M. RAMESHJ Vs. MANJUSRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in Original Suit No.140 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the trial Court"), preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 28.03.2016, passed in the said O.S.No.140 of 2008, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of declaration of his title and possession of the suit schedule properties and to declare the document bearing No.13/2004, dated 01.12.2004, as null and void and not binding on him and for permanent injunction, was dismissed.

(2.) Appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in O.S.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for the aforesaid reliefs, alleging therein that the 5th defendant is the original owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff had purchased the same from him by way of registered sale deed, dated 29.06.2000. The plaintiff learnt that the 1st defendant filed O.S.No.5640 of 2001 against the 5th defendant before the II Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, for recovery of money and obtained a decree, later initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.210 of 2003 and on the basis of false and fabricated encumbrance certificate and false affidavit, got attached the suit schedule property, which was by then in the name of the 5th defendant in the revenue records, though the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant seems to have brought schedule property for auction in those E.P. proceedings by playing fraud on the Court and without knowledge of the plaintiff. It is further mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff borrowed money from one P.Prema Latha, who filed a suit in O.S.No.329 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for recovery of money and obtained attachment of suit schedule property before judgment in I.A.No.357 of 2007, wherein the 3rd defendant got impleaded himself by claiming that he purchased the said property from the 2nd defendant, who claims to have purchased the same in auction conducted in E.P.No.210 of 2003 in O.S.No.5640 of 2001 and obtained the sale deed vide document bearing No.1760/2005, dated 21.03.2005 and later the sale certificate was issued in his favour. It is also mentioned that the defendants played fraud not only on Court but also on the plaintiff by taking advantage of illegal, improper and fraudulent encumbrance certificate without showing the registered sale transaction between the plaintiff and the 5th defendant vide document No.4734/2000, dated 28.06.2000 and that the 3rd defendant on the basis of the sale deed obtained from the 2nd defendant, tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, Munaganoor Village vide G.P.No.M/01/2007, dated 01.03.2007 and while the plaintiff was making construction, the 3rd defendant tried to cause interference on 11.02.2008, but he was resisted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know about the sale certificate issued in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants and subsequent sale deed obtained by the 3rd defendant only when the 3rd defendant filed implead petition in O.S.No.329 of 2007, which was filed on 07.03.2007. Since the plaintiff is the lawful owner and possessor of schedule property, the proceedings in E.P.No.210 of 2003 in O.S.No.5640 of 2001 and consequent sale of the property and sale certificate obtained by the 2nd defendant and subsequent sale deed executed by him in favour of the 3rd defendant, are not binding on the plaintiff.