A prior registered sale deed establishes superior title over subsequent claims, relegating disputes of ownership to competent civil courts, particularly under the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act.

ORDER :

K. Sujana, J.

1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2013 passed in E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller cum XII Junior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/third party, filed E.A.No.21 of 2012 in E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007 under Order XXI Rules 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 23(7) of the ANDHRA PRADESH RENT CONTROL ACT , 1960, seeking declaration of ownership and possession over a property bearing Municipal No.1-8-430/14, situated at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, comprising a ground, first, and second floor, with a total extent of approximately 160.35 square yards. The claim arose in the context of an eviction execution petition (E.P.No.15 of 2011 in R.C.No.182 of 2007) filed by the legal heirs of a previous owner. The petitioner contended that he had lawfully purchased the said property vide registered sale deed dated 21.07.2004 from one Smt Shashikala, who was represented by her registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, Sri Baja Maddileti/respondent No.6. The sale was based on an earlier agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 18.06.2004. It was further contended that the vacant possession was handed over to the petitioner at the time of the sale, and he had since then been in uninterrupted possession. It was stated that he had mutated his name in municipal records, paid taxes, and obtained a housing loan by mortgaging the property, thereby, affirming his ownership. However, it came to light that an earlier registered sale deed dated 16.07.1988 (Document No.3961 of 1988) had been executed in favor of one Smt G. Sarojana/respondent No.1 for an extent of 80 square yards.

3. It was the specific contention of petitioner that the 1988 deed was only a nominal transaction executed to secure a loan, and no possession had been delivered under that sale. Subsequently, Sarojana had executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 27.04.1991 in favor of Smt Baja Ramulamma, authorizing her to deal with the property, and based on this GPA, a ratification deed dated 22.09.2007 was executed confirming the sale in favor of the petitioner and conveying the title of Sarojana to him. The petitioner alleged that respondents No.2 to 5 had filed E.P., and obtained ex parte orders behind his back, suppressing material facts and creating a false narrative. He asserted that the execution of the eviction order was illegal and sought protection under Rule 23(7) of the Rent Control Act. It was further stated that the ex parte decree had become infructuous as the alleged tenant - Respondent No. 6 had vacated long before the decree was passed.

4. The respondents in EA., contested the petition, contending that the 1988 sale deed in favor of Smt G. Sarojana was still valid and had not been cancelled, and that neither the petitioner, nor his vendors, had any legal right to sell the property in 2004 as it had already been sold to Sarojana. The existence of any valid GPA by Sarojana in favor of Ramulamma was denied and the validity of the ratification deed was challenged as being collusive and self-serving. Further, that the petitioner was not a bona fide purchaser and that his title documents were fabricated to overcome defects in the chain of title.

5. The Principal Rent Controller recorded evidence from both parties. The petitioner was examined as PW1, and documents including the sale deed, GPA, ratification deed, tax notices, and municipal records were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 were marked. The Principal Rent Controller noted that both parties relied on registered sale deeds—one from 1988 and another from 2004—creating a direct conflict of title. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Principal Rent Controller concluded that the Rent Control Court lacks jurisdiction to ad