THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2130 of 2014 Between: Jalli Mohan And A.Papi Reddy Dated 18th July, 2014 …Petitioner …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy for Sri Rama Krishna Pativada Counsel for the respondent: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 30.06.2014, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2012, whereby the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District reversed the order, dated 29.12.2011, in I.A.No.598 of 2011 in O.S.No.245 of 2011, on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent in respect of 1000 sq.yards of property. It is his pleaded case that one B.Vishwanadha Shastry was the original owner of 2727 sq.yards of land, that after his death, his legal heirs executed GPA for 2000 sq.yards in favour of one Y.Upendar Reddy, who in turn sold an extent of 900 sq.yards to the respondent, that on 19.11.2001 the said Upendar Reddy allegedly cancelled the said sale deed on 10.07.2002 for non-payment of consideration and sold 1000 sq.yards to the petitioner and 500 sq.yards each to one Rajaiah and S.Madhavi. When the respondent allegedly sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, he has filed the above-mentioned suit.
The respondent pleaded that the alleged cancellation of sale deed by Upendar Reddy is unilateral and that the same is a void document and consequently, no rights vested in the petitioner over the suit property. Before the trial Court, the petitioner filed Exs.P1 to P15 and respondent filed Ex.R1. Based on Ex.P9-acknowledgment issued by the CPDCAPL in respect of service connection, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed the said order.
It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that Upendar Reddy, his vendor, has obtained the consent of the respondent before executing the deed of cancellation on 10.07.2002. Having regard to the settled legal position that a registered sale deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled, prima facie, cancellation deed, dated 10.07.2002, is not sustainable and consequently sale deed, dated 23.03.2011 based on which the petitioner is seeking to claim title is also not valid. The registered sale deed, dated 09.11.2001 executed in favour of the respondent continues to remain valid.
The law is well settled that a person in possession of a property can obtain injunction against the whole world except the true owner. Even assuming that the petitioner was inducted in possession by Upendar Reddy consequent upon sale deed, dated 23.03.2011, such possession qua the respondent cannot be recognized in law and the respondent being the true owner cannot be injuncted from enjoying his property by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower appellate Court in setting aside the injunction order granted by the trial Court.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2983 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th July, 2014
VGB