HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A. No. 1015 of 2011 DATED: 09.09.2011 Between: P. Vijay Kumar .. Appellant And 1. S.S.Ranjit Kumar 2. Smt. S.R.Lavanya .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed in A.S. No. 129 of 2009 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dismissing the appeal filed by appellant herein against the judgment dated 01.09.2009 in O.S. No. 404 of 2007 passed by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad whereunder the suit filed by the respondents herein seeking possession of the suit schedule property, was allowed. The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 404 of 2007 and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgments under appeal. The suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for possession of the suit schedule property and for damages on the ground that they are the owners of the plaint schedule flat having purchased the same from their family friend viz., M. Praveen Kumar under a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2006 by paying the sale consideration and the defendant is the brother-in-law of the said Praveen Kumar and he has been in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of purchase by the plaintiffs and that the defendant requested the plaintiffs to continue him in the suit schedule property for one month on the ground that his wife was pregnant, and promised to vacate it by 1.1.2007. So, the plaintiffs permitted the defendant to continue in possession of the suit schedule, but he failed to vacate it. Then, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 18.4.2007 calling upon the defendant to vacate the schedule property within 15 days, but the defendant neither gave any reply nor vacated the schedule property. The appellant-defendant filed a written statement before the trial Court stating that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and Praveen Kumar is his brother-in-law and in the year 2004, he intended to purchase the suit schedule property and approached the Banks for housing loan, but he could not get the loan as he is working in a private transport company and then, his brother-in-law viz., Praveen Kumar advised him to purchase the suit schedule property in his name by obtaining loan from a Bank and asked him to pay monthly instalments and accordingly, he obtained the loan in the name of Praveen Kumar and that he was paying the monthly instalments through his brother-in-law and enjoying the suit schedule property. In the year 2005, he could not pay monthly instalments and therefore, the Bank addressed a letter in the name of Praveen Kumar to make the payment on or before 30.3.2005 and subsequently also he received letters from HDFC in the name of Praveen Kumar due to irregular payments and then, he made arrangements and paid the said sum. It is stated that his brother-in-law Praveen Kumar had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 28.10.2006 without his knowledge and that the suit schedule property is in his physical possession and enjoyment and the 1st plaintiff came to the suit schedule property on 3.3.2007 and demanded him to vacate the same within one week alleging that he became the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed executed by Praveen Kumar. When he asked the said Praveen Kumar, he assured that he would settle the matter amicably and thereafter, the 1st plaintiff came to the suit schedule property with unsocial elements and warned him with dire consequences. Then, the defendant filed O.S.No.161 of 2007 to declare his ownership and also consequential relief of injunction. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got Exs.A1 to A4 marked. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one P. Prasanna Lakshmi as D.W.2 and got Exs.B1 to B16 marked. The trial Court having observed that since the original owner did not challenge the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs and the pleadings of the defendant establish that the original owner received the sale consideration from the plaintiffs and executed sale deed in their favour, and the defendant has no right to continue in the suit schedule property and he is bound to vacate the same, decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of decree, failing which the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the same through process of law. It was also observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits for the suit schedule property from the date of suit till possession is delivered. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.129 of 2009. The lower appellate Court having concurred with the findings of the Court below and having observed that admittedly, there is no sale deed in favour of the defendant and that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the defendant paid any consideration to the said Praveen Kumar and paid any instalments to the Bank and that the recitals in Ex.A1 sale deed establish the case of the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the schedule property, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. Even though, the appellant herein, who desired to purchase the schedule property in the year 2004 from his brother-in-law, Praveen Kumar, paid some amount towards sale consideration, but subsequently, in the year 2005, defaulted in payments, thereby Praveen Kumar sold the schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent on 28.10.2006. Thereafter, Praveen Kumar promised to execute reconveyance deed in favour of the appellant by repaying the sale consideration to him. Though the defendant claims that he purchased the schedule property from his brother-in-law, except Ex.B8 – Ration Card issued by the revenue officials in favour of the defendant showing that he is residing in the suit schedule property, no other documents were got marked by him to substantiate his claim. Exs.B1 to B7 and B9 to B16 filed by the defendant, in fact, relate to his brother-in-law and mere possession of those documents does not establish any right of the defendant over the suit schedule property. That apart, the defendant admitted in his pleadings that his brother-in- law sold the suit schedule property to the 1st respondent by receiving sale consideration and promised to execute reconveyance deed in favour of the defendant by repaying his consideration. This amply establishes that the 1st respondent purchased the suit schedule property for valid consideration from the original owner as bona fide purchaser. As such, the defendant has no right whatsoever to continue in the suit schedule property and is bound to vacate the same and deliver the possession of it to the respondents and he is also liable to pay damages for his illegal occupation of the suit schedule property from the date of filing O.S.No.404 of 2007 till possession is delivered. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings arrived by the trial Court are in consistent with the view taken by the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 129 of 2009. For the foregoing reasons, I find no ground whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in their judgments under appeal, nor is there any question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 06.07.2011 delivered in A.S. No. 129 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. It is made clear that the appellant shall deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents within a period of three months from today and file an undertaking to that effect before the Court within a week’s time. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 09.09.2011 bcj