Fraud must be established by clear evidence; a sale deed executed for valid consideration is valid and cannot be canceled without substantial proof of misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.No.107 of 2015, dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar.

2.1. Appellant No.1 is the sole plaintiff and the respondent is the sole defendant.

2.2. During pendency of the Appeal, appellant No.1 died, his LR is brought on record as appellant No.2.

3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous in law and against the facts of the case, the Court below without considering the facts, documents and legal position passed the impugned judgment. Appellant No.1-plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.560 of 2015 dated 20.01.2015, as on the date of filing of the suit he was in possession of the suit schedule property and the Court below did not look into the same. As per the recitals of the sale deed (Ex.A4) the value of the property shown is Rs.17,27,000/- but the respondent-defendant has taken a plea that he has purchased the schedule property for Rs.36 Lakhs and he has not placed any material on record to substantiate his contention.

3.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that as per the evidence brought on record that the plaint schedule property was under mortgage with Deccan Grameena Bank as on the date of alleged registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015, which established that the registered sale deed obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant No.1-plaintiff is by playing fraud upon him. The learned trial Court erroneously gave a finding that the appellant No.1-plaintiff has not examined his family members who too signed on the original sale deed (Ex.A4). The judgment and decree passed by the Court below is devoid of merits on Law and facts. Counsel to substantiate his contention, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Kewal Krishan Vs. Rajesh Kumar and Others , 2021 LawSuit(SC) 752, (2) Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs Goran Vs. Jagan Devi and Others, 2025 LawSuit(SC) 1252, (3) A.Jeevan Reddy Vs. State of Telangana , Criminal Petition Nos.5708 and 5709 of 2024, dated 19.02.2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and prayed to allow the Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and the appellant No.1-plaintiff has received the total sale consideration under Ex.A4 and executed registered sale deed in his favour and furthermore, the sale deed (Ex.A4) is attested by the family members. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

5. Learned counsel on record have filed their written submissions.

6. Now the points for consideration are :

(1) Whether the appellant No.1-plaintiff has established through evidence that the registered sale deed dated 20.01.2015 vide document No.560 of 2015 is devoid of consideration? If so,

(2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in OS.No.107 of 2015 dated 08.10.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegality and does it requires interference of this Court?

7.1. Appellant No.1-plaintiff stated in the plaint that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same from Vemulawada Shankaraiah (open plot) and thereafter he obtained permission, got constructed a house. Appellant No.1- plaintiff was in need of money and the respondent-defendant induced him by promising to pay Rs.2 Lakhs but on condition of executing registered agreement of sale for the suit schedule property. The appellant No.1-plaintiff believed the version of the respondent-defendant and executed document before the Sub-Registrar, he was under an impression that the said document is an agreement of sale. While so on 10.06.2015, the respondent- defendant threatened him to vacate the suit sche