M SAI REDDY Vs. L BALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals art disposed of by a common judgment as the issues are common. Second Appeal No.235/93 has filed against A.S.No.111/85. A.S.No.111/85 was filed against O.S.No.427/81.

(2.) Second Appeal No.236/93 was filed against A.S.No.110/85. A.S. No.110/85 was filed against O.S.No.1383/81.

(3.) O.S.No.427/81 was filed by one Smt. U.R. Ellamma and Sri U.K. Ranganayakulu who are wife and husband and the owners of the suit house bearing No.12-1-1623/1, Ambedkar Nagar, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad for a declaration that D-1 is only a benamidar under the agreement to sale dated 1-6-1972 executed by D-2 and D-3 and for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their possession pursuant to the order dated 9-3-1989 of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad in M.C.No.B-76/79. The averments of plaintiff No.1 in principle are that Smt. U.R. Ellamma and Sri U.K. Ranganayakulu borrowed an amount of Rs.3,000/- from D-2 and D-3 in November, 1967 mortgaging the suit house in their favour by executing a sale deed and also a deed of reconveyance on 24-10-1967 separately. Since, the first plaintiff could not repay the amount in time and since required some more money, she had borrowed a further sum of Rs.4,000/- in or about June, 1968. D-2 and D-3 took her signatures on the two documents which she later came to know that they are agreements purporting to be registered sale deeds giving up her rights under the reconveyance dated 23-11-1967 and the other was a rental agreement. D-2 and D-3 filed a Rent Control Case in R.C.No.336/1970 for eviction. The eviction petition was allowed. However, no eviction was effected and the plaintiff was allowed to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property on the intervention of elders and, it was agreed that defendants 2 and 3 should execute an agreement of bale in favour of a third party, whom plaintiff should nominate, so that it may not be treated as a mortgage transaction. Pursuant to the said agreement, the plaintiffs nominated D-1, who is the brother of their son-in-law by name Krishna and accordingly an agreement of sale dated 1-6-1972 was executed for a consideration of Rs.9,500/- which was due from the plaintiffs to D-2 and D-3. Thereafter, a part of the suit premises fell vacant, therefore D-1 was permitted to occupy the same as a tenant of the plaintiffs on his request. The plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- in instalments and thereafter the entire balance of Rs.7,500/- to D-2 and D-3 and D-2 and D-3 passed receipts in favour of D-1, as the agreement is in his name. In view of the conduct of D-1 claiming the plaint schedule property as his absolute property and initiating various proceedings in the Courts, the present suit was filed. An amendment was made in the plaint amending that the transaction pertaining to the suit house between D-2 and D-3 and the plaintiff is nominal but the documents were executed to avoid the execution of Hyderabad Money Lenders Act.