title of the appellant and cancel the agreement of sale-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, dated 07.05.2008 purported to be executed and registered by and on behalf of respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 as illegal, void ab initio, fraudulent, collusive and not binding on the appellant; and (d) grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, power of attorneys, employees, nominees, assignees etc., or any person or persons claiming through the respondents from alienating either by way of sale, lease, mortgage or encumbering or charging or making demolition or construction of any nature or any other manner in respect of the petition schedule property, was dismissed.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri B.Shashidhar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the findings recorded and the conclusions reached by the Court below are against the evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The Court below did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and erred in dismissing the subject FCOP. The appellant and respondent No.1 are husband and wife. The appellant purchased the petition schedule property for valuable consideration in the name of respondent No.1 from his brother-in-law K.K.Sanghyam, through the Society. The respondent No.1 without any manner of right and without knowledge of the appellant, alienated the petition schedule property in favour of respondent No.2 under an agreement of same-cum-Irrevocable GPA, dated 07.05.2008. Originally, the petition schedule property was allotted to K.K.Sanghyam by the Society. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to his brother-in-law K.K.Sanghyam towards consideration for transfer of petition schedule property in the name of respondent No.1, which includes reimbursement of Rs.19,600/- paid by said K.K.Sanghyam to the Society towards consideration of the petition schedule property. At the request of the appellant, K.K.Sanghyam requested the Society to transfer the allotment of petition schedule property in the name of respondent No.1 and accordingly, the Society transferred the allotment as well as membership in favour of respondent No.1 and later, the Society executed a sale deed, dated 11.02.1992 (Ex.P4) in favour of the respondent No.1. The appellant obtained the sale deed in the name of the respondent No.1, who is his wife, out of good faith and trust and the evidence of the appellant who deposed as PW.1 coupled with PWs.7 and 9 establishes the same. Further, there is evidence of PW.9-