THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.130 of 2003 Dated:- ______ September, 2011 Between:- Balcha Suresh Babu …Appellant AND Venegandla Vijaya Babu …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.130 of 2003 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and the decree dated 30.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.62 of 1996 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the respondent herein has been decreed. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the Court below and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:- The plaintiff filed O.S.No.62 of 1996 before the Court below seeking to declare him as absolute owner of the premises bearing Door No.48 1/C admeasuring 360 square feet situated at Nidubrolu Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District (the plaint ‘A’ Schedule Property) and to declare the sale deeds dated 11.07.1994 vide document Nos.1342 and 1343 of 1994 as inoperative in law and not binding on him and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property, contending inter alia that he is the absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that he received two different notices dated 10.08.1996 from the advocate of the defendant and it is a shock and surprise to him as he never knew or saw the defendant at all; that in the said notices, the defendant contended that he purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property under two different sale deeds on 11.07.1994 from the plaintiff and subsequently on 15.07.1994 the plaintiff was inducted into possession as tenant under a written lease on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month for the first two years and thereafter at Rs.2,600/- per month for the next two years; that it is contended by the defendant in the said legal notices that the plaintiff committed willful default in paying the rents from November, 1994 and called upon the plaintiff to pay the arrears and eviction; that soon after receipt of the said notices sent by the defendant, he requested the defendant to furnish Xerox copies of the documents but the defendant had not sent the same; that then, he obtained the certified copies of those documents; that there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant between him and the defendant; that he never sold plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the defendant and that he never intended to sell the same; that he was in close association and friendship with the partners of M/s.Srinivasa Rice Mill and Financiers of Nidubrolu since several years, namely Kavuri Venkateshwar Rao, Tota Janardhana Rao, P.Satyanarayana, Late Kavuri Narasimha Rao; that he had finance dealings and dealings regarding and purchase of cement and timber for construction of the said rice mill and other works; that he was addicted to alcohol and when he demanded said P.Satyanarayana and others to settle his accounts for supply of cement and timber for construction of the Rice Mill, the above said persons, so to avoid settlement of accounts, hatched up a scheme and seems to have obtained his signatures on the sale deeds dated 11.07.1994 when he was under the influence of alcohol and subsequently created a lease on 15.07.1994; that he did not receive a single pie for the supply of cement and timber for construction of the Rice Mill and since the said sale deeds dated 11.07.1994 were obtained by impersonation or while he was under the influence of alcohol, they are void; that he never conveyed plaint ‘A’ schedule property under the above referred sale deeds to the defendant and there is no necessity for him to sell the plaint ‘A’ schedule property; that the defendant is only a set up nominee of the above said partners of the Rice Mill who attempted to grab his property; that the defendant, instead of supplying the copies of the documents, got filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 1996 on the file of the District Munisif Court, Ponnur, for the recovery of due of alleged arrears. 4. Document No.1342 of 1994 pertains to a house bearing door No.48 – 1C of 90 square yards of land and document No.1343 of 1994 pertains to an open plot of 80 square yards. 5. The defendant contested the matter and filed a counter contending that the plaintiff had executed a registered agreement of sale on 19.11.1992 in his favour agreeing to sell the plaint ‘A’ schedule property for a consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- and he paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on the same day as advance to the plaintiff and subsequently on 28.11.1992, he paid an another amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment of the balance of sale consideration and the same was endorsed by the plaintiff on the agreement of sale and subsequently, the plaintiff, after receiving the remaining sale consideration, executed sale deed dated 11.07.1994 and put the defendant in possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and since then, the defendant has been paying the municipal taxes; that the plaintiff himself got the sale deed scribed in the presence of the defendant’s attestor and his father-in-law – Potti Satyanarayana; that on 15.11.1994, he, through his father- in-law, entered into the lease agreement with the plaintiff and then the plaintiff was put in possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property except one room upstairs on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- for the first four years and at the rate of Rs.2,600/- for the next two years; that the plaintiff paid rents regularly up to October, 1994 and subsequently, committed default in payment of rents and, therefore, he got issued a legal notice on 10.08.1996 and having seen the reply of the plaintiff and his false averments, he filed O.S.No.123 of 1996 on the file of the District Munisif, Ponnur, for recovery of the rents and O.S.No.126 of 1996 for evicting the plaintiff; that enquiries made by him revealed that the plaintiff was not in close association and friendship with the partners of the Rice Mill and Financiers of Nidubrolu, i.e., Kavuri Venkateswara Rao, and others as alleged by the plaintiff; that he was not having any dealings with them and that the above referred persons were not indebted to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was never addicted to alcohol and it is false to say that the plaintiff, under the influence of alcohol, executed the sale deeds; he denied that no consideration was passed to the plaintiff under the above referred sale deeds; that the plaintiff has attended his marriage in the month of May, 1987; that it is false to say that the plaintiff has no acquaintance with the defendant. The over averments made by the plaintiff were denied. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court below settled the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title to the suit property as prayed? 2. Whether the sale deeds dated 11.07.1994 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the agreement of lease dated 15.11.1994 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 7. Evidence was let in. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A.94 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1, D.Ws.2 to 6 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.14 were marked. 8. The Court below, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had borrowed the money from the father-in-law of the defendant – P.Satyanarayana – D.W.4 and that he was regularly paying interest to him and that there were dealings between the plaintiff and the partners of the rice mill and that no consideration was passed to the plaintiff under Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 and that the plea put forth by the defendant about the leasing of the property to the plaintiff is false and that the evidence adduced by the defendant with regard to execution of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 by the plaintiff is not satisfactory and there are circumstances to show that the signature of the plaintiff was obtained at the place already marked in the sale deeds and in agreement of sale and these circumstances reveal that D.W.4 and other partners of the rice mill brought the sale deeds into existence by taking the signatures of the plaintiff. Holding so, the Court below decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, aggrieved by which, the defendant preferred this appeal. 9. Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the plaintiff admitted the execution of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 and when he had admitted his signatures on the said sale deeds, the Court below committed error in decreeing the suit. It is also his submission that the plaintiff had taken inconsistent pleas that at one stage, his pleaded that the partners of the rice mill have brought Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 into existence for wrongful gain and at another stage, he pleaded that Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 were got signed by him by the defendant when he was under the influence of alcohol. It is also submitted that the Court below did not consider that the plaintiff pleaded that he has no acquaintance with the defendant and subsequently deposed that the defendant is the son- in-law of D.W.4. It is also submitted that Ex.A.91 – Excise Permit pertains to the year 1995, i.e., long after the execution of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 and the same cannot be linked with the said sale deeds. It is also submitted that Ex.A.1 to A.91 are not germane to decide whether Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 are true and binding on the plaintiff. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the attestors and scribe of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 were amicable towards him and the Court below committed error in not accepting the evidence of D.Ws.3 to 5 on this aspect. It is also submitted that the defendant has paid the municipal taxes under ExsB.7 to B.14 and this circumstance was not taken into consideration by the Court below. 10. Per contra, Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff had dealings with the partners of the rice mill and that he had supplied cement and timber for the extension of the rice mill and that the rice mill partners have not settled the accounts and that the plaintiff had borrowed money from the partners of the rice mill and taking advantage of the same and the plaintiff’s weakness of addition to alcohol, the partners of the rice mill, in collusion with the defendant, brought Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 into existence to grab the property of the plaintiff. His main submission is that there is no evidence to show any passing of consideration to the plaintiff for the alleged sale under Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 and that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the plaintiff has executed Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 and the circumstance that there were already ‘X’ marks at the places of the signatures of the plaintiff on the said sale deeds and certain admissions made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants go to show that Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 are sham and nominal documents. It is also submitted that Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 were not acted upon by the defendant as the plaintiff continued in possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. It is also his submission that the judgment of the Court below is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not require any interference by this Court. 11. In view of the above rival claims, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are (1) Whether the plaintiff has executed Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994; (2) Whether there were any business transactions between the plaintiff and the partners of the rice mill; (3) Whether Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 are supported by any passing of consideration; and (4) Whether the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside. Point No.1:- 12. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he has not executed Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 and that no consideration was passed to him and that D.W.4 – Potti Satyanarayana and other partners of the rice mill have obtained his signatures on some documents from him when he was under the influence of alcohol. It is also his case that before the Court that the defendant, promising to cancel the earlier agreement of sale executed by him in Ex.B.2, had taken him to the Sub- Registrar’s office and made him to sign on some documents and he never intended to sell plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the defendant. On the other hand, the specific case of the defendant is that he has entered into agreement of sale with the defendant and on 19.11.1992 and paid Rs.40,000/- on the same day and that subsequently, on 28.11.1992, he paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the plaintiff and that the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid on the date of registration. In view of the above claims, let us see whether the plaintiff intended to sell petition ‘A” schedule property under Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 to the defendant and whether he has received any sale consideration for the same and whether Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 were obtained from him by the partners of the rice mill for payment of due amount by him. 13. The Sub-Registrar, Ponnur, has been examined as D.W.6 and he had categorically deposed that the plaintiff himself presented Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 for registration and that he enquired about the said sale transaction with the plaintiff and subsequently registered the said sale deeds. Ex.B.2 is the agreement of sale dated 19.11.1992 and Exs.B.3 and B.4 are the sale deeds dated 11.07.1994. D.W.6 further deposed that he cannot say how many documents were registered by him on that day and cannot give the particulars of those documents, but it has to be seen that having gone through the contents of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994, he deposed before the Court below. Besides evidence of D.W.6, P.W.1 (plaintiff) himself admitted that “signatures of the executant in the two sale deeds dated 11.07.1994 appears to be mine but I cannot say whether they are mine or not”. His specific case is that he was not in conscious at the time of execution of sale deeds. He further deposed that “stating that they will get the agreement of sale executed by me cancelled, they took me to the Registrar’s office and obtained my signatures.” In view of the above evidence and deposition of the plaintiff himself, there cannot be any doubt to say that Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994 bears the signature of the plaintiff and it appears from the record that he was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994. Point No.2:- 14. Though a presumption under Section 90 and 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’, for brevity), with regard to the passing of sale transaction is available to the defendant, but the said presumption is rebuttable. Now it has to be seen whether the terms of contract or any other disposition of the property which have been reduced in the form of a document can be disproved by adducing oral evidence. In terms of Section 91 and 92 of the Act, normally, no oral evidence is admissible to disprove the recitals of a document, but however, when fraud has been alleged to disprove the recitals of a document, the entire evidence has to be appreciated rationally and inferences have to be drawn. The recitals of the documents, recitals of other documentary evidence and the oral evidence have to be properly assessed. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he had money dealings with the partners of the rice mill and the affairs of the rice mill were being looked after by D.W.4 – Potti Satyanarayana, who is no other than the father-in-law of the defendant. It is also his specific case is that though he had supplied cement and timber for the extension of the rice mill, his accounts were not settled. His further case is that partners of the rice mill referred supra have advanced an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- for his business and obtained the agreement of sale as security. It is also his case that he was regularly paying the interest to late K.Narasimha Rao and Potti Satyanarayana – D.W.4 and that Exs.A.1 to A.10 are the receipts issued by D.W.4 and Exs.A.11 and A.12 are the receipts issued by late K.Narasimha Rao. It is also his case that Exs.A.13 to A.18 and A.20 to A.90 are the indents issued by the other partners of the rice mill for supply of cement and timber. Ex.A.19 is the acknowledgement of the receipt of 20 bags of cement by Potti Satyanarayana – D.W.4. The further case of the plaintiff is that after issue of receipt in Ex.A.12 by late K.Narasimha Rao, he was not in arrears of any debt to him and the amount due by him was sufficient to settle the accounts for supply of cement and timber. 15. Potti Satyanarayana – D.W.4 is an important witness in this case. He is the clerk of the rice mill. He had categorically admitted that the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum and Exs.A.1 to A.10 are the receipts passed by him showing the receipt of interest for the amount borrowed by the plaintiff in the year 1992. He further deposed that in April or May, 1992, the debt was discharged by the plaintiff. He has also admitted that Exs.A.11 and A.12 are receipts passed by late K.Narasimha Rao on his behalf showing the receipt of interest from the plaintiff in his absence in the rice mill. Exs.A.1 to A.11 receipts pertains to the period from 05.01.1993 to 06.03.1994. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the plaintiff had dealings in supply of cement and timber with the partners of the rice mill which was being looked after by D.W.4 – Potti Satyanarayana. Moreover, the contention of the plaintiff that the above referred partners of the rice mill advanced an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to him is admitted by D.W.4 – Potti Satyanarayana himself. Of course, the case of D.W.4 is that the plaintiff has discharged his loan amount in April or May, 1994. Point No.3:- 16. In view the above background, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff offered to sell the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the defendant and whether the defendant agreed to purchase the same and whether the defendant had paid any sale consideration to the plaintiff and whether there was any passing of sale consideration to the plaintiff or not. 17. Potti Satyanarayana – D.W.4 himself admitted that the defendant (D.W.1) never asked him to purchase the property at Ponnur with his income and the plaintiff (P.W.1) had not directly offered to sell plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the defendant, but when the plaintiff offered to sell plaint ‘A’ schedule property, he asked the defendant whether he is intending to purchase the same and then both of them participated in the transaction. Ex.B.2 is the agreement of sale dated 28.11.1992. Admittedly, the stamp papers were purchased for the plaintiff by Potti Satyanarayana – D.W.4. In fact, stamp papers have to be purchased in the name of the defendant, since he is the vendee. Admittedly, the stamp papers were purchased in the year 1982. Ex.B.2 was executed on 28.11.1992 and is registered document. D.W.4 – Potti Satyanarayana is one of the attestor to the said agreement of sale. Another attestor is one Abdul Razzak Khan. The said Abdul Razzak Khan was not examined in this case. Admittedly, D.W.4 – Potti Satyanarayana is the father-in- law of the defendant and is the interested person. He played the key role. Moreover, at every place where the signature of the plaintiff has to be obtained, there is ‘X’ mark. It is the case of the defendant that on 19.11.1992, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and on 28.11.1992, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to him. Admittedly, this endorsement dated 28.11.1992 is marked as Ex.B.1. Admittedly, there are no signatures of the attestors on Ex.B.1. The defendant admitted that the said transaction is not shown in his business accounts. He further admitted that his father-in-law (D.W.4) purchased the stamp papers for Ex.B.2 to B.4. 18. D.W.2 – B.Gurunadha Rao is one of the attestor of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994. According to him, the execution of sale deeds took place in the office of the scribe, namely, Purnachander Rao and Manohara Rao. Another attestor is one Jilani. Admittedly D.W.2 has not whispered anything about the payment of sale consideration by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of Ex.B.3 and B.4 – Sale Deeds dated 11.07.1994. He further deposed that he does not know the value of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. He further deposed that he does not observe whether any ‘X’ mark was put for the signature of the plaintiff and he had not particularly observed at which place of the document the plaintiff signed. 19. Similarly, D.W.3 – M.Sreerama Jagan Mohana Rao is the scribe of Ex.B.4 – sale deed dated 11.07.1994. According to him, the plaintiff executed the said document in favour of the defendant. According to him, the document was scribed in their office situated opposite to the Sub-Registrar’s office, Ponnur. He has also not whispered anything about the passing of sale consideration to the plaintiff. According to him, he cannot say at how many places, the plaintiff singed under declaration under Rule III. According to him, the signature of the parties will be made only in their presence and there is no question of putting of any marks for the signature of the executant, as they sign in their presence. But when this witness was shown ‘X’ marks at the place of the signature of the plaintiff in Ex.B.4, he deposed that in some documents, they put marks for the signature of the executant even though they are present. Subsequently, he had categorically deposed that the plaintiff is literate and is not necessary to put mark for his signature. He has also admitted that in Rule III declaration, the plaintiff’s signature is found struck off. However, he is unable to say who had struck off the same. He further admitted that there is no reference to agreement of sale in Ex.B.4. It is also not clear whether Ex.B.2 was scribed at Ponnur or Guntur. It appears that initially, it was written as Guntur and subsequently corrected as Ponnur. 20. D.W.5 – C.Sudharaka Rao is another identifying witness for Ex.B.2 – Agreement of sale dated 28.11.1992. This witness also did not whisper anything about the payment of