A sale deed is deemed null and void if the vendor lacks valid title to the property sold, as established by the auction process under the Financial Corporation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06-06-2022 in OS.No.39 of 2013 on the file of II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under, his suit which was filed for declaration of sale deed dated 17-03-2008 as null and void and for a consequential injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property was dismissed by the trial Court, the plaintiff in the above referred suit, has filed this first Civil Appeal under Section 96 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (for short C.P.C.) with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed in his favour.

2. Before adverting to the grounds on which this appeal is preferred, it is just and necessary to see the averments made by the plaintiff, contentions of the defendant and also about the findings recorded by the trial Court.

3. The appellants herein has filed the above referred original suit against the sole defendant with a prayer to declare sale deed document No.722 of 2008 dated 17-03-2008 as null and void and also for a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with his possession over the suit property.

4. The appellant has claimed that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plaint A, B, C schedule properties which is said to have purchased from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (‘APSFC’ in short) under a registered sale deed Doc.No.4634 of 2006 on 08-12-2006. As per the averments made in the plaint, MR Ashok Kumar and MR Jagat Kumar, the previous owners of the property have mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of APSFC and obtained an amount of Rs.18.2 lakhs. Since they failed to repay the loan, APSFC foreclosed the mortgage and took over the property under Section 29 of Financial Corporation Act and sold the property in public auction. One Mohd. Ibrahim having been declared as highest bidder in the auction conducted by APSFC, got the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant, thereby, the appellant became owner of the suit A, B, C schedule properties.

5. The plaint further shows that the above referred Ashok Kumar and Jagat Kumar have purchased the properties along with other family members from one Kalavathi Ramchand under a registered sale deed dated 29-11-1985. Subsequently, there was a partition between the family members on 20-04-1991 and in the said partition, the properties which were mortgaged with APSFC were allotted to Ashok Kumar and Jagat Kumar.

6. The appellant having purchased the property in the above referred auction, filed an application before GHMC for mutation of his name and at the juncture, he came to know the name of the respondent was shown as owner of the suit A, B, C schedule properties. Therefore, he filed several representations before GHMC for cancellation of the mutation in favour of the respondent herein. However, GHMC having referred the matter to their Legal Advisor instructed the appellant herein to approach competent Civil Court to obtain a declaration in his favour.

7. The appellant has claimed that in view of the said fact, he probed into the matter and came to know that the above referred Kalavathi Ramchand executed an agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of the respondent on 26-11-2007 and as per the said agreement, the respondent herein agreed to purchase Houses bearing No.3-6-141, 3-6-142 for a consideration of Rs.25.8 Lakhs and said to have paid R