Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 591 (TS)

J. Ramchander v. Janabai

2025-05-02

TIRUMALA DEVI

body2025
JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.282 of 2010 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court is that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of deceased J.Ramulu and plaintiff No.2 is his daughter. Defendant No.1 is the younger brother of Ramulu and defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1. It is their case that during his life time Ramulu purchased an open plot from Padmashali Housing Cooperative Housing Society through a registered sale deed during 1979 and thereafter, he constructed ground and first floor and the house number was allotted as No.1- 3-1/A/42. Ramulu and plaintiffs were residing in the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 who is the younger brother of Ramulu used to stay with them since his childhood as their father passed away when Ramulu was aged around 15 years. Admittedly, defendant No.1 was brought up by Ramulu and the plaintiff No.1 also has treated the defendant No.1 as their own. After marriage, defendant No.1 stayed in the first floor of the suit schedule property at request of Ramulu and that they were enjoying a very good relationship during the life time of Ramulu. In the year 2003, Ramulu suffered Kidney malfunctioning and was on dialysis, when he became bed ridden he expressed his intention to the plaintiff No.1 to get the suit schedule property transferred in favour of plaintiff No.2 who is their only daughter. Thereafter, Ramulu and plaintiff No.1 discussed the said proposal with defendant No.1 and as he was well educated and as they have utmost confidence in him, defendant No.1 also accepted the said proposal and took over the responsibility of getting the suit schedule property gifted to plaintiff No.2. On 03.02.2003 defendant No.1 took Ramulu and plaintiffs to registrar’s office and got a gift deed registered. On 03.02.2003 defendant No.1 took Ramulu and plaintiffs to registrar’s office and got a gift deed registered. Subsequently, defendant No.1 informed them that the registration of gift is complete and that the original document shall be collected by him for which he requires the original sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule property existing in the name of Ramulu and as the days passed by, Ramulu health got deteriorated, and they forgot about the issue of collecting the original gift deed. After the death of Ramulu, both the plaintiffs continued to reside in the ground floor and defendants were residing in the first floor. Subsequently, the marriage of plaintiff No.2 was performed by plaintiff No.1 and since then the plaintiff No.2 was residing in Bombay and plaintiff No.1 was staying alone in the ground floor and the tenants in one of the portion for the ground floor used to pay rents to plaintiff No.1. In the year 2009, the health of plaintiff No.1 got deteriorated so she sought the opinion of defendant No.1 in asking plaintiff No.2 and her family to shift to Hyderabad to stay with them but defendant No.1 became wild and ever since then his attitude got changed and he started harassing the tenants of the plaintiff No.1 and in the month of March, 2010 he made the tenants to vacate the premises and proclaim that he is the real owner of the suit schedule property. Then, the plaintiff No.1 was taken by surprise and shared the information with plaintiff No.2. Then, they came down to Hyderabad and inquired about the situation and then, got to know that the registered gift deed executed by Ramulu is in favour of defendant No.1 but not in favour of plaintiff No.2. Then the plaintiffs realized the mischief played by defendant No.1 and obtained a copy of the registered gift deed executed by Ramulu from the Registrar’s office and thus, have filed the present suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed and also for recovery of the possession of the first floor of the property. 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the written statement and they have admitted the relationship and also the title of Ramulu. The only dispute is with regard to the gift deed. According to the defendants it was executed by Ramulu in favour of defendant No.1. 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the written statement and they have admitted the relationship and also the title of Ramulu. The only dispute is with regard to the gift deed. According to the defendants it was executed by Ramulu in favour of defendant No.1. It is their case that the father of the deceased Ramulu and defendant No.1 passed away when they were young and thus, defendant No.1 was brought up by Ramulu and since he was educated and found a job as a Turner in DLRL, he supported the family with his earnings. He further stated that Ramulu was working as a casual labour in Praga Tools and in the year 1971-72 he was absorbed as a permanent employee but that defendant No.1 has completed his diploma in Mechanical Engineering in 1969-70 and he was appointed as a Turner in DLRL, so he used to handover his entire salary to Ramulu and the house was purchased out of their joint income. It is for the said reason after marriage defendant No.1 was residing in the first floor while the plaintiffs’ family were residing in the ground floor. It is his case that the gift deed was executed by Ramulu in his favour out of love and affection and also for the reason that he contributed major part of his earnings to Ramulu for the construction of the suit schedule property. It is their case that defendant No.1 and Ramulu has jointly constructed the house under suit schedule property. He further stated that they were living amicably till 2006 but when they started looking for matches to perform the marriage of plaintiff No.2 and when her marriage was fixed, the bridegroom’s family enquired about the ownership of the suit schedule property, over which Ramulu was shocked and has cancelled the marriage of plaintiff No.2 just 7 to 10 days prior to its performance and that he thought it fit to transfer the suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.1 for which the defendant No.1 has also agreed because Ramulu had full faith in defendant No.1 that he alone would take care of the plaintiffs in his absence. Defendant No.1 contended that the gift deed was prepared and it was read over to the plaintiffs and after understanding the contents only the plaintiffs have signed the document. Defendant No.1 contended that the gift deed was prepared and it was read over to the plaintiffs and after understanding the contents only the plaintiffs have signed the document. It is their case that till the marriage of plaintiff No.2, after the death of Ramulu, plaintiff No.1 also stayed along with them but subsequently she started staying in the ground floor and used to collect rents from the tenants in the ground floor and that since then the plaintiff No.1 started harassing defendant No.1 and his family claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to her and in fact she has started harassing the tenants to vacate the suit schedule property and took over the possession of the entire ground floor. He further stated that there were some matrimonial disputes between plaintiff No.2 and her husband and that he made efforts for reconciliation, after which they started living happily. He further stated that as defendant No.1 was suffering with Parkinson disease, he executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 with regard to the suit schedule property and that the said registered document was collected and handed over to plaintiff No.2 for safe custody. Thus, the defendant denied the averment that the plaintiffs do not have any knowledge about the gift deed and he further contended that they have filed a false suit just to knock down the property. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following points for consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of gift deed document bearing No.272/2003 dated 03.02.2003 of A Schedule Property? 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of 1 st floor of B-schedule property? 3. To what relief?” 6. At the time of trial, plaintiffs got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and no documents were marked. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants. 8. Heard the submissions of Sri P.V.S.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manjari S Ganu, learned counsel representing Sri S.M.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendants. 8. Heard the submissions of Sri P.V.S.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Manjari S Ganu, learned counsel representing Sri S.M.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the findings of the trial Court are without any basis and that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The trial Court simply believed the stories prepared by the plaintiffs and discarded the circumstantial evidence adduced by the defendants. He further contended that the learned trial Court failed to address the issue that the plaintiffs received an amount of Rs.17 Lakhs from the defendants vide cheque and the same was reflected in the statement of account to compromise the matter during pendency of the suit and that the plaintiffs agreed to deliver the possession. He further argued that the suit is barred by limitation which the trial Court has failed to consider. He further argued that the plaintiffs are the attestors of the gift deed and that they are not entitled to seek the relief of cancellation and that late Ramulu was alive for more than four years after the execution of the gift deed and in case if he was aggrieved, he could have sought for cancellation but the same is not done because it was a valid gift deed. He therefore, prayed the Court to allow his appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court has delivered the judgment based on sound reasoning and that at last the plaintiffs could get justice and they could secure their property. She further argued that the gift deed was fraudulently executed in his own favour by defendant No.1 when the sole successor i.e. plaintiff No.2 was left without any property from the deceased Ramulu. Thus, the trial Court was very right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and she therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Thus, the trial Court was very right in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and she therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the gift deed under Ex.A1 is a void document as against the plaintiffs, if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of the said document? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the B-Schedule property from the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential injunction? 4. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable under law and in facts? 5. To what relief? 12. POINT NOs.1 AND 2 a) There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and the title of the deceased Ramulu over the suit schedule property. The only dispute revolves around the validity of Gift Deed under Ex.A1. The defendant claim it to be a valid document while the plaintiffs contend that it is a void document as it was fraudulently executed by defendant No.1. b) A perusal of Ex.A1/Gift Deed shows that it is executed by Ramulu in favour of defendant No.1 and it is attested by plaintiffs No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs’ case is that they were taken along with Ramulu to the Registration Office and that since defendant No.1 was the only educated person in their family, they confided in defendant No.1 and the intention of the plaintiffs was to register the property in favour of plaintiff No.2 who is the only legal heir of Ramulu and plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2 is the only daughter to Ramulu and plaintiff No.1. Therefore, their case is that Ramulu was on dialysis and his health was in deteriorated condition in the year 2003 and therefore, they wanted to secure the property to their daughter during his life time. When they expressed their intention to defendant No.1, he has agreed for the proposal and made all arrangements at the registration office to call three of them and got their signatures made in the said document. It is their case that the contents of the documents were not read over to them. c) A perusal of Ex.B1 shows that there is no such clause saying that the contents were read over to the parties and that they understood such contents. It is their case that the contents of the documents were not read over to them. c) A perusal of Ex.B1 shows that there is no such clause saying that the contents were read over to the parties and that they understood such contents. d) The learned appellants counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the difference between Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the gift deed dated 03.02.2003 executed by Ramulu in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.A2 is the gift deed executed on 15.05.2010 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. A reading over the contents of the gift deed is at clause No.12 in Ex.A2 but the said clause is absent in Ex.A1. Usually, the said document contains this clause but that is absent in Ex.A1. During the course of evidence also certain facts are elicited. e) It is brought out in the cross examination of PW1 that she learnt in the year 2010 that the house portion to which she was paying the current bill was standing in the name of defendant No.1 and that during the life time of her mother/plaintiff No.1, her mother used to pay the current bills, water bills and property tax and after her demise she started paying the same. It is elicited through her that the property tax for the property under Ex.A1 is paid in the name of their father. She further stated that her father worked in Praga Tools in Stores Department and he was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs know the contents of Ex.A1. Thus, certain questions were posed in her cross examination to extract the educational status of plaintiff No.2. Though, it is elicited from her that she studied upto 10 th class in a school nearby their residence, it cannot be inferred that PW1 was aware of the contents of Ex.A1. f) Further, it is elicited through PW2 that he along with his elder brother’s family used to stay as tenants in the ground floor portion of the suit schedule property for about four years, till March 2010 and that plaintiff No.1 was the owner of the property and they used to pay rents to plaintiff No.1 and that defendant No.1 started harassing them and consequently they vacated the portion in the year 2010. He admitted in his cross examination that while they were staying as tenants in the suit schedule property, defendant No.1 used to suffer with Parkinson’s disease (body shivering) and that defendant No.1 has been residing in the suit schedule property till date and that as defendant No.1 harassed and demanded for vacating the premises, they vacated after the death of their mother. g) PW3 is one K.S.Veera Raghavan who is the resident of Kavadiguda. It is elicited through him that he knows both the plaintiffs and defendants. Ramulu and defendant No.1 were his neighbours during their childhood. It is elicited in his cross examination that the deceased Ramulu informed him about his intention to transfer the house property in favour of plaintiff No.2 and that plaintiff No.2 got married in the year 2006. h) Thus, the only facts which the defendants could extract from the plaintiffs witnesses in cross examination are that the marriage of plaintiff No.2 was performed in the year 2006 while Ramulu died in the year 2004 and that plaintiff No.2 studied till 10 th class. But the facts that are elicited during the cross examination of plaintiffs witnesses i.e. from PWs 2 and 3 would throw light on the fact that PW2 and their family has vacated the premises at the demand of defendant No.1 and it is further elicited through the evidence of PW3 that the deceased Ramulu expressed his intention of transferring the suit schedule property to plaintiff No.2, which aids the plaintiffs case. i) Defendant No.2 got examined as DW1 and in his cross examination he admitted that defendant No.1 got educated by Ramulu by bearing the expenditure and that he was taken care of by Ramulu and his wife as if he is their son. It is elicited from him that there is no reference about plaintiff No.2 in Ex.A1 and he stated that he knows the third witness to Ex.A1 and he admitted that there is a mention about the acceptance of gift in Ex.A2 but in Ex.A1 there is no such mention. He further admitted that in Ex.A2 there is mention about the delivery of possession and he further admitted that in Ex.A1 there is no such mention as to reading over the contents of the document to the settler. He further admitted that in Ex.A2 there is mention about the delivery of possession and he further admitted that in Ex.A1 there is no such mention as to reading over the contents of the document to the settler. He further admitted that plaintiff No.1 moved to the ground floor of the suit schedule premises and started staying alone till 2009. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is the only property possessed by Ramulu and there is no occasion for him to gift away the only property that was available to defendant No.1 instead of securing the same to their own daughter i.e. plaintiff No.2. To a specific question posed in the cross examination, DW1 has pleaded ignorance stating that he does not know about the properties held by late Ramulu. If at all Ramulu owns any other property, DW1 could have easily narrated the same to disprove the contention of the plaintiffs but it is not done. Thus, the plaintiffs contention that there were no other properties owned by Ramulu and that he wanted to secure the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.2 gets probabilized. DW1 further stated in his cross examination that he or his family members did not propose for any amicable settlement in this issue with plaintiff No.2 and her family till date. This falsifies the contention of the appellants that they gave away an amount of Rs.17 Lakhs in favour of plaintiff No.2 to settle the issue during the pendency of the suit. Moreover, if that contention is true, he could have atleast produced a document or any other evidence which is not done. Further, DW1 has admitted that there was no proposal of settlement made till date. j) The contention of DW1 is that in the grounds of appeal they mentioned that the defendants have paid the amount through a cheque and that it is reflected in their statement of account also. To prove their contention, the appellants could have atleast produce the statement of account to prove the said contention which is not done. Thus, with the evidence on record, it is held that the execution of Ex.A1 is viewed with suspicion. To prove their contention, the appellants could have atleast produce the statement of account to prove the said contention which is not done. Thus, with the evidence on record, it is held that the execution of Ex.A1 is viewed with suspicion. With regard to the signatures of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as attestors in the said document, it is elicited through the witnesses that they were taken to the registration office but the contents were not read over to them. They were under the impression that the document was being executed in favour of plaintiff No.2. With the same belief and confidence which they had in defendant No.1 they signed the document as attestor and the same is stated in their pleadings. No prudent man would execute a gift deed delivering his sole property to his brother leaving aside his only daughter. The contention of defendant that Ex.A1 was registered in favour of defendant No.1 by deceased Ramulu out of love and affection appears to be far from truth. DW1 himself has admitted that his father was brought up by Ramulu and got educated by Ramulu, that means defendant No.1 was being taken care of by Ramulu from his childhood, got him married and he allowed him to stay in his premises that is on the first floor. If at all the contention of the defendant is to believed that he contributed through his earnings for the construction of the suit schedule property and if Ramulu wanted to give a share to his brother he could have gifted only a portion of the property i.e. either the ground floor or the first floor but he could not have delivered the entire suit schedule property. Once the defendant has stated that the property was constructed out of the joint earnings of his brother and himself why would Ramulu give away the entire property to defendant No.1 leaving aside his own daughter without any property. Thus, the defendant’s contention is unbelievable in this regard. k) The appellants counsel has relied upon Raja Ram v. Jai Prakash Singh , [Manu/SC/1231/2019] . Thus, the defendant’s contention is unbelievable in this regard. k) The appellants counsel has relied upon Raja Ram v. Jai Prakash Singh , [Manu/SC/1231/2019] . In the said case, the sale deed executed by the deceased in favour of one Babu Ram and Munshi Lal two years earlier has been assailed by the appellant on the ground that the deceased was devoid of the power of reasoning, because of mental impairment and there is no evidence of any such rapid deterioration in the condition of the deceased in the said two years. Thus, it was held that it demolishes the entire case of the plaintiff that the deceased was bed ridden and the deceased had put his thumb impression in presence of the sub-registrar after the sale deed had been read over and explained to him. But in the present case, it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased was under any mental impairment. It is only their contention that he went to the Registrar office along with the plaintiffs with a fond belief that the defendant No.1 got prepared the document i.e. gift deed to be executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 but not in favour of defendant No.1 and the said decision defers with the present case in another aspect wherein the said case the contents of sale deed were read over and explained to the executant but in the present case there is no such clause and the plaintiffs denied that the said documents have been read over and explained to the deceased. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case. l) Learned appellants counsel also relied upon the decision in P.P.K.Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K.Balakrishnan Nambiar , [MANU/SC/0354/1995] wherein it was held that it is trite that it is the duty of the propounder of the will to prove the will and to remove all the suspected features. But there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. In the present case, the doubt created on Ex.A1 is not because of fantasy but because of the preponderance of probabilities as revealed from the evidence on record. Therefore, even this decision is not helpful to the appellants. But there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. In the present case, the doubt created on Ex.A1 is not because of fantasy but because of the preponderance of probabilities as revealed from the evidence on record. Therefore, even this decision is not helpful to the appellants. m) The learned appellants counsel has also relied upon a decision in Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai v. Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and others , [MANU/GJ/0774/2018] , to prove his contention that when gift deed itself was challenged there was no necessity for the defendant to prove the gift deed. Here the defendants’ contention is that since the plaintiffs have challenged the execution of gift deed itself, he need not discharge his burden of proving the gift deed to be valid. When the document itself is in question by the plaintiffs and the evidence adduced by them is enough to hold that Ex.A1 is void, the defendants could have taken steps to prove the validity of gift deed. There was a specific question posed to DW1 in his cross examination and he stated that he does not know the third witness to the document. In Ex.A1 apart from the signatures of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as the attesters there is another signature of third witness, if at all he wanted to prove the document to be a valid one, the option was always open to the defendant to get the said attester examined. It is not his case that he could not procure the attendance of the said witness. For that matter even the defendant No.1 did not enter the witness box. The reason taken by the defendant No.2 as DW1 is that defendant No.1 was suffering with Parkinson disease and hence, he could not approach the Court. However, no steps were being taken to even get him examine through an advocate commissioner. The evidence on record is enough to decide about Ex.A1 and its validity, thus the cited decision do not aid the defendant in any way to prove his contention. However, no steps were being taken to even get him examine through an advocate commissioner. The evidence on record is enough to decide about Ex.A1 and its validity, thus the cited decision do not aid the defendant in any way to prove his contention. n) Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon a decision in Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai , AIR 2019 SC 4822 wherein the High Court has held that the appellants have not led any evidence that signature of their father on the gift deed was forged, as neither the specimen signature nor writings of their father for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature on the gift deed have been attempted and thus, the High Court has held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove any forgery but here in the present case, the plaintiffs have not alleged any forgery but it is their case that the plaintiffs and the deceased Ramulu signed on the document under Ex.A1 with a strong belief that it was a document that was being executed in favour of plaintiff No.2. If at all they have alleged forgery, then this decision could have been any help to the appellants. o) The Apex Court in Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai and Jagernath , [MANU/SC/0059/1951] , has held that the undue influence and coercion have to be separately pleaded and proved and that the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid and that general allegations are insufficient even to result into averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. In the present case, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the Ex.A1 was signed by the plaintiffs and the deceased Ramulu under a bonafide impression that it is being executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 but the defendant No.1 entertained other intentions and thus, got it executed in his favour. The pleadings are well supported by the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, therefore, the defendants cannot seek any shelter under the said decision. The pleadings are well supported by the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, therefore, the defendants cannot seek any shelter under the said decision. p) The learned respondents counsel, on the other hand, has relied upon a decision in Kirpal Kaur v. Jitender Pal Singh , [MANU/SC/0765/2015] , in the said case there are recitals of the gift deed saying that the physical possession of the said property is already with the donee. Hence, the proprietary possession of the same is being handed over by the donor but in the said case, the schedule B property could not have been given to the 2 nd defendant in the light of the undisputed fact that the physical possession of the second floor of schedule B was with the plaintiffs. In view of the said undisputed fact that the plaintiff is in the possession of the second floor, the recitals of the gift deed would falsify the said document that the possession of the entire property is delivered and the plaintiff is in the possession of the second floor in her independent right of her husband share after they had been separated from the family. Therefore, the alleged gift deed executed by the deceased 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant during the pendency of the proceedings was held to be legally incorrect. In the present case also a part of the property was in possession of the plaintiff while Ex.A1 is executed to the total extent of the property and defendant No.1 in turn has executed the gift deed under Ex.A2 in favour of his son and he further says that possession of the entire suit schedule property is delivered to defendant No.2. It is elicited through the evidence of PW2 that the ground floor was in possession of the plaintiff. In his admission, DW1 stated that the plaintiffs started residing in the ground floor from 2009, therefore, the said decision aptly applies to the present case in holding the gift deed under Ex.A1 to be invalid. q) All these circumstances probablize the case of the plaintiffs to be true. Nowhere in Ex.A1 the signature of Donee is affixed. Since, this issue is with regard to the cancellation of gift deed under Ex.A1 it is pertinent to refer Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act . “31. q) All these circumstances probablize the case of the plaintiffs to be true. Nowhere in Ex.A1 the signature of Donee is affixed. Since, this issue is with regard to the cancellation of gift deed under Ex.A1 it is pertinent to refer Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act . “31. When cancellation may be ordered.—(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.” r) Thus, if a document is void against a person he is entitled to seek for its cancellation, otherwise if the document is left unattended it would go against the interest of the said person, therefore, since the document under Ex.A1 is held to be a void document, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek for its cancellation, it is left outstanding then it would go detrimental to the interest of plaintiff No.2 and her interest would be defeated and therefore, they are entitled to cancellation of the said document, consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of the possession of B-Schedule property. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.3: In view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.4: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case 15. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.4: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case 15. POINT NO.5: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.282 of 2010 by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.