- (1.) Aggrieved by the common judgment dt:11.05.2006 passed by learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (Fast Track Court) in O.S.No.333 of 2004 and O.S.No.301 of 2002, K. Narayana Rao the plaintiff in former suit and defendant in latter suit which went against him preferred CCCA Nos.146 of 2006 and 147 of 2006 respectively.
(2.) O.S.No.333 of 2004 (old O.S.No.114 of 2001 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad) was filed by the plaintiff against D.1 to D.5. a) The plaintiff's case is that he purchased the plaint schedule mentioned plot No.68 measuring 211 sq.yards situated in Thokatta village, Secunderabad Cantonment under registered sale deed dt:11.01.2001 from D.4 Society as D.4 allotted the said plot to plaintiff, who was its Member. Plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plot. However, defendants 1 to 3 and 5 tried to meddle with the suit plot without any right, title or interest over the same and D.1 to D.3 were offering the suit plot for sale to several intending buyers without any right to do so. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right and injunction against D.1 to D.3 and D.5. Originally, suit was filed against D.1 to D.4 and later D.5 was added since she allegedly purchased the suit plot from D.1. b) D.1 and D.2 remained exparte. c) D.3 adopted the written statement of D.5. d) D.4 filed written statement almost admitting the plaintiff's case. In its statement it clarified that during the year 1984, sale deed was executed in respect of suit plot in favour of D.1 by 2 office bearers of the society alone without any authority and the said sale deed along with 15 other unauthorized sale deeds were cancelled by the Society as per law. The sale deed stood in favour of D.1 was cancelled by a registered cancellation deed dt:15.07.1986. D.1 along with others initiated Arbitration Proceedings in ARC Nos.97/1993 and 7/1994 on the file of Arbitrator, Co-operative SubRegistrar, Hyderabad seeking declaration that the cancellation of their sale deeds was illegal. The Arbitrator by his order dt:20.03.1995 held that cancellation of those sale deeds including that of D.1 was valid. The matter was further carried in appeal (Writ Appeal) unsuccessfully by D.1 and by the time of filing written statement, the matter was pending before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.7310 and 7311/1997. D.4 further clarified that subsequent to cancellation of the unauthorized sale deeds, it has executed valid sale deeds in favour of different persons and sofaras suit plot is concerned, it executed sale deed dt:11.01.2001 in favour of the plaintiff. Thus it supported the case of plaintiff. e) D.5 filed written statement denying all the plaint averments. Her case is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of suit Plot No.68 having purchased from D.1 under registered sale deed dt:29.10.1998. Ever since the date of purchase, she has been in possession and she cleared entire plot and fenced it all around and erected a name board showing her title and possession. She was not informed by D.1 about any material defects in her title and the enquires and encumbrance certificate obtained by D.5 also did not disclose any such defects. To show her lawful title, D.1 gave a certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.3687 of 1986 of the Court of Assistant Judge, Secunderabad wherein D.1 was held to be the owner of the suit plot. It is further pleaded by D.5 that after purchasing the suit plot, she obtained building sanction from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board vide Resolution No.2(1-21) dt:03.03.2001 and also obtained clearance from Airports Authority of India and dug a bore well and fixed motor and pipes. Seeing plaintiff's sale deed she came to know for the first time that D.4 allegedly resumed suit plot even before the Award dt:20.03.1995 passed in ARC No.7/1994. D.5 was not a party to those arbitration proceedings and hence they do not effect her right. She contended that when once a sale deed was validly executed and registered and possession was delivered to her vendor i.e, D.1, she acquired absolute title and possession and subsequently any cancellation of a registered sale deed could be done only by way of a decree of Civil Court under Sec.31 of Specific Relief Act and not by the 4th defendant Society under Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. She thus contended that the cancellation was illegal and not tenable. She thus prayed to dismiss the suit. f) Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the sale deed dated 29.10.1998 executed by the first defendant in favour of the fifth defendant is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff 2) Whether the decree in O.S.No.3687/1986 dated 28.02.1995 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title as prayed for 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential permanent injunction as prayed for 5) To what relief
(3.) A) While-so 5 th defendant in O.S.No.333 of 2004 in her turn filed O.S.No.301 of 2002 (old O.S.No.700 of 2001 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad) against the plaintiff in O.S.No.333 of 2004 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the same property. b) The trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his property 2) To what relief ;