Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20364
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
AMBIKA SOMASEKHARAN – Appellant
Versus
P.SASILATHA – Respondent
RSA 386/2024
A registered document's validity is upheld in court absent strong evidence of forgery or execution issues, with limitations barring late claims.
Headnote:
Property - Appeal - O.S. No.163/2013 - The court upheld the dismissal of the suit, confirming that the disputed document was valid as evidence of ownership, as there was insufficient proof to suggest forgery or lack of execution by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration that a sale deed was void and sought an injunction against trespass, alleging the deed was created fraudulently by the first defendant who claimed ownership via a counterclaim.
Issues: Whether the sale deed was valid and executed by the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The validity of a registered document cannot be contested without substantial evidence, and lack of timely challenge to the ownership inquiry results in barring claims by limitation.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2024
1. The appellant was the Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant in O.S. No.163/2013 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara. The parties are referred according to their status before the Trial Court.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that Ext.A2 document is null and void and not binding from the plaintiff and for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, committing waste therein and from destroying the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is 14.74 ares (34.5 cents) of land comprised in Survey Nos.293/23 B and 292/24 of Thriperumthura Village. According to the plaintiff she had certain borrowals from the 1 st defendant and the 1 st defendant obtained blank papers and with signatures and thumb impressions from her as a security for the said borrowals and misusing those papers the 1st defendant illegally created Ext.A2 sale Deed with respect to the plaint schedule property and mortgaged the same with the 2 nd respondent.
3. The 1 st defendant raised a Counterclaim for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profit on the contention that the 1st defendant is the title holder of the plaint schedule property on the basis of Ext.A2 document and the plaintiff trespassed into the plaint schedule property.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit with cost and decreed the counterclaim declaring that the 1st defendant has title over the counterclaim schedule property as identified as 'EFGHTSRQPONMKJI' Plot in Ext.C3 (a) plan and allowing recovery of the same and also granting permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into counterclaim schedule property and from committing any mischief therein. Though the plaintiff filed appeal before the First Appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
5. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Ext.A2 document is not executed by the plaintiff;that the 1st defendant forged the said document by using the signed stamp papers with thumb impression obtained by the 1st defendant as a security for the amounts paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff; that the plaint schedule property is always in the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not part possession of the same at any point of time; that the plaint schedule property is not the property identified by the Advocate Commissioner and hence the decree cannot be given on the basis of the same.
7. Though the contention of the plaintiff was that she had not put thumb impression and signature at the Sub-Registrar Office, the plaintiff did not take any steps to prove that the signatures and thumb impression in Ext.A2 do not belong to her. The Ext.A2 document contains the photographs of the plaintiff also. Hence there is no chance of any impersonation before the Registrar. Since Ext.A2 document is a registered document having photograph of the plaintiff therein and the plaintiff did not take any steps to prove that she had not put her thumb impression and signature at the Sub-Registrar Office, the plaintiff could not contend that it is not executed by her.
8. Though the contention of the plaintiff is that the entire amount borrowed from the 1st defendant is repaid by her, no evidence was adduced with respect to the same. The Ext.A2 is of the year 2008 and the suit is filed in the year 2013, no sufficient explanation is given as to why the suit was filed in the year 2013. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court rightly found that the suit filed on
22.05.2013, after period of 5 years is barred by limitation. There is no evidence to show that the transaction as per Ext.A2 document was not a real sale and it is intended only as a security for money transaction.
9. The Advocate Commi
