2010 Supreme(SC) 710

2010 (6) Supreme 769
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
D.R. Rathna Murthy — Appellant
versus
Ramappa — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6396 of 2002
Decided on : 8-10-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
A document may be admissible but probative value of the entries contained therein may still be required to be examined.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the Second Appeal, provided the findings recorded by the courts below are found to be perverse – Although there is no absolute bar on the re-appreciation of evidence in second appeal, such a course is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. (Para 7)

        AIR 2000 SC 2108; (2001) 7 SCC 189; JT 2010 (5) SC 534 – Relied upon

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 463 – The part of the contract inserted after execution of the document cannot be binding upon the party – It is a clear cut case of manipulation/fraud. (Para 8)

        AIR 1990 SC 1173 – Relied upon

        (c) Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 – Rule 41 – If there are unattested interlineations, alterations, erasures or blanks, which the Registering Officer considers should be attested, by the signatures of the executant, he shall not alter the document himself in any way. (Para 11)

        (d) Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 – Rule 42 – It mandatorily requires that if there is any interlineation, erasure, alteration etc., it must be mentioned and described at the foot of the document and must be duly signed by the executant before the document is accepted for registration. (Para 12)

        (e) Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 – Rule 42 – Insertions /lineations not complying with Rule 42 are invalid – The party concerned cannot derive any benefit out of it. (Para 12)

        (f) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Animus to attestation totally absent – A document may be admissible but probative value of the entries contained therein may still be required to be examined. (Para 15)

        AIR 1983 SC 1984; JT 2010 (5) SC 534 – Relied upon

        (g) Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 – Rule 42 – Appellant claiming to have purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and selling the same on the very next date for a sum of Rs.10,000/- reserving his right to purchase the land for the same consideration within a period of ten years – Highly improbable – Normally would not agree for reconveyance for the same consideration for the reason that the value of the land generally goes upwards and within a period of ten years it could have at least become double. (Para 16)

        (2008) 17 SCC 133; (2009) 14 SCC 758 – Relied upon

        (h) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 r/w Rule 42, Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 – Additions made in the sale deed after execution without the consent and knowledge of the respondent – These are void and therefore cannot be binding on the respondent – Moreover, the additions being surrounded by the suspicious circumstances, the same are required to be ignored – Further, the contract being severable, and the terms of contract included by these additions being void, cannot be taken note of. (Para 17)

       Facts of the case:

        1. D.R. Rathna Murthy, had purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed from one A.M. Venkatachalapathy Setty.

        2. On the very next day, the appellant sold the said land vide registered sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, to the defendant/respondent for consideration of Rs.10,000/- only and delivered the possession to him in pursuance whereof the respondent is in possession of the suit land.

        3. The appellant subsequently served a legal notice upon the respondent demanding the reconveyance of the suit property on the ground that registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent was a conditional sale deed and appellant had a right to repurchase the sale land for the same consideration within a period of ten years from the date of execution of the sale deed.

        4. The appellant filed suit before the court of Munsiff and JMFC Court, seeking the relief of specific performance of reconveyance contending the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent was a conditional sale.

        5. The trial court dismissed the Suit.

        6. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal.

        7. The High Court allowed the second appeal.

       Finding of the Court:

        It is abundantly clear that the appellant has made inter-lineations after the document stood executed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.