Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Thulasidhara & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Narayanappa & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2010
Decided On : 01-05-2019
Sale Deed - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Exhibit D4 (Partition Deed dated 23.04.1971) - Exhibit P1 (Sale Deed) - Exhibit P2 (Sale Deed) - The court discussed the admissibility of documents, including the Partition Deed and Sale Deeds, and their implications on the ownership of the suit property. The court also considered the legal principles of family settlement, estoppel, and the requirement of registration under the Registration Act. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering all relevant evidence and the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The original Plaintiff filed a suit seeking ownership of a property, claiming purchase under a registered Sale Deed. The Defendants contested, alleging the property was part of joint family assets and challenging the authenticity of the Sale Deed. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and setting aside findings of the lower courts. The Sale Deed (Exhibit P1) was not binding on the Defendants, and the Partition Deed (Exhibit D4) was admissible as corroborative evidence. The subsequent Sale Deed (Exhibit P2) was found to be sham due to discrepancies in the sale consideration.
Issues: Admissibility of Sale Deeds and Partition Deed, ownership of the suit property, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to substantial questions of law. The Sale Deed (Exhibit P1) was not binding on the Defendants, and the Partition Deed (Exhibit D4) was admissible as corroborative evidence. The subsequent Sale Deed (Exhibit P2) was found to be sham due to discrepancies in the sale consideration.
Final Decision: The High Court's judgment and Order were quashed and set aside, and the judgment and Decree passed by the lower courts dismissing the suit were restored, resulting in the dismissal of the original Plaintiff's suit.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited to substantial questions of law, and it should not reappreciate findings of fact made by lower courts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The admissibility of documents such as Sale Deeds and Partition Deeds is a significant issue. Sale Deeds, especially when not signed by all relevant parties, may not be binding or may be considered sham or nominal, and their enforceability depends on whether they were acted upon and whether the sale consideration was genuine (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The status of the Partition Deed (Exhibit D4) is crucial; although it was unregistered and thus inadmissible as a registered document, it can still serve as corroborative evidence or a family arrangement, especially if it is described as a list of properties or family settlement, which may not require registration (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the property was initially purchased by a family member and later transferred into joint family assets, with subsequent family arrangements and oral or written partitions affecting ownership rights (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The validity of the Sale Deed relied upon by the plaintiff is contested, with arguments that it was a nominal or security document, not an out-and-out sale, and that it was not signed by all relevant parties, especially the original vendor Krishnappa (!) (!) (!) .
The subsequent Sale Deed (Exhibit P2) was also challenged as sham, with discrepancies in the sale consideration and evidence suggesting it was not genuinely intended or acted upon (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized the importance of examining the conduct of the parties, the circumstances surrounding the transactions, and the nature of the evidence to determine ownership, rather than relying solely on formal registration or documentation (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court's interference by reappreciating evidence and setting aside the findings of fact made by the lower courts was found to be unwarranted and exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 100 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the original suit was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were restored, affirming the importance of proper legal procedures, genuine transaction evidence, and the limits of appellate review in factual matters (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific details on any point.
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J. - 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 he
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
