Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Rathnavelu - Appellant
Versus
S. Lakshmi Ammal - Respondent
S.A. No. 1181 of 2006
Decided On : 10-03-2020
For the Appellant:Chitra Sampath, Senior Counsel, R. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Gururaj, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fraudulent nature of the sale deed, misrepresentation of sale consideration, and the requirement of evidence to prove ownership.
Headnote:
Fraudulent Sale Deed - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act - [FRAUDULENT SALE DEED] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act] - The court discussed the fraudulent nature of the sale deed, the provisions under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the lack of evidence to prove ownership, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and means profit for a property purchased with an incomplete house. The defendant denied the ownership claim and filed a counter claim, alleging the sale deed was a mortgage. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court partly allowed the appeals and directed the defendant to pay a sum to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was fraudulent, the sale consideration was misrepresented, and there was a lack of evidence to prove ownership. The first appellate court's decision was upheld, and the second appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the sale deed, the validity of the sale consideration, and the lack of evidence to establish ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed was fraudulent, the sale consideration was misrepresented, and there was a lack of evidence to prove ownership, leading to the dismissal of the second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 made in A.S.No.15 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2004 made in O.S.No.135 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.)
1. This second appeal is directed as against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 made in A.S.No.15 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2004 made in O.S.No.135 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-
3.1. The suit is filed for declaration, recovery of possession and also for means profit. The suit property is a vacant site with an incomplete house, which was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1991 for the sale consideration of Rs.31,500/- from the defendant. Since the construction was incomplete, the property was mentioned as vacant site and the sale consideration mentioned as Rs.31,500/-. But actual sale consideration paid by the plaintiff was Rs.1,65,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff by way of banker cheque in favour of the husband of the defendant. Remaining amount of the sale consideration was paid in cash to the defendant by power of attorney of the plaintiff on the date of sale.
3.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed pacca house in the year 1994 and assessed to the house tax. The said house was rented out to the husband of the defendant for the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.650/- and he was paying the rent till his death viz., 15.07.1999. Thereafter, the defendant attorned the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant has to pay monthly rent. However the defendant failed to pay any rent and denied the tenancy and claimed ownership of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration, recovery of possession and also for means profit.
4. Resisting the same, the defendant filed written statement along with counter claim and stated that the plaintiff is nor the owner of the suit property and he never hold ownership on either the land or over the super structure. There was no land lord or tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The present suit has been filed only to grab the suit property. The defendant never sold the vacant site or super structure in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- to meet out medical expenses for his son, who was suffering from brain tumour, from the plaintiff. While borrowing the said loan for security purpose, the sale deed referred by the plaintiff emerged. In fact, on the date of alleged sale there was a pucca building, since the entire construction was completed even in the year 1988. Thereafter the grahapravesam was also performed by the defendant. The defendant is an illiterate lady and she only knows to sign. Further she stated that she never part his possession relating to the suit property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interference. She also ready and willing to pay the principle amount and redeemed the mortgage by depositing the sum of Rs.31,500/- and she prayed for dismissal of the suit and declare that the simple mortgage dated 03.06.1991 shall stand discharged on payment of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff.
5. On the side of the plaintiff, he examined P.W.1 and were marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On the side of the defendant, she examined D.W.1 to D.W.7 and were marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.42. On perusal of the material produced on record and on considering both the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and also the submissions made, the trial Court decr
