Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Thulasidhara & Another – Appellants
Versus
Narayanappa & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2010
Decided On : 01-05-2019
(1999) 3 SCC 722; (2000) 1 SCC 434 - Relied upon
(b) Property law - Sale deed - Even if registered - Does not bind a party who has not signed it - Such stranger can always raise a plea that the Sale Deed was void, fictitious, collusive or not intended to be acted upon and or not binding to him. (Para 9)
(1999) 3 SCC 573 - Relied upon
(c) Property law - Family arrangement - Not required to be registered - Would operate as a complete estoppel against the parties to such a family settlement - A written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence.
(1976) 3 SCC 119; (1973) 2 SCC 312; (2016) 8 SCC 705 - Relied upon
(2018) 14 SCC 814; (2009) 4 SCC 193 - Referred
Facts of the case:
That the respondent herein-original plaintiff instituted the suit praying for the Judgment and Decree in his favour to the effect that he be declared as the owner of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein-original defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Trial Court dismissed the suit.
The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the original plaintiff and confirmed The Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit.
the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has interfered with the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below and consequently has decreed the suit by holding that Exhibit D4 required registration and therefore the same was inadmissible in evidence.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The question of whether the Trial Court could have decided differently is a question of fact, which does not justify interference in a second appeal (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
A registered sale deed, even if registered, does not bind a party who has not signed it. Such a party can raise the plea that the deed is void, fictitious, collusive, or not intended to be acted upon (!) .
Family arrangements or settlements are not required to be registered; they operate as a complete estoppel against the parties and can be used as corroborative evidence. Such documents, though unregistered, can be relied upon for explaining arrangements and conduct of the parties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction under second appeal. Mere disagreement with findings of fact or questions of law not involving a substantial question do not warrant interference (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate courts' appreciation of evidence and factual findings, if supported by reasons, are generally not subject to reappraisal on second appeal, unless there is a violation of principles of natural justice or inadmissible evidence is relied upon (!) (!) (!) .
The admissibility of documents depends on their registration status. An unregistered document required to be registered under law is inadmissible in evidence, but such a document may still be used for collateral purposes or as a family arrangement (!) (!) .
The existence of a family partition, even if oral, can be established through consistent conduct and corroborative evidence, and such arrangements can operate as estoppel even if not registered (!) (!) .
The validity and enforceability of sale deeds depend on signatures of all parties, the consideration paid, and whether the deed was acted upon. Sale deeds not signed by all relevant parties or not acted upon may not establish title (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the primary role of the law is to serve justice, and principles like estoppel and family settlement are not mere technicalities but are vital for fair resolution of disputes (!) (!) .
The High Court's interference with concurrent findings of fact, based on reappreciation of evidence, is generally not permissible on second appeal, especially when the findings are supported by reasons (!) (!) (!) .
The burden of proof regarding ownership, possession, and the validity of documents rests with the party asserting ownership, and unchallenged registered sale deeds are strong evidence of title unless contested on valid grounds (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Disputes regarding consideration, signatures, or whether a sale was a nominal or actual transfer are significant and can impact the validity of title (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts recognize the importance of examining the conduct of the parties, the nature of the documents, and the circumstances surrounding transactions to determine ownership and rights in property disputes (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 25.07.2007 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1033 of 2001, by which, in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein-original plaintiff and has quashed and set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below dismissing the suit, and consequently decreeing the suit, original defendants have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :
That the respondent herein-original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original plaintiff’) instituted the suit in the Court of Munsiff and JMFC at Gubbi (learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gubbi) being Original Suit No.141 of 1984 praying for the Judgment and Decree in his favour to the effect that he be declared as the owner of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein-original defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original defendants’) from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that he has become an owner of the suit property having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed and therefore the defendants have no right whatsoever to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing the written statement. It was the case on behalf of the defendants that husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. A. N. Krishnappa (deceased), purchased the suit property on 12.12.1948 under a registered Sale Deed for a consideration of Rs.400/-. That the suit property was blended into the joint family properties by him. That thereafter the partition between the sons of deceased Nanjappa was recorded on 23.04.1971 and the suit property fell into the share of the deceased A. N. Krishnappa. It was also the case on behalf of the defendants that they are enjoying the possession of the suit property. It was also the case on behalf of the defendants that no Sale Deed has been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged Sale Deed is fabricated by the plaintiff.
2.1 That the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:
“(i) Does the plaintiff prove his title to the suit schedule property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession of the suit schedule property on the date of suit?
(iii) Does the plaintiff prove the interference by the defendants to his possession of the suit property?”
2.2 That both the parties led evidence, both, oral as well as documentary. That after considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties and on appreciation of evidence, learned Trial Court held that there was a partition between family on 23.4.1971 and for that the learned Trial Court observed and held that Exhibit D4 (Partition Deed dated 23.04.1971) is admissible in evidence. The learned Trial Court also observed and held that the suit property was available at the time of partition. The learned Trial Court also observed and held that Exhibit P1 (the Sale Deed relied upon by the original plaintiff) was only a nominal Sale Deed and not an out and out sale deed since Exhibit P1 was executed as security for loan and never intended to sell the suit property. The learned Trial Court also observed and held that the suit property was purchased by late Krishnappa for a sum of Rs.400/- in 1948 and thereafter it is stated to have been sold at Rs.200/- after 16 years i.e. in 1964, which is highly improbable. The learned Trial Court also gave a specific finding that there was a concealment of material facts in the suit, which shows mala fide intention of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court also held that plaintiff, in coll
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
