The registered lease deed supersedes the unregistered one, and claims for cancellation based on fraud are barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

G.RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2025 passed in I.A. No.185 of 2024 in O.S. No.142 of 2024 by the Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge, Kodad.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs filed O.S. No.142 of 2024 seeking the relief of directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule building and to deliver vacant possession of the same to them, to cancel the lease deed dated 05.09.2020 bearing document No.9528 of 2019 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Kodad, in favour of the defendants as the same was obtained by deceiving the plaintiffs and directing the defendants to pay damages @ Rs.5,00,000/- per month for use and occupation of the plaint schedule building from 01.05.2024 along with costs of the suit.

3. As per the averments of the plaint, the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the plaint schedule building consisting of G+3 floors situated in Kodad Town and Municipality in an extent of 907.5 Sq. yds. They were represented by their Power of Attorney holder, who was none other than their father. The defendant was a Trust, running Educational Institutions and approached the plaintiffs for taking the plaint schedule building on lease for running educational institution and the plaintiffs also agreed to give the plaint building on lease to the defendants and through their G.P.A. holder entered into an agreement dated 20.09.2018. Later the defendants requested the plaintiffs to execute a nominal registered lease deed for the purpose of obtaining permissions from the Government for running school. As per the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs executed a registered lease deed nominally in favour of the defendants through their authorized representative Danda Venkateswarlu. The defendants got prepared the lease deed and without informing the contents of the lease deed, asked the plaintiffs to sign the same. Having reposed confidence in the defendants, the plaintiffs signed the alleged lease deed which was nominal for the purpose of obtaining permission from the Government for running school. As per the terms of agreement of lease, the monthly rent for the schedule building is Rs.1,81,828/-, but the defendants to evade stamp duty and registration fee to the Government and to cheat the Government and the plaintiff, wrongly mentioned the rent in the lease deed as Rs.10,000/- per month. The defendants did not disclose the same at the time of obtaining signature of the plaintiff on the lease deed and cheated the plaintiff and the Government and evaded the actual stamp duty and registration fee to be paid on the actual rent of the schedule building taken on lease. As such, the plaintiffs contended that the alleged lease deed was non-est in the eye of law on the principle of non-est factum and that the same was not legally valid and was liable to be cancelled.

3.1. They further submitted that the defendants took possession of the plaint schedule building on 19-.09.2019 and agreed to pay rent as per the area available for occupation. The lessee agreed to pay 10% enhancement of rent for every 2 years. At the time of agreement, the rent was mentioned as Rs. 1,75,567/-, but it was specifically mentioned in the agreement that the plinth area shall be determined after completion of construction of the building and the rent was payable for the actual plinth area available for occupation. As such, as the plinth area increased after construction of the building, the rent was fixed at Rs.1,81,828/-