Back
2002 Supreme(MP) 159
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. Agrawal
SATISH KUMAR MATHURA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
JAGDAMBA PRASAD, NARMADA PRASAD - Respondents
S. A. 47 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/07/2002
A.K.JAIN, Subhash Gupta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of oral evidence to prove a document as nominal or sham, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the standard of proof required.
Headnote:
Section 100 - Civil Procedure Code - Evidence Act - Sale-deed, reconveyance agreement, and loan transaction - The court considered the admissibility of oral evidence to prove a document as a nominal or sham document, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the standard of proof required. The court also analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the nature of the transactions and the validity of the sale deed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a sale-deed, reconveyance agreement, and loan transaction between the parties. The trial court dismissed the civil suit for specific performance of a contract, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The second appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the nature of the sale deed and the validity of the lower courts' findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed executed in favor of the respondent was sham and nominal, conveying no title. It also held that the suit for specific performance of the contract was barred by limitation. The court allowed the appeal and declared the sale deed as sham and nominal, without conveying any title.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the sale deed, the validity of the lower courts' findings, and the admissibility of oral evidence to prove a document as nominal or sham.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the admissibility of oral evidence to prove a document as nominal or sham, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the standard of proof required. It also analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the nature of the transactions and the validity of the sale deed.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the sale deed executed in favor of the respondent was declared as sham and nominal, without conveying any title. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of both the courts below.
( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the code of Civil procedure (to be called as 'code' only ).
( 2 ) LATE Mathura Prasad had two sons. Satish Kumar (A-1) and Ramesh Kumar (who died in year 1988 whose widow Smt. Shashikala is A-2 ). Late Mathura Prasad had executed a sale-deed on 15-9-1960 in favour of Dayashankar son of Ramnath Choubey for rs. 2000/ -. A rent-note was also executed by late Mathura Prasad on monthly rent of Rs. 40/ -. An agreement for reconveyance was simultaneously executed which was renewed on 14-9-1962. On 9-1-1963 said Dayashankar son of Ramnath Choubey and late Mathura prasad executed a sale-deed in favour of jagdamba Prasad (R-l) for Rs. 2500/ -.
( 3 ) AS per plaint, late Mathura Prasad required money for marriage of his daughter. He had taken a loan of Rs. 2000/- from dayashankar son of Ramnath Choubey, The sale-deed dated 15. 9. 1960 was executed as a security for repayment of loan. However, late mathura Prasad could not arrange money for repayment. He had to approach Jagdamba prasad (R-1l) for loan. Dayashankar and late mathura Prasad executed the sale-deed in favour of Jagdamba Prasad (R-1) and loan of dayashankar was paid. Jagdamba Prasad (R-1)had agreed to reconvey the house on payment of Rs. 3300/ -. It was claimed that jagdamba Prasad (R-l) had agreed to take Rs. 50/- as interest which was being paid as rent by the tenant Kailash Chandra Choubey (R-3 ). Late Mathura Prasad always requested for reconveyance yet Jagdamba Prasad (R-1)avoided. Jagdamba Prasad (R-l) somehow got mutated the name of Dilip Kumar (R-2) to the suit house and a quit notice was given on 6-9-1989 to Kailash Chandra Choubey (R-3) claiming that Satish Kumar (A-1) and his brother ramesh Kumar (since dead) were sub-tenant of Kailash Chandra Choubey (R-3), hence the suit for execution of sale-deed after taking Rs. 3300/-, for declaration that any conveyance by Jagdamba Prasad (R-l) in favour of Dilip kumar (R-2) was null and void and that Kailash chandra Choubey (R-3) is really a tenant of the appellants.
( 4 ) ON the other hand, both Jagdamba prasad (R-1) and Dilip Kumar (R-2) in their joint written statement disclaimed that either of the sale-deeds executed on 15-9-1960 or 9-1-1963 was mere security for loan. It was claimed that sale in favour of Jagdamba Prasad (R-1)was an out and out sale with facility for reconveyance. Late Mathura Prasad had sold his right of conveyance also. Late Mathura prasad was tenant of Jagdamba Prasad (R-1)on monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. On 16-12-1965 satish Kumar (A-1) and his brother Ramesh kumar (since dead) had paid Rs. 1800/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 170/- as cost of extra facility. An agreement for reconveyance was reduced on 16-12-1965. It was claimed that both the brothers had vacated the suit house on 1-6-1967 and Kedar Nath Choubey, the brother of Kailash Chandra Choubey (R-3) was inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 50/- which was enhanced to Rs. 100/- in due course. Anyhow it was claimed that Kailash chandra Choubey (R-3) had left the suit house in August 1989 inducting the appellants as his sub-tenants. It was further claimed that suit for specific performance of contract was badly barred by limitation. Prices of immovable property had risen and now it will be unfair and inequitable to grant any such specific performance.
( 5 ) AFTER record of evidence, the trial Court held that sale-deed dated 9-1-1963 had not conveyed any title to Jagdamba Prasad (R-1 ). Sale-deed was executed as a security for loan. Anyhow on 16-12-1965 Jagdamba Prasad (R-1)had agreed to reconvey the house on payment of Rs. 3300/ -. However the appellants were not vigilant to get executed the sale-deed in their favour in time. Kailash Chandra choubey (R-3) has not proved to be a tenant of appellant. Any how the civil suit for specific performance of a contract dated 16-12-1965, filed on 24-10-1989 was barred by limitation and thus the civil suit was dismissed. T
