COMMON JUDGMENT:

1 Since all the second appeals are preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed in various cross appeal suits on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Bhongir, wherein and whereby the learned V Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2009, with regard to rectification of various sale deed documents, passed in several suits on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, and since the point involved in all these second appeals is one and the same all these second appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

2 For the sake of convenience, I refer to the facts of the case as were pleaded in S.A.No.488 of 2015.

3 M/s. Narne Estates Private Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, the first respondent herein, filed O.S.No.75 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir against the appellant (cid:150) N. Gopal Naidu and others for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from alienating, transferring or creating any charge or mortgage in favour of any their parties in respect of the suit schedule property and direct the fourth defendant in the said suit to rectify the sale deed No.643/1/93, dated 23.02.1993 in respect of the name of vendee by substituting the name of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) in place of the name of the defendant No.1 (appellant herein).

4 For the sake of convenience, parties to these second appeals, will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.

5 The plaintiff contended that the first defendant, by playing fraud, obtained sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property in his name instead of the plaintiff though the purchase of suit schedule property was with the funds of the company and hence the plaintiff prayed for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff further prayed for rectification of name in the sale deed directing the Sub-Registrar concerned to strike out the name of the first defendant as vendee and mention the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed.

6 The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. But, in so far as the second issue relating to the rectification of the sale deed is concerned, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the said relief since the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of declaration of title to the suit schedule property. The trial Court further observed that the Court fee is chargeable under section 21 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, however, the plaintiff filed a fixed court fee of Rs.300/- under Section 47 of the Court fee Act and that Section 47 is not intended for the purpose of seeking a relief in respect of immovable property not covered by other sections and when a relief is not covered by other sections of the Act, the fee is payable only under section 21 of the Act and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief for rectification of name in the records of the Sub Registrar concerned. By judgment and decree dated 05.01.2009, the trial Court decreed the suit partly, grating perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating, transferring or creating charge or mortgage in favour of third parties in respect of the suit schedule property and dismissed the rest of the claim.

7 Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred Cross Appeal Suit No.4 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Bhongir. The lower appellate court, after reappraising the entire material available on record, both oral and documentary and by following the ratio laid down in Sheo Murat Vs. Ram Muran {AIR 2004 SC 267} and State of Karnataka Vs. K.K. Mohandas {AIR 2007 SC 2917} and also in view of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014. The lower appellate