IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 SA.No. 128 of 1995(F) --------------------- AS.38/1991 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD OS.5/1989 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------- 1. PARAMESHWARI, W/O.KUNHA NAIK, CHOWRKAD, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, ADYANADKA P.O., KASARAGOPD DIST. 2. VARIJA,W/O.VASANTHA NAKKOOR, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, NETTANIGE PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------- (*)AITHU NAIKA, S/O.KRISHNA NAIKA, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE, NETTANIGE P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) ADDL.RESPONDENTS: 2. DEVAKI, W/O.AITHU NAIK, AGED 55 YEARS, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUNDARA NAIK, S/O.AITHU NAIK, AGED 35 YEARS, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. KRISHNA NAIK,, S/O.AITHU NAIK, AGED 32 YEARS, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. (**)[KUSUMA NAIK], D/O..AITHU NAIK, AGED 28 YEARS, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. REGHUNATH NAIK, , S/O.AITHU NAIK, AGED 25 YEARS, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. SA NO.128/1995 2 (***)7. LALITHA, D/O.AITHU NAIK, AGED 42 YEARS, YELAKKIMOOLA, NETTANIGE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. (*)ADDL.R2 TO R6 IMPLEADED AS THE LRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.9.2007 IN IA NO.2235/2004. (**)THE NAME OF ADDL.R5 IS CORRECTED AS 'KUSUMAVATHI NAIK' INSTEAD OF 'KUSUMA' VIDE ORDER DATED 12.6.2008 IN IA NO.1850/2007. (***)ADDL.R7 ALSO IMPLEADED AS THE LR OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.3.2008 IN IA NO.1848/2007. ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR ADDL.R2 TO 6 SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R2 TO 6 SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN FOR ADDL.R2 TO 7 SRI ARUN VISWANATH FOR ADDL.R7 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, ALONG WITH SA NO. 215 OF 1995 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- S.A.Nos.128 & 215 of 1995 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT These Second Appeals arise from O.S.Nos.5 of 1989 and 106 of 1989 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod. Following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision: i. Whether first appellate court was legally correct in holding that since Ext.B1, agreement is invalid by operation of law, the terms and conditions mentioned therein cannot be taken into account? ii. Whether custody of title deeds alone could be conclusive evidence of proving possession of the property? iii. Whether in the light of the evidence on record, first appellate court was legally correct in reversing finding of the trial court as to the genuineness of Ext.B1 and possession claimed by defendant No.2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.5 of 1989 for convenience. SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 2 2. Dispute is concerning alleged agreements for sale and consequent possession of 2.69 acres of land. It is not disputed that the said property belonged to defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5 of 1989 as per sale deed dated 27.6.1979 executed by one Modavathy. Plaintiff in that suit is the brother of defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, he had an oral agreement for sale of the suit property with his sister, defendant No.1 on 15.1.1988 as per which he agreed to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and paid Rs.2,000/- by way of advance to defendant No.1. Time for execution of the sale deed was fixed as one year. Balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is claimed that pursuant to the oral agreement for sale he was put in possession of the property on the date of agreement itself and the documents of title concerning the said property were also given to him. He effected improvements in the suit property. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. While so plaintiff learnt that defendant No.1 is attempting to transfer the property to defendant No.2. Plaintiff is unaware of the transaction between defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff issued notice to defendant No.1 on 11.10.1988 demanding compliance with the alleged oral agreement for sale. Defendant No.1 gave a reply dated 28.10.1988 denying the oral agreement for sale and setting up an agreement for sale dated 10.8.1988 in favour of defendant No.2. Hence the suit. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying that there was no such oral agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and that it is not correct to say that plaintiff was put in possession of the property. Defendant No.1 had executed an SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 3 agreement for sale (Ext.B1) in favour of defendant No.2 on 10.8.1988 agreeing to sell the suit property to defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs.7,000/-, received Rs.3,000/- by way of advance and put defendant No.2 in possession of the property. Since defendant No.1 is a member of the Scheduled Tribe, permission was required from the District Collector for execution of the sale deed. At that time plaintiff who is the brother of defendant No.1 stepped in offering to help defendant No.1 to obtain permission. On that representation defendant No.1 handed over her documents of title to the plaintiff for the said purpose. It is only on getting notice from the plaintiff that defendant No.1 learnt that she was misled by the plaintiff. According to defendant Nos.1 and 2, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 3. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.5 of 1989 filed O.S.No.106 of 1989 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989 claiming that pursuant to Ext.B1, agreement for sale dated 10.8.1988 she had with defendant No.1, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989 is attempting to trespass into the suit property. Hence she prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction. Trial court upheld Ext.B1, agreement for sale allegedly executed between defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 10.8.1988, found against the oral agreement for sale dated 15.1.1988 pleaded by the plaintiff, found that original title deeds of defendant No.1 happened to be in the custody of plaintiff in the circumstances pleaded by defendant Nos.1 and 2, defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit property and consequently dismissed O.S.No.5 of 1989. SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 4 A decree for prohibitory injunction was granted against the plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989, in O.S.No.106 of 1989. Common judgment and decree were challenged by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989 (defendant in O.S.No.106 of 1989) before learned Sub Judge, Kasaragod in A.S.Nos.38 of 1991 and 39 of 1991. Learned Sub Judge was of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the case of plaintiff and witnesses as to the alleged oral agreement for sale on 15.1.1988 and that custody of documents of title with the plaintiff supported that claim. Learned Sub Judge held against execution of Ext.B1, agreement for sale dated 10.8.1988 and was of the view that it is illegal being against the provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Registration of Transfer of Lands and Registration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (for short, “the Act”). Consequently, in reversal of the common judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, O.S.No.5 of 1989 was decreed and O.S.No.106 of 1989 was dismissed. Common judgment and decree of the first appellate court are under challenge in these appeals. It is argued by learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.5 of 1989 and plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 1989 (appellants) that the first appellate court was not legally or factually correct in reversing the finding of fact entered by the learned Munsiff. According to the learned counsel, finding of the first appellate court that there was an oral agreement for sale on 15.1.1988 is factually and legally unsustainable. Learned counsel for plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989 and defendant in O.S.No.106 of 1989 (respondent in the Second Appeals) would contend that there is no evidence to show that it was in the circumstances pleaded by defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the original documents of title pertaining to the suit SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 5 property were given to the plaintiff. It is contended by the learned counsel that the custody of original documents with the plaintiff corroborated his case about oral agreement for sale on 15.1.1988. Learned counsel contends that finding entered by the first appellate court being one of fact on the strength of evidence on record involves no substantial question of law requiring interference by this Court. 4. It is true that the first appellate court entered into a finding of fact regarding the alleged agreements for sale and possession of the suit property and found in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989. When a finding of fact is entered on evidence on record that does not involve any substantial question of law but when the finding is based on erroneous impressions or, on perverse appreciation of evidence, that necessarily involved a substantial question of law as held by the Supreme Court in Maria Colaco and another v. Alba Flora Herminda D'Souza and others [(2008) 5 SCC 268]. Therefore I am to decide whether finding of the first appellate court is perverse or is supported by evidence on record. To decide that, it is necessary to refer to the evidence let in by the parties. 5. So far as the plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989 is concerned, he banks upon the alleged oral agreement for sale on 15.1.1988 with his sister, defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has stoutly denied that there was any such agreement for sale. Ext.A4 is the original assignment deed dated 27.6.1979 in favour of SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 6 defendant No.1 executed by Modavathy. Ext.A5 is the registered receipt executed by Modavathy in favour of defendant No.1. Ext.A6 is the prior document of Ext.A4. Ext.A7 series are receipts for payment of revenue for various periods. Among Ext.A7 series, Exts.A7, A7(a), A7(f) and A7(g) are receipts which came into existence after the alleged oral agreement for sale on 15.1.1988. Other revenue receipts among Ext.A7 series were obtained before 15.1.1988. All the receipts are in the name of defendant No.1. Plaintiff gave evidence as PW1 and stated to his case. PWs 2 and 3 claimed to have been present at the time of oral agreement for sale. On the other hand, husband of defendant No.1 in O.S.No.5 of 1989 has given evidence as DW1. He denied that there was any oral agreement for sale. He deposed in favour of Ext.B1, unregistered agreement for sale dated 10.8.1988 executed between defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.5 of 1989. Ext.B2 series are receipts for payment of revenue and are dated 20.8.1988, 10.5.1989 and 18.5.1990 all in the name of defendant No.1. All those receipts are procured after Ext.B1, agreement for sale dated 10.8.1988. DW2 is one of the attesting witness in Ext.B1 and DW3 is its scribe. DWs 2 and 3 gave evidence in support of due execution of Ext.B1. According to DW3, he prepared Ext.B1 on the basis of the original title deed entrusted to him by defendant No.1 and it was returned to her (after the purpose was over). It is their case that of the sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- defendant No.2 has paid Rs.3,000/- by way of advance at the time execution of Ext.B1. DW1, husband of defendant No.1 also stated that defendant No.1 SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 7 handed over the documents to the plaintiff about ten days after Ext.B1 for applying for permission from the District Collector for sale of the property to defendant No.2. 6. Trial court has referred to the entire evidence on record, held that evidence of DWs 1 to 3 is sufficient to prove due execution of Ext.B1, agreement for sale dated 10.8.1988 and that possession of the property was given to defendant No.2. Trial court observed that PWs 2 and 3 are not even able to say about the month and year of the alleged oral agreement. Their evidence is quite insufficient and unsatisfactory to find in favour of alleged oral agreement for sale. 7. So far as the finding entered by the trial court is concerned, it is settled position of law that when it depends on appreciation of oral evidence, the first appellate court will not be justified in interfering with such finding unless there is something in the evidence of witness which escaped notice of the trial court and which if considered would have tilted the decision in favour of the appellant. Therefore, first appellate court in this case could have come to a different conclusion only if in the evidence of witnesses there was something which would have tilted the decision in favour of the plaintiff and which went unnoticed by the learned Munsiff. No such situation arises in this case. On the contrary, In this case, evidence of PWs 2 and 3 would show that they have no idea about the alleged oral agreement for sale except that they claimed that they SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 8 were also present in the house of plaintiff when the alleged oral agreement entered into. It has come in evidence that PW2 is residing a kilometre away from the suit property. He would say that Rs.2,000/- was given to D.W.1, husband of defendant No.1 but plaintiff has no such case. PW2 was not able to say the month or year of the alleged oral agreement for sale. He does not know the terms and conditions of the agreement. Though he stated that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that himself has a property adjacent to the suit property, he was not able to say about the boundaries of the suit property. If that be so, the version of PW2 that he owns property adjacent to the suit property is difficult for acceptance. A further fact to be noted is that PW2 was involved in a criminal case for setting fire to his own house and was in remand in the Sub Jail for two months but he does not know who had bailed him out offering himself as a surety. It was suggested that plaintiff was his surety. He pleaded ignorance. PW2 said that he does not remember an easy way of avoiding a question which may produce an embarrassing answer. There is reason to think that PW2 was suppressing his propensity to the plaintiff in whose favour he spoke about the alleged oral agreement for sale, may be for the favour he received from the plaintiff when he was in trouble. So far as PW3 is concerned, he stated that the alleged oral agreement for sale was about three years back (of his examination) and that the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- was agreed to be paid within a year. But according to the plaintiff (as PW1) sale deed was to be executed within six months. PW3 was also not able to say about the details of negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 9 regarding the alleged oral agreement for sale. He could only say that the transaction was sometime in January, 1988. Though PW3 claimed that he could speak about all boundaries of the suit property and stated that on the southern side it is the road he could not say anything about other boundaries of the suit property. So far as the evidence of plaintiff as PW1 is concerned, in cross examination he stated that himself and defendant No.1 were in good terms. He was also not able to say how many years back the oral agreement for sale was entered into. He stated that for the sum of Rs.2,000/- paid by way of advance no receipt was taken from defendant No.1. It may be remembered that there was admittedly no document to evidence the alleged oral agreement in which case prudence required plaintiff to get atleast a receipt for the advance sum of Rs.2,000/-. He admitted that in the plaint in O.S.No.5 of 1989 or in the notice which preceded that suit he has not mentioned about the presence of witnesses (PWs 2 and 3) at the time of alleged oral agreement for sale. 8. On the other hand there is evidence of DWs 1 to 3. It is true that defendant No.1 did not enter the box to deny the oral agreement for sale and speak about Ext.B1. But it is not disputed by the plaintiff that Ext.B1 contained the signature of defendant No.1. Regarding the execution of Ext.B1, her husband has given evidence as DW1. He stated that defendant No.1 was laid up and undergoing treatment at the time of evidence and hence could not come to the witness box. I am not able to say that merely because defendant No.1 has not entered the box her case has to be thrown out. DWs 2 and 3 it is not SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 10 disputed are of the attesting witnesses and the scribe in Ext.B1. They have given evidence about the transaction. According to them, Ext.B1, agreement was executed at the office of DW3 on the date stated in Ext.B1. Thus, there is convincing evidence given by DWs 1 to 3 regarding execution of Ext.B1. 9. Indisputably, the original title deeds of defendant No.1 are with the plaintiff and he produced the same in court. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have an explanation for that - to facilitate the transfer of property in favour of defendant No.1 pursuant to Ext.B1 since defendant No.2 is not a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and defendant No.1 being a person of that Tribe it required permission of the District Collector for transfer of property in favour of defendant No.2. In such a situation, plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989 offered to help defendant No.1 and in that circumstance documents of title were handed over to the plaintiff. DW1 has given evidence that this was done about ten days after Ext.B1. It is true that no receipt for such handing over of the original documents of title are produced before the court but, that itself is not sufficient to discard the case of defendant No.1. There is also the evidence of DW3 that he prepared Ext.B1 on the basis of the original title deed of defendant No.1 handed over by her to him. Thus custody of the original documents with the plaintiff is explained. In the circumstances mere custody of the documents with the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove his case of oral agreement for sale. SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 11 10. So far as payment of revenue is concerned, it is seen that both sides have paid revenue after the respective agreements for sale they claim. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim any advantage over defendant Nos.1 and 2 on account of alleged payment of revenue subsequent to the alleged oral agreement for sale in his favour. 11. On going through the judgment of the first appellate court it is seen that one reason for holding against defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that as per the provisions of the Act there could be no agreement for sale, not to say about a sale of the property belonging to the Scheduled Tribe unless the transfer is in favour of a member of the same Tribe. For engagements with a person other than a Scheduled Tribe permission of the District Collector is required. First appellate court found that Ext.B1 suffered from statutory interdiction against creation of any such engagement except with the permission of the District Collector. But that is not a ground to discard Ext.B1 for consideration. This is not a case where defendant No.2 in O.S.NO.5 of 1989 has sought to enforce Ext.B1 and get a decree for specific performance against defendant No.1. Nor has she claimed any other relief against defendant No.1 on the strength of Ext.B1 or the possession she got from defendant No.1. Instead, based on the possession she claimed she has, she wanted injunction only against the plaintiff (in O.S.No.5 of 1989) who according to her has nothing to do with the suit property. Hence Ext.B1 cannot be ignored even if it is assumed that Ext.B1 is against the provisions of the Act. That document has been marked in SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 12 evidence without objection and could be used for collateral purposes. Ext.B1 states that possession of the property was given to defendant No.2 on the date of that agreement. It also contains description of the property given into the possession of defendant No.2. First appellate court has not referred to these aspects of the matter and instead was carried away by the fact that execution of agreement for sale (Ext.B1) is against the provisions of the Act and hence cannot be looked into. That view cannot be sustained. 12. I found from the judgment of the first appellate court that no sufficient reason has been stated for rejecting the evidence of DWs 1 to 3. On the other hand, first appellate court by a sweeping observation that the mere fact that PWs 2 and 3 were not able to speak about the month or year or the details of the alleged oral agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff is not sufficient to hold that there was no such agreement, accepted that evidence. I have gone through the judgment of the courts below and find that learned Munsiff had while deciding in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.5 of 1989 appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and come to the right conclusion that there was infact Ext.B1, agreement for sale executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and pursuant to that agreement defendant No.2 was put in possession of the property. On the other hand first appellate court without referring to the crucial aspects of the matter has reversed the finding of the trial court. I do not find anything in the evidence of DWs 1 to 3 which was not noticed by the trial court and on the basis of which the first appellate court could SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 13 reverse that finding in favour of plaintiff in O.S.No.5 of 1989. In the circumstances, I am of the view that a substantial question of law involved as to whether finding of the first appellate court is legally and factually correct. I answer that substantial question of law in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.5 of 1989 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 1989. It follows that common judgment and decree of the first appellate court cannot be sustained and, that of the trial court are to be restored. Accordingly, these Second Appeals succeed. The common judgment and decree of the first appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court are restored. No cost. C.M.P.No.380 of 1995 in S.A.No.128 of 1995 and C.M.P.No.638 of 1995 in S.A.No.215 of 1995 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks SA Nos.128 & 215/1995 14 Thomas P.Joseph, J. S.A.Nos.128 & 215 of 1995 JUDGMENT 15th January, 2010.