NEELA BINDU PAVANI Vs. KASANI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the orders of dismissal dtd. 1/7/2024 in I.A.No.654 of 2023 in O.S.No.172 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) r/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C. by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, Suryapet District

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for cancellation of registered sale deed vide document No.1632/2021, dtd. 4/12/2021, registered in the office of the Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodad and the plaint was filed under Sec. 26, order VII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property being agricultural land and was intending to sell the same and that the defendants having come to know about the sale of land, had offered to purchase the land to an extent of 2-00 gts., in Survey No.998/E/2, situated at Kodad Revenue Village and Mandal, Suryapet District and that the plaintiff has accepted the offer and entered into an agreement for sale dtd. 3/12/2021 on receipt of only part payment and registered the land in favour of defendant No.1 on 4/12/2021 after the defendants agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff registered the suit schedule land on 4/12/2021 in the Tahsildar's Office on the promise that the respondent No.2 would pay the balance sale consideration after completion of registration. But when the plaintiff came out from Tahsildar's office immediately after registration, the respondent No.2 was not available and had intentionally escaped in order to avoid the payment of balance sale consideration and therefore, it was nothing but fraud, cheating and misrepresentation and therefore, he has filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed. The suit was filed on 5/7/2022, claiming that on 28/4/2022, in the evening hours, the plaintiff met the defendants No.1 and 2 at their house in Kodad Town and when the plaintiff requested the defendants for payment of the balance sale consideration as per the agreement, there was a refusal and in fact, there was an attack on the plaintiff and therefore the petitioner filed a cognizable complaint dtd. 29/4/2022, against all the defendants before the SHO, Kodad Town Police Station and in spite of receiving the same on 29/4/2022, FIR was not registered against the defendants. Therefore, a private complaint was filed before the Court and the same is pending consideration and alleging that the plaintiff has requested the defendants several times about the pending payment of the balance and since no possession was delivered to the defendants under the document, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed No.1632/2021, dtd. 4/12/2021, which was registered in the office of Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodad.

(3.) The defendant No.1 has filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the alleged original agreement of sale has not been filed by the plaintiff before the Court and therefore, there was no such agreement of sale deed dtd. 3/12/2021. It is further submitted that the draft of the sale deed was prepared much before the alleged agreement dtd. 3/12/2021 and so the question of entering the agreement by the defendants with the plaintiff on 3/12/2021 and getting the registered sale deed executed on the very next day i.e., 4/12/2021 does not arise. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff has approached the defendants for the return of money at any point of time. It is also stated that the non-registration of FIR upon the complaint of the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the Xerox copy of the alleged agreement of sale, which was filed along with the suit, does not show the signature of the defendants No.1 and 2 and the part payment endorsements are in no way concerned with the registered sale deed and even if the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the alleged agreement of sale dtd. 3/12/2021 of Rs.1,60,00,000.00 is taken into consideration, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has to pay the Court fee on the amount shown in the agreement of sale but not on the amount shown in the registered sale deed and therefore, if the amount shown in the agreement of sale is taken into consideration, the Court before whom the suit is instituted has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the agreement is more than one crore. Further, it is stated that consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed is paid through a cheque bearing No.000776 of Account No.363301501173 of ICICI Bank, which was realized by the plaintiff through his account and so the plaintiff is not entitled to seek cancellation of the registered sale deed. Thus, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.