JUDGEMENT

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 25.11.2020 in O.S.No.205 of 2017 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder, their suit for declaration of sale deeds bearing No.5748 of 2016 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction was partly decreed, granting perpetual injunction denying the other relief of declaration, the plaintiffs in the said suit have filed this 1st Civil Appeal under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. The suit was filed by two plaintiffs. However, in view of the death of plaintiff No.1, his legal representatives were added as appellant Nos.3 and 4 in the present appeal.

2. As could be seen from the impugned Judgment, the above referred suit was filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have created sale deed in respect of the property owned by the 2nd plaintiff.

According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have claimed that the 1st plaintiff while going to Haj, entrusted the documents including sale deed in respect of property owned by the 2nd plaintiff to his son in law and after his return when he requested the son-in-law to give the documents, the son-in-law of the 1st plaintiff brought the documents from the locker and kept the same on his office desk. But, subsequently he missed to handover the documents to the 1st plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiffs realized that the employee of the son in law i.e., 1st respondent/defendant No.1 sold the property to the 2 nd respondent/defendant No.2 with the help of another lady by way of impersonation and forgery. The plaintiffs have lodged a complaint with the concerned police and filed O.S.No.205 of 2017 seeking declaration of sale deed executed by the said lady in favour of the 2 nd respondent/defendant No.2 as null and void.

3. Even though the defendants remained exparte, the trial Court did not accept the contentions of the appellants on the ground that they failed to examine the original owner of the property i.e., 2nd plaintiff before the trial Court and dismissed the relief of declaration. However, granted perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the possession of the property.

4. The appellants have filed the present appeal on the following grounds:

The trial Court made unreasonable observation which is devoid of merits and without appreciation of the material on record. The Court below failed to peruse the record, oral and documentary evidence which remained unchallenged.

The Court below though granted perpetual injunction denied the relief of declaration in spite of the fact that there was no contest by the respondents/defendants who were served with the suit summons. The appellants have claimed that though they could prove their claim before the trial Court, their evidence was outrighly brushed aside by the trial Court. The Court below did not consider the evidence both oral and documentary, thereby sought for setting aside the impugned Judgment and also sought for declaration to declare the sale deed document No.5748 of 2016 dated 28-09-2016 as null and void.

5. While filing the appeal, the appellants have filed an interlocutory application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w 151 CPC sought the leave of this Court to file the expert report about the above referred sale deed and also charge sheet filed against the respondents/defendants.

6. The said petition was allowed vide separate order and the documents sought to be produced by the by the appellants were received. It is a fact that the respondents/defendants did not chose to contest the suit.

Even in the appeal in spite of service of notice, they remained absent and none appeared on behalf of the respondents.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

8. The following points arose for consideration in this appeal:

1. W