Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
O.S.NO.186/2019
17
operative society, the sale deed relied on by her is
not valid. According to him, since the sale deed is
not valid, the possession certificate and NOC issued
by co-operative society have no value. The
Defendant has not produced the alleged GPA
executed by co-operative society in favour of the
mother of the Defendant. There is discrepancy
regarding the sale consideration amount in the
deposition and in the Ex.D.4. The amounts are
varying and in the deposition she says that she has
paid the said sum to her mother (said GPA holder)
by way of treatment to her aliment, but, whereas, in
sale deed it is written that payment of money is
made. The second argument regarding the GPA is
that it is not in accordance with Section 33 of the
Registration Act, 1908. Hence, according to him the
sale deed is required to be ignored. According to
him there is no cloud on the title of the Plaintif and
there is no need for the Plaintif to seek for
declaration of title of the Plaintif over the suit
O.S.NO.186/2019
18
property. According to him, in view of the law
declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008) 4
SCC 594 - Anathula Sudhakar V. P.Buchi Reddy
relied on by him, in a suit for bare injunction in
respect of a site, the Court is expected to decide
title over the suit property which is a condition
precedent for arriving at conclusion regarding the
proof of de-jure possession. The sale deed of the
Defendant needs to be ignored for the reason that
mother executed it in favour of daughter. The
evidence shows that the Defendant was also an
employee in the co-operative society. The Court
returned the plaint to the Defendant in the suit filed
by her in OS No.252/2013 and thereafter, she has
not taken recourse to get her right decided in
accordance with law.