IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) An agreement without consideration is void but if a document is registered on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other, then such an agreement is not void.
(2) Sale deed registered in normal course of official duties carries presumption of correctness which cannot be said to be illegal only on the basis of feigned ignorance of seller.
(3) A document required by law to be reduced to form of a document – No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms.

Headnote:
(A) Contract Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Void agreement – An agreement without consideration is void but if a document is registered on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other, then such an agreement is not void. (Para 20)
(B) Agreement to Sell – Registered sale-deed – Suit for possession and rendition of accounts decreed, negating plea of fraud raised by defendants – Parties are in near relations, appellant No.1 being elder brother and sale was executed to help his younger brother who was facing auction of property gifted by parents of parties – Even defendants’ witnesses have admitted that there was a notice of Court auction of property in question by beat of drum – If elder brother had come to help of younger brother, discharging his debtors and executing a sale deed mentioning a nominal sale consideration, it cannot be said to be a sale without consideration – It is admitted by respondent No.1 that sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid by appellant No. 1 to discharge his debts – Once there is admission of respondent No. 1 of discharge of his debts by appellant No.1, sale deed registered in normal course of official duties carries presumption of correctness which cannot be said to be illegal only on the basis of feigned ignorance that his signatures were obtained on papers which respondent No. 1 and his wife did not know – Only stand of respondent No.1 is ignorance of nature of document on which his signatures were obtained – Such ignorance is not an instance of misrepresentation or a fraud in facts of present case which would vitiate a sale deed executed and registered with Sub-Registrar – Findings of Courts below that document is without consideration or consideration having not pleaded in plaint or fact that appellant No. 1 has discharged debtors of respondent No. 1 will not render document of sale deed as void – Evidence in support of such sale deed was not required to be pleaded in plaint filed by appellant – Extract from written statement or plaint does not show that there is any pleading of misrepresentation or fraud – Respondents were free to prove fraud in execution of sale deed – However, factually, respondents have not alleged any fraud in their suit or in written statement in suit filed by appellant No. 1 – Findings recorded by First Appellate Court as affirmed by High Court are clearly erroneous in law and set aside – Appeal allowed and judgment and decree passed by trial court in Special Civil Suit restored – Special Civil Suit dismissed – Respondents given two months’ time to vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of property in question. [Order VI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] (Paras 21, 22, 23, 29 and 30)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 92 – Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement – Sale deed is required to be registered – A document required by law to be reduced to form of a document – No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
The legal representatives of the plaintiff have appealed before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 6.7.2005 affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal on 16.8.2006.The plaintiff filed a suit1 (Special Civil Suit No. 55/77/I) seeking possession and accounts from his younger brother-defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) who was given the southern portion of property in question by virtue of a gift deed dated 10.5.1957 executed by the parents of the parties involved. The northern portion was allotted to the plaintiff by the same gift deed.
Findings of Court:
The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent No.1 is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed dated 14.9.1970.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff have appealed before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 6.7.2005 affirmed by the High Court in the Second Appeal on 16.8.2006.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit¹[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘first suit’] (Special Civil Suit No. 55/77/I) seeking possession and accounts from his younger brother-defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) who was given the southern portion of the property in question by virtue of a gift deed dated 10.5.1957 executed by the parents of the parties involved. The northern portion was allotted to the plaintiff by the same gift deed.

3. The plaintiff had inter-alia pleaded that Defendant No. 1 – Jose Francisco Pinto earlier sold his one of his properties to the plaintiff due to failure in timely discharging the debts raised by him in the year 1962. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the southern portion of the property from defendant No. 1 by a registered sale deed after settling the creditors of defendant No. 1 so as to save their ancestral property. The plaintiff, as an elder brother, allowed his younger brother to stay in the house for five years. Defendant No. 1 collected rents from the other defendants as well during this period. The plaintiff filed the first suit on 10.5.1977 relying upon the sale deed executed on 14.9.1970 and registered on 23.9.1970 in respect of southern half of the property called “Pedda”. It is pleaded that defendant Nos. 3 to 9 are occupying the premises as tenants of the six tenements existing in the premises.

4. The plaintiff had pleaded that the suit property after the same was purchased from the defendant No. 1 and his wife Defendant No. 2, the said defendants had created several charges and encumbrances thereon and the plaintiff to prevent its compulsory auction-sale at the instance of one of the creditors, had paid and cleared all those charges and encumbrances thereby spending much more than the market value of the suit property, and that the Defendant No. 1 executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 14.9.1970. Since defendant No. 1 did not vacate the property after the expiry of five years, an Advocate’s notice was sent by registered post on 6.11.1976 calling upon him to surrender the suit property and also to stop collecting rent from the other defendant Nos. 3 to 9. Therefore, the suit was filed claiming vacant possession of the house occupied by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and directing defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to render accounts of the money received by him from defendant Nos. 3 to 9 as rent. In the written statement filed on 11.8.1977, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded as under:

“2. With reference to paragraph 2 of the plaint, these defendants submit that they are not aware of any property sold by these defendants to the plaintiff. Defendants however recollect that the plaintiff had represented to them in the office of the Sub Registrar of Margao certain documents purported to be a document in respect of an amount of Rs.12000/- which was paid by him to the creditors of defendant no. 1. Under such pretext the plaintiff managed to obtain the signatures of the defendants no. 1 and 2 who do not know to read or write except that they write their own name. These defendants deny having sold their property to the plaintiff mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint.”

5. Another suit, namely, Special Civil Suit No. 71/80/I²[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘second suit’] was filed by the respondents on 1.7.1980 against the appellants, inter-alia, on the ground that they had never sold the southern half of the suit property to the appellants nor intend to sell the same to any person. It was also claimed that they had never executed any sale deed in favour of the appellants nor received any amount as consideration of the sale. It was specifically pleaded as under:

“13. The plaintiffs state that they never executed the sale deed of the suit property and they had neve