SEELAM LAXMAMMA Vs. CHAND SULTANA, AND SEVEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.04.2013 in I.A. (SR) No. 2119/2012 in O.S. No. 109/2008 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed O.S. No. 109/2008 seeking a decree for declaration that the Sale Certificate issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, vide document No. 121 of 2004 in favour of the defendants 6 and 7 is null and void, and seeking a further direction to the defendant No. 8 to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a further direction to the defendant No. 8 to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh towards past and future damages.

(2.) The plaintiff claims title to the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1981 stated to have been executed by the defendant No. 1. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 without having any right or authority had mortgaged the very same property in connection with the loan availed by the defendants 2 to 4 from the defendant No. 5 Bank and ultimately the suit schedule property was brought to sale in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in O.A. No. 500 of 1997. The defendants 6 and 7 were declared as successful bidders and after receiving the bid amount the Recovery Officer issued the Sale Certificate in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants 6 and 7 in turn sold the said property to the defendant No. 8 under a registered sale deed dated 16.02.2004 and in pursuance thereof he is put in possession. Hence, the suit alleging that the creation of the equitable mortgage itself was illegal and that neither the defendants 6 and 7 nor the defendant No. 8 acquired valid title.

(3.) The defendant No. 5 filed a detailed written statement contending inter alia that the suit itself is not maintainable since the property was sold in pursuance of the order passed by the Statutory Tribunal in O.A. No. 500 of 1997. The defendant No. 6 also filed a detailed written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and asserting that the defendants 6 and 7 acquired valid title. A separate written statement was also filed by the defendant No. 8 who is in actual possession of the property in question.