V. CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. J. VENKATA GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 111 of 2005 in the Court of XII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the appellant (defendant No. 1), and respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, being an apartment in the Prakashnagar Area of Secunderabad. Relief of execution of sale deed in respect of the property and re -registration thereof was also claimed. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 10 -12 -2009. Aggrieved by that, the 1st defendant filed A.S. No. 24 of 2010, in the Court of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 07 -02 -2014. Hence, this Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the contents of the plaint are that the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 constructed independent portions in the premises bearing No. 1 -8 -702 (50/2 RT), admeasuring 166.6 sq. yards, at Prakashnagar, and offered to sell them. The plaintiff stated that he paid the installments for the suit schedule property, aggregating to Rs. 2,94,000/ - and a sale deed was executed by the G.P.A., i.e. 1st defendant, on behalf of defendants 2 and 3. He further pleaded that since the work was incomplete on certain aspects, he handed over the key to the defendants, since he was residing in U.S. The defendants were said to have been paying rents @ Rs. 4,000/ - per month to the plaintiff, but when there was irregularity in payment, and when the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant is making attempt to sell the property, he made an attempt to secure encumbrance certificate, which, in turn, revealed that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by the defendants. Elaborating further, he prayed for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession, re -registration of the property.

(3.) SRI B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has misread the evidence on record and did not take into account, the circumstances under which, the sale deed, Ex. A -1, came to be executed. He submits that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property and Ex. A -1 was only a nominal document. It is also his case that the lower Appellate Court did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective.