Unilateral cancellation of a sale deed is invalid without prior legal action for recovery of sale consideration, emphasizing adherence to procedural law.

JUDGMENT :

K. SUJANA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 in O.S.No.2125 of 2006 on the file of VIII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.2125 of 2006 to cancel the cancellation of sale deed dated 21.04.2006 and to direct the Sub-Registrar-II to remove the impugned document i.e., cancellation of sale deed from the register and to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the above suit. The appellant herein is the 6^th defendant in the said suit.

4. The plaintiff purchased Plot No. 76 in Sy.No.45 at Miyapur village, along with two others, through a sale deed executed on 11.07.2005, by the 6^th defendant-M/s. B.V.R. Projects, on behalf of defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff paid Rs.7,50,000/- towards total sale consideration and got registered the sale deed. However, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants colluded with the Joint Sub-Registrar-II to fraudulently cancel the sale deed on 21.04.2006, without notice or intimation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the cancellation deed was registered illegally, in violation of the Registration Act, and that the defendants bribed the concerned officials to achieve this. The plaintiff has filed a report with the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta against the Joint Sub-Registrar-II and seeks to have the cancellation deed cancelled.

5. The 6^th defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. According to the 6th defendant, the plaintiff and her husband promised to pay the sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- within a short time and requested the 6^th defendant to execute the sale deed. Believing their words, the 6^th defendant executed the sale deed on 11.07.2005. However, the plaintiff and her husband failed to pay the sale consideration despite repeated demands. Therefore, the 6^th defendant, representing defendant Nos. 1 to 5, executed a cancellation deed canceling the sale deed.

6. The 6th defendant also contended that similar sale deeds were executed in favor of two other individuals, B. Latha Naik and Himabindu, who also failed to pay the sale consideration, cancellation deeds were executed for those sale deeds as well. The 6^th defendant denied the allegations of bribery and claimed that the cancellation deed was registered according to law and in accordance with the Registration Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari and Others V Ananthula Sayamma and others , [2006 (6) ALD 623 (FB)], wherein it was held that unilateral cancellation of sale deed is valid. The 6^th defendant claimed that the plaintiff's failure to pay the sale consideration led to the cancellation deed and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement, contending that the allegations made by the 6th defendant are false. According to the plaintiff, the recitals of the sale deed indicate that she paid the sale consideration, which was received by the 6^th defendant. The plaintiff also pointed out that the Sub-registrar-II made an endorsement indicating that the cancellation deed is invalid. The plaintiff argued that unilateral cancellation is not valid as per law and that she had sufficient means to pay the sale consideration, being employed with Ideas Cellular Ltd. The plaintiff reiterated her allegations against the Sub-registrar and claimed that the cancellation deed is invalid.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiff Pws.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked and on behalf of the 6^th defendant Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. After hearing both sides, the trial Court decre