THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2002 passed in O.S.No.97 of 1998 by the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suits are filed.

2. Since the parties involved and the impugned order in both the cases is one and the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the cases by way of this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, engaged in real estate business in Brahmanapally village since 1988, purchased approximately 34 acres 12 guntas of land in Survey Nos.260, 261, 338, 346, 348, and 354 under agreements of sale to develop a housing colony. A layout named "Nava Bharat Housing Colony" was sanctioned in 1991 by defendant No.2, then Sarpanch. Between 1991 and 1993, the plaintiff sold 298 plots, with sale deeds executed by vendors and GPA granted to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2, acting as mediator, was included as co-purchaser along with his wife, defendant No.1, in certain sale deeds. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 jointly purchased 12 acres in Sy.Nos.260 and 261 and sold 21 plots. To ease future registrations, 9 acres were registered jointly in the names of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 also negotiated the purchase of 4 acres and 4 guntas in Sy.No.338 from J. Ummaiah, who executed GPA in his favor. The plaintiff divided the land into plots and sold several, leaving 73 unsold plots in Sy.Nos.260 and 261 (Schedule ‘A’) and 32 in Sy.No.338 (Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’). A dispute arose over accounting and registration of unsold plots, leading to a settlement on 29-06- 1992 before panchas, where the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.3,40,750/- to defendant No.2. In return, defendants Nos.1 and 2 were to register their shares in the unsold plots. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,25,000/-, but defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to comply. In 1995 and 1997, the plaintiff issued public and legal notices to alienate the unsold plots. Despite this, defendant No.2 registered 38 plots in favor of defendant No.3, including 11 previously sold plots. The plaintiff sought declaration that these sale deeds are null and void and requests enforcement of the settlement. Defendant No.2 denies the claim of the plaintiff, asserting that the father of the plaintiff father conducted the business and that he alone invested funds and holds rightful ownership. He denies any settlement or receipt of legal notices. Defendant No.3 claims to be a bona fide purchaser of 38 plots, denies collusion, and argues the suit is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and being time-barred.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues and PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A45 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1.

6. The trial Court, after examining the evidence, decreed the suit with costs, declaring the sale deeds mentioned in Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’, pertaining to plots in Sy.No.338 of Brahmanapally village, as null and void and directed defendant Nos.1 and 2 to register their respective 50% shares of defendant No.1 in the 73 unsold plots in Sy.Nos.260 and 261 (Schedule ‘A’), and defendant No.2 in the 32 unsold plots in Sy.No.338 within three months of receiving the balance amount as per the settlement deed dated 29-06-1992, after deducting payments already made by the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suits are filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

7. Heard Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.2, Sri M. Srinivas Swarup, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.3, Sri B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 submitted that the su