The court ruled that fraud claims, as a mixed question of law and fact, require a full trial and cannot solely determine a suit's rejection based on limitations.

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2023, passed by the I Additional District Judge, at Warangal, in A.S.No.10 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the order, dated 23.01.2023, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.499 of 2022 in O.S.No.284 of 2012 was set aside.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.284 of 2012 against the defendants, seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff is the owner of land in Sy.No.521/B, to an extent of Acs.2.24 gts, situated at Bollikunta Village, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule land’); that defendant No.1-Educational Society is running college which is situated towards eastern side of the suit schedule property; that defendant No.2, who is a relative of plaintiff and Ex-Member of Parliament, approached the plaintiff and requested to execute nominal sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.521/B, admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas out of Acs.2.24 gts, belonging to plaintiff, stating that defendant No.1 required to be in possession of Acs.40.00 guntas of land to obtain permission from AICTE to run a college; that initially, plaintiff refused, however, on repeated requests and force of defendant Nos.1 and 2, he executed a nominal sale deed vide Document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001, in respect of land in Sy.No.521/B, admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas, without any consideration and delivery of possession of the land; that on the date of execution of nominal sale deed itself, a precondition was stated that the said nominal sale registered deed would not confer any right or title over the property to the defendants and the defendants agreed to cancel the said deed without fail, whenever the plaintiff demands.

3.1. It is further averred that defendants have executed an Agreement-cum-Undertaking stating that the sale deed vide Document No.234/2001 was only for the purpose of getting permission from AICTE to defendant No.1-Educational Society and admitted that no title or rights are conferred to the defendants; that in pursuance of the nominal sale deed, possession was not delivered to the defendants even after execution of nominal sale deed in favour of the defendants, the name of the plaintiff has been continuing in the revenue records and he has been in occupation and raising crop in the said land.

3.2. While things stood thus, in the year 2008, the plaintiff came to know that defendants, in collusion with revenue authorities, got mutated the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records in respect of Acs.2.24 gts in the year 2004 without notice to him; that immediately, he filed an application for rectification of the said wrong entries before the Tahsildar, Sangam; that the revenue authorities rectified the wrong revenue entries partly i.e., entries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.24 gts was deleted out of Acs.2.24 gts, but did not delete the entries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.00; that aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal before Joint Collector vide Appeal No.6987/2009 to rectify the sai