HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CCCA Nos. 87 AND 91 OF 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the common Decree and Judgment dated 27.02.2009 in OS No. 3368 of 1999 and OS No. 172 of 2000 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, which were instituted on the same set of facts, these two appeals are preferred. Hence, with the consent of the parties, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Parties are referred to as arrayed in OS No. 3368 of

1999.

The case of plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property ie., House property bearing Municipal No. 16-11-596 (previously 16-11- 595/96) admeasuring 314 Sq. Yds, situated at Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, within the limits of GHMC, having acquired the same by way of a Registered Sale deed dated 06.08.1971, which was marked as Ex. B-15, from her father-in- law, vide Document No. 1777 of 1971, Block 1, Volume 245, at pages 419, O/o the Sub Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad. Ever since the purchase, she along with her family is residing in that premises.

When plaintiff was in need of money to start a Wine business, the 1st defendant was introduced and he offered to give loan on a condition of giving her property as security for repayment of loan by executing a registered document. Accordingly, plaintiff obtained loan from the 1st defendant and executed sale deed dated 30.04.1982 vide Doc.No. 1484 of 1982 (marked as Ex.A1) as security. Though it is a sale deed, it is agreed to treat it as mortgage by conditional sale for re- conveyance of property upon repayment of the debt. Even after execution of it, plaintiff and her family are residing in that house by paying Property Tax, Electricity Bill, etcetera.

On 15.10.1991 an agreement of re-conveyance was entered into between plaintiff and the 1^st defendant (marked as Ex.A2). In accordance with this agreement, it was unequivocally agreed to re-convey the property on payment of Rs. 75,000/- and the sale shall become void. The plaintiff also has applied for permission from the GHMC for construction of compound wall.

While things stood thus, on 20.07.1999, the 2nd defendant along with his henchmen came to the house of plaintiff and asked her to vacate the same stating that he purchased the said property from the 1^st defendant vide registered sale deed Doc. No. 1556 of 1999 dated 14.07.1999 (marked as Ex. B1), and have given a photo copy of the same to her. Plaintiff contends that the 1st defendant has no right to execute a sale deed in favour of the third party because the sale deed executed by plaintiff was only mortgage by conditional sale for re-conveyance. She is entitled to peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as an absolute owner and sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant has no sanction of law and the 1st defendant is bound by re-conveyance deed Ex.A2. Hence OS No. 3368 of 1999 for specific performance of re-conveyance deed dated 15.10.1991 (Ex. A2). As the 1^st defendant in OS No. 172 of 2000, she stick on to the same pleadings.

The case of the 1^st defendant is that initially plaintiff was the owner of suit schedule property; she took loan from him for starting a business and she executed sale deed vide Doc. No.

1484 of 1982 dated 30.04.1982 (marked as Ex.A1). His contention is that since he is not willing to stay in the slum area, he allowed plaintiff to stay in the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was subsequently enhanced. He agreed to sell the suit schedule house to plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- and payment shall be made within two months. The husband of plaintiff typed the document on NJ Stamp paper keeping quantum of consideration blank (Ex. A2). However, subsequently, consideration part was filled as Rs. 75,000/-. The document is thus tampered and fabricated to make it appear as re- conveyance of suit schedule prope