Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 818
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
P.R. Subramaniya Raja & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
K. Pandaram & Ors. - Respondents
A.S(MD). Nos. 75 of 2019 & 192 of 2021 & C.M.P(MD). No. 3819 of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2023
For the Parties :R.J. Karthick, A. Balaji, Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, Advocates.
The burden of proof in establishing transactions and the justification for imposing costs.
Headnote:
sale deed - property dispute - [Section 96 of C.P.C] - [O.S.No.22 of 2012] - The court discussed the sale deed, loan transaction, and arrears of rent. The key legal provisions discussed include burden of proof, consideration for sale, and imposition of costs. The court emphasized the importance of establishing transactions and the burden of proof on the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs purchased a property from the first defendant, who disputed the sale and claimed it was a loan transaction. The second defendant, a tenant, failed to pay arrears of rent, leading to the lawsuit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first defendant's claim of a loan transaction was not supported by evidence, and the sale deed was valid. The imposition of costs on the second defendant was deemed improper due to a dispute between the parties.
Issues: Dispute over sale deed, loan transaction, arrears of rent, and imposition of costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies on parties to establish transactions. Imposition of costs should be justified and not arbitrary.
Final Decision: A.S.(MD).No.192 of 2021 is allowed, and A.S.(MD).No.75 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.
First Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, so far as imposing cost on the appellant/2nd defendant is concerned.)
Common Judgment:
1. These first appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, in O.S.No.22 of 2012.
2. A.S.No.75 of 2019 has been filed by the first defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of declaration and consequential direction to pay the arrears of rent by the second defendant.
3. A.S.No.192 of 2021 is filed by the second defendant challenging the cost imposed by the trial Court in depositing the arrears in time.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of these first appeals are as follows:
(i) The plaintiffs had purchased a property from the first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs only). The consideration has been paid through the cheques of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. The sale was registered on 22.12.2011 and the possession was also handed over to the plaintiffs. However, the second defendant, who was in possession of the property as tenant, despite notice, has not paid the arrears of rent. Hence, the suit has been filed.
(ii) The first defendant took a stand that he never intended to sell the property. He received a sum of Rs.37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs only) from the plaintiff only towards loan transaction and has also started in making the payment, since he has not intended for selling the property and it is only a loan transaction. The sale deed was executed towards the said loan amount. The contention of the plaintiffs that the first defendant has sold the property to them, has been disputed by the first defendant. The further contention is that though signature of the first defendant was found on the backside of the cheques, he has not received any consideration. The second defendant filed a statement to the effect that on 04.01.2011, he has received a communication from the first defendant that he has pledged the said property to the plaintiffs as security for a period of three months and within the said period, he will recover the property and has directed the second defendant to pay the rent to the first defendant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
(i) whether the plaintiff are entitled for declaration that the plaintiff''s are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?
(ii) whether the plaintiff are entitled for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men, agents etc., not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff''s over the plaint scheduled property in any manner?
(iii) whether the plaintiff are entitled for mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiff''s until the 2nd defendant deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiff''s?
(iv) to what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?
5. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B17 were marked.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant in A.S(MD).No.75 of 2019 would submit that though the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs, the first defendant had never intended to sell the property, deed has been executed for loan transaction. However, he has not received any consideration and the consideration was also not proved. The
