The duty to rebut the recitals of a registered document and the inadmissibility of evidence to disprove a sale agreement.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, passed in A.S.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 14.12.2015, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 25.09.2014.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, passed in A.S.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, dated 14.12.2015, modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 25.09.2014. The appellant herein is the defendant, the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. The respondents 2 to 4 herein are the LRs of the first respondent / plaintiff.

2. Brief substance of the plaint, in O.S.No.16 of 2012 is as follows:

The suit property belonged to the defendant through a sale deed, dated 12.02.2010. After the purchase, the defendant constructed a building in the suit property. On 24.01.2011, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.5,50,000/-. On the date of the sale agreement, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the defendant and the time for payment of the balance was fixed as one year. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to fulfill his part of the contract. On the date of sale agreement, the plaintiff handed over the documents 2 to 11. The defendant refused to execute the sale deed and he lodged a complaint before the Police and later, he filed a petition before the criminal Court to register a case against the petitioner. The sale agreement was not executed as a security for a loan transaction. Though in the enquiry before the police, the defendant has admitted to repay Rs.4,00,000/- with 24% interest from 24.01.2011 within a period of 7 days, the defendant failed to repay the amount and the defendant is trying to alienate the property.

3. Brief substance of the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 2012 is as follows:-

3.1. It is true that the property belonged to the defendant and the defendant constructed a building in the suit property. But, the defendant did not enter into any sale agreement with the plaintiff. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff through one Sakthikumar and agreed to pay Rs.6/- per Rs.100/- as monthly interest. The plaintiff obtained the sale agreement as a security and he has obtained the original documents and he obtained the signature of the defendant in blank pronotes and promised to cancel the sale agreement after the payment is made.

3.2. On the promise of the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and handed over the original documents and executed a registered sale agreement. At the time of execution, the defendant handed over blank pronotes and 9 cheque leaves. On 02.02.2011, the plaintiff received an interest of Rs.12,000/-. The plaintiff utilized one of the blank cheque leaf to receive the interest. The plaintiff received Rs.90,000/- from March – 2011, till September – 2011. Subsequently, during September-2011, the plaintiff demanded interest at the rate of Rs.9/- for Rs.100/- per month. The defendant utilized two cheques and received Rs.18,000/- from each of the cheque leaves. The plaintiff threatened the defendant to execute a sale deed and tortured the defendant by demanding exorbitant interest. The plaintiff filed a case before the police Commissioner. The plaintiff influenced the police and they failed to take action. The defendant filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate against the plaintiff and one Sakthikumar. On the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, a case in Crime No.20 of 2012 was registered against the plaintiff under Section 420 I.P.C and under the Exorbitant Interest Act. Only to escape from the criminal case, the plaintiff has filed this civil suit.

4.