HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT

The present Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.08.2024, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Sangareddy in AS.No.86 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Senior Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in O.S.No.256 of 2009 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is plaintiff No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are defendant Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.7 is plaintiff No.1 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, is that the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.44 of 2009 dated 07.01.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. It was averred that land admeasuring Acs.5.17 guntas in Sy.No.278/A situated at Machireddypally Village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak District was originally purchased in the name of defendant No.1 from the funds of ancestors of the plaintiffs, vide registered sale deed, dated 29.04.1972; that though the plaintiffs several times demanded for partition, defendant No.1 avoided partition and that without any notice or knowledge to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 has illegally executed registered sale deed dated 07.01.2009 in favour of defendant No.2, who is her daughter; that after coming to know about the execution of the said sale deed, the plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 and a panchayat was conducted for cancellation of the said registered sale deed, but in vain. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement and contended that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.17 guntas situated at Machireddypally Village, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 29.04.1972 and hence, she executed registered sale deed bearing document No.44 of 2009 in favour of her daughter-defendant No.2 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 and retained an extent of Ac.0.17 guntas. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 further contended that the plaintiffs have no right to question the said registered sale deed and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.44/2009 dated 07.01.2009? 2. To what relief?”

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to Ex.A-14 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-10 were marked.

7. The trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2018. The trial Court while dismissing the suit made the following observations:-

“It is admitted by all the witnesses including the plaintiffs that there will be a recital stipulated in the sale deed so as to who had paid sale consideration. But, the plaintiffs had not produced the document before the court to verify the said fact. Even the plaintiffs had not gone through the said document to bring to the notice of this court. However, even if there was a recital in the sale deed, though the presumption is in favour of the defendant No.1, but the same is rebuttal and plaintiffs can establish the source of payment of sale consideration. But, the plaintiffs apart from producing any evidence on those lines, they themselves stated different versions as to the payment of sale consideration. The plaintiffs are not clear in taking a stand whether it was purchased by the grandfather or father from the land succeeded from the grandfather or whether the plaintiff have any contribution in purchasing the same.

It is the plaintiffs who approached the court seeking for cancellation of the registered sale deed. Therefore, it