IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR APPEAL SUIT.No.204 OF 1994 BETWEEN Bommu Suryachandra Rao. …APPELLANT AND Bommu Srimahalakshmi and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. M. RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. Y.V. RAVI PRASAD MR. M.V.R. NARASIMHA CHARY The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.177 of 1982, filed for specific performance of suit agreement dated 05.08.1979, by the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, by judgment and decree dated 18.01.1993. 2. The brief facts are as follows: (a) Plaintiff was 19 years old on the date of suit agreement and is a grandson of the first defendant. The second defendant was the real paternal uncle of the plaintiff. Pending the suit the first defendant died whose legal representatives are defendants 5 to 21. Later the second defendant also died whose legal representatives are defendants 3 and 4. (b) The first defendant – Bommu Srimahalakshmi had two sons viz. Pedda Venkateswara Rao – elder – second defendant and Chinna Venkateswara Rao – younger – father of the plaintiff. The first defendant also had four daughters. The second defendant had a son and a daughter whereas the father of the plaintiff – Chinna Venkateswara Rao had two sons and one daughter from his first wife and four sons from the second wife, out of whom the plaintiff is the eldest. As mentioned above, the plaintiff was 19 years old on the date of suit agreement – Ex.A1 dated 05.08.1979 whereunder it is alleged that the first defendant – grandmother agreed to sell Ac.4.00 cents of her land to the plaintiff and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and agreed to execute registered sale deed as and when demanded. It is alleged that the first defendant executed a registered a gift settlement deed – Ex.B1 dated 01.09.1982 in favour of the second defendant in respect of the very same Ac.4.00 cents of land, which formed part of Ex.A1 agreement in favour of the plaintiff. (c) On coming to know of the execution of the gift deed - Ex.B1 the plaintiff issued suit notice dated 06.09.1982 – Ex.A15 to the first defendant. The said notice was replied to by the first defendant denying Ex.A1 under her reply Ex.A16 dated 08.09.1982. Plaintiff has thereupon filed the present suit for specific performance on 16.09.1982. Meanwhile, on the basis of Ex.B1 – gift settlement deed and alleged possession the second defendant also filed O.S.No.678 of 1982 (which was later transferred and tried along with the present suit and numbered as O.S.No.116 of 1985) against the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The specific performance suit and the injunction suit were both tried together and under the impugned judgment and decree both the suits were dismissed. The present appeal by the plaintiff, as stated above, is against the dismissal of specific performance suit. (d) The second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant wherein the agreement of sale as well as the plaint allegations were denied by asserting that the first defendant neither agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff nor she received the consideration nor she executed any agreement. It was also alleged that the father of the plaintiff – Chinna Venkateswara Rao – was managing the properties of the first defendant and at that time he obtained thumb impressions of the first defendant on some documents and blank and white papers by deceiving the first defendant. It is alleged that when this fraud came to the notice of the first defendant, she filed O.S.No.804 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Eluru for cancellation of one such documents in favour of Bommu Suryachandra Rao alias Surya Rao (brother of the plaintiff) and the said suit was decreed. It was also alleged that out of love and affection the first defendant executed a registered gift deed – Ex.B1 dated 01.09.1982 in favour of the second defendant and put him in possession and the second defendant has already filed an injunction suit O.S.No.678 of 1982 against the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the first defendant had two sons, four daughters and number of grand children through them and she could never have intended to convey her entire property to children and other family members of her second son – Chinna Venkateswara Rao – alone and that the suit agreement is clearly a brought up document. 3. Based on the aforesaid rival pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the sale agreement dated 05.08.1979 is true, valid and binding on the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule land on the date of filing of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff’s claim is barred by time? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the suit agreement and permanent injunction? 5. To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled? 4. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1; one attestor of Ex.A1 as P.W.2; another attestor as P.W.3 and the scribe as P.W.4 whereas the defendants examined defendant No.15, who is also son of the second defendant, as D.W.1; one of the daughters of the first defendant – aunt of plaintiff as D.W.2 and a neighbouring cultivator as D.W.3 to speak of the possession of the suit land being with the second defendant. Plaintiff also filed and marked, apart from the suit agreement – Ex.A1; Exs.A2 and A3 title documents of the first defendant relating to suit lands and Exs.A4 to A10 to show that he had received payment towards paddy purchased from him by Food Corporation of India as well as sugarcane purchased from him by sugar factory, these documents are filed to show that the plaintiff had source of income. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A11 – registered partition deed showing internal partition in his family and land revenue receipts – Exs.A13 and A14 and the rest of the documents are not very crucial and as mentioned above, the defendants only relied upon Ex.B1 registered gift settlement deed in favour of the second defendant. 5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Ex.A1 suit agreement cannot be believed as neither there is any reference of delivery of possession nor there is any reference of delivery of title deeds to the plaintiff, as claimed by the plaintiff. The trial Court also disbelieved that the plaintiff purchased the stamp paper for Ex.A1 and that the plaintiff failed to establish his financial capacity to purchase the suit land, particularly, in view of plaintiff’s allegation that he paid the entire sale consideration on the date of sale. The presence of P.W.3 was also found to be quite unnatural and accordingly, the trial Court found that Ex.A1 is not a genuine document and the said main issue having been held against the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. 6. Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, has made elaborate submissions and he has taken lot of efforts in analyzing the evidence of two attestors and the scribe i.e. P.Ws.2 to 4 and has tried to establish that their evidence is consistent. He has submitted that all the conclusions of the trial Court viz. relating to stamp paper used for the purpose of Ex.A1; the alleged discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 as well as the financial capacity of plaintiff, are erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the blank paper theory, which is propounded by the second defendant in the written statement is belied by evidence of two attestors and the scribe i.e. P.Ws.2 to 4 and points out that the signature of the first defendant on Ex.A1 is not denied. He, therefore, submits that when Ex.A1 is otherwise executed by the first defendant and proved in accordance with law, the suit of the plaintiff could not have been dismissed by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the decision of the Supreme Court in BORAMMA v. KRSIHNA GOWDA[1] for the proposition that in appreciating the testimony of witnesses it is not a sound rule of appreciation to pick up an answer from the cross-examination of a witness and draw inference taking it in isolation. To the same effect is another decision rendered by me in M.V. KRSIHNA v. GOSULA SUDHA MADHURI[2], which is also relied upon. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in RAMANIVAS GUPTA v. MALIRAM[3] for the purpose of interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 framed under the Indian Stamp Act relating to purchase of stamp paper by or for the use of the person intending to use it, which impliedly means that the others cannot make use of stamp paper purchased for the use of a person. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, on the contrary, submits that the first defendant at the relevant point of time was 75 years old whereas the plaintiff was only 19 years old grandson of the first defendant. He also points out from the evidence that the first defendant had about 70 grand children from two sons and four daughters and there is no reason as to why the first defendant would sell the suit property to the plaintiff alone to the exclusion of other grand children. He also submits that the existence of the said agreement was not known to anyone in the family. He also points out that even according to the evidence of the plaintiff, the Government value of the suit land was Rs.12,000/- per acre, which works out to Rs.48,000/- for Ac.4.00 cents whereas Ex.A1 agreement is said to be only for Rs.20,000/-, is improbable. It is also submitted that the father of the plaintiff i.e. youngest son of the first defendant was managing the properties of the first defendant and she was living with the said younger son for long number of years including the date of Ex.A1. He, therefore, submits that the plaintiff has failed to establish any compelling reason for the first defendant to sell the said property and also failed to establish his financial capacity to raise the sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. He relies upon the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also doubts the presence of P.W.3 and submits that all the plaint allegations are demonstrated as false, as the possession also remained with the first defendant, who later passed it on to the second defendant on execution of Ex.B1 gift deed. Learned counsel, therefore, states that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the discretion was rightly refused to be exercised in his favour by the trial Court and that there is no reason for this appellate Court to interfere with the said discretion. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced certain documents, as additional evidence, which will be dealt with later. 10. In the light of the above submissions, on either side, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff has proved due execution of Ex.A1 agreement in all respects including his capacity to pay the sale consideration? 2. Whether the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act deserves to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff even if Ex.A1 agreement is held to be established? POINT No.1: 11. The written statement of the defendants does not specifically deny the signature of the first defendant on Ex.A1 but the plea is that the father of the plaintiff while managing the properties of the first defendant for long number of years might have obtained the first defendant’s signature fraudulently on a stamp paper or a white paper and later produced it as the suit agreement – Ex.A1. I have verified the stamp paper on which Ex.A1 is engrossed and it shows that the stamp paper is dated 03.08.1979 and the said stamp paper was purchased by the plaintiff’s father in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 agreement is written on the said stamp paper on 05.08.1979, which contains thumb impression of the first defendant. The observation of the trial Court with respect to the said stamp paper in para 13 of its judgment is, however, not correct inasmuch as the stamp paper can be purchased by anybody but it must be in the name of either of the persons who are signatories to the document as per Rule 6(2) of the Rules framed under the Indian Stamp Act. There is, therefore, no infirmity so far as purchase of stamp paper for Ex.A1 is concerned and it may be that the plaintiff’s father purchased the stamp paper in the name of the plaintiff. 12. Plaintiff, however, made two specific averments that title deeds were delivered to him simultaneously with the execution of Ex.A1 and that he had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- on that day. His own evidence as P.W.1 is, however, quite sketchy with respect to the availability of entire sale consideration with him. He states that in 1979 the total yield of his share was 200 bags of paddy out of which 50 bags were given to the first defendant, as he claimed to be lessee under the first defendant on sharing basis. He also claims to have paid maktha and also the income from the cultivation of another four acres belonging to a third party – Katari Naganna wherein he claims that he got 80 bags and these accounts are maintained by him in his personal account. He claims that he supplied paddy to Food Corporation of India for which he has filed receipts – Exs.A5 and A6 and he had more than Rs.20,000/- with him on the date of Ex.A1 but two or three days prior to that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- from one Dulam Venkataswamy by executing a pronote and another sum of Rs.2,000/- from one V.V. Satyanarayana towards hand loan four days prior to Ex.A1. He also claims that he had Rs.7,000/- and odd from sale of sugarcane, which he supplied during February and March 1979 for which Ex.A7 is produced. The said Ex.A7 is, however, only for 257 ps. received by the plaintiff on 03.07.1979 and states that he will file the document for receipt of Rs.7,107/- but the said document was not filed. Both the said borrowers from whom the plaintiff claims to have borrowed the amounts were neither examined nor any document is filed to prove the same. P.W.1, further, states that bargain for the suit land was in progress for two or three months prior to the suit agreement and while the first defendant was demanding Rs.25,000/- the plaintiff had offered Rs.20,000/- to which the first defendant ultimately agreed. Thereafter, the plaintiff states as follows and it is appropriate to extract that part of his evidence: “…I was having Rs.22,000/- with me when the bargain started i.e. two months prior to date of Ex.A1. I have spent Rs.1,000/- during two months period for agricultural expenses and family expenses. Therefore, I was having Rs.21,000/- by the date of Ex.A1. Two or three days prior to Ex.A1 I have purchased cattle in the shandy in Hanuman Junction for about Rs.2,000/-. I have no receipt for it. I had to pay Rs.2,000/- or Rs.3,000/- towards labour charges and manure carts supplied during June and July. I paid the amount to the labour 20 or 25 days after the work is completed and the manure is supplied. … I have asked the first defendant to take Rs.14,000/- only to enable him to get the property registered and promising to pay the balance at a particular point of time for which she did not agree. I have not tried for any loan for the amount required fro registration…” 13. The above facts clearly show that he was short of funds even for the sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and in any case, he did not have money available for registration. Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- totaling to Rs.5,000/- are said to have been borrowed from Dulam Venkataswamy and V.V. Satyanarayana together and the receipt of Rs.7,000/- and odd from the sugar factory, all remained unestablished, as no document is filed in support of the same. Further, P.W.1 himself admits that as per the Government value, the minimum basic value of the suit schedule property was Rs.12,000/- per acre working out to Rs.48,000/- for four acres. I am, therefore, not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had established his readiness and willingness by establishing the source of funds and the proof of payment. The availability of funds with the plaintiff, who was just a 19 year old boy, for payment of entire sale consideration on the date of agreement itself and not seeking to obtain a registered sale deed in spite of payment of full consideration from the date of agreement i.e. 05.08.1979 till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 16.09.1982, therefore, creates a doubt about the genuineness of the said agreement. The plaintiff being a grandson of the first defendant and as the first defendant had extensive properties, it is unbelievable that she would bargain with her grandson for months together for Rs.25,000/- and would ultimately settle for Rs.20,000/-. The first defendant, admittedly, was living with the plaintiff’s father for long number of years and admittedly, the plaintiff’s father was looking after the properties of the first defendant. It is, therefore, probable that there would be numerous occasions where thumb impressions of the first defendant could have been obtained on a stamp paper. All these aspects coupled with the fact that there was no necessity for the first defendant to sell the suit land and it is totally unexplained as to why she would prefer only one of the grand children when she had several for whom she had equal love and affection. The probabilities of the case, therefore, clearly are against the plaintiff’s contentions that the first defendant agreed to sell and receive the entire consideration under Ex.A1. 14. It is, no doubt, true that the plaintiff has examined two attestors – P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 states that after execution of Ex.A1 by the first defendant he attested it. He also says that there was talk with respect to possession and it was agreed that plaintiff would take possession after taking the crop and registration was to be completed after removal of crop. In the cross-examination, he states that at about 11 AM on the date of Ex.A1, plaintiff, the first defendant and others were in the thatched shed of the scribe when he was called to attest Ex.A1. He also states that consideration paid by the plaintiff was in the denominations of Rs.100/-, Rs.20/- and Rs.10/- notes and he states that title deeds were given and possession was also delivered, which is contrary to what he stated in the chief examination. 15. The other attestor, P.W.3 goes further and states that the plaintiff wanted registration to be done but the first defendant wanted to register after removal of the crop. He states that he was asked by the first defendant to come as an attestor and on his advice another attestor was called. He also states that the first defendant was aged about 75 years at that time and states that in his presence the plaintiff paid Rs.20,000/- to the first defendant but he cannot say the denomination and states that the first defendant counted the amount, which took about five minutes. The above statement is clearly unnatural, as it is not even the plaintiff’s case that money was paid, the first defendant counted it and then executed the document. The scribe, who is P.W.3, states that he was not shown any title documents and that the first defendant brought a slip of paper containing survey number and extent based on which Ex.A1 was written. He, however, states that after payment of entire sale consideration, as the property was already in possession of the plaintiff, the registration was to take place as and when the vendee demands. This evidence, therefore, clearly contradicts what is stated by P.Ws.2 and 3. 16. The aforesaid evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, therefore, fails to establish his plaint allegations that he had the entire sale consideration with him on the date of Ex.A1 and the delivery of possession as well as delivery of title deeds, as claimed by him, is clearly not established by his own evidence. Exs.A2 and A3 title deeds now produced by the plaintiff may have come in the custody of the plaintiff, as plaintiff’s father was looking after all affairs of the first defendant as trusted younger son for a long number of years. It is, therefore, probable that for claiming one-upmanship or upper hand over the elder brother i.e. the second defendant, the plaintiff’s father may have engineered the devise of obtaining Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff from the first defendant by obtaining her signature during the long number of years of management of the first defendant’s property. Ex.A1, therefore, does not inspire confidence and I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has established genuineness of Ex.A1 and failed to establish the plaint allegations especially with regard to delivery of title deeds and possession. The legal position enunciated by the decisions cited on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, even on application to the facts and evidence on record, as above, still point No.1 is liable to be answered against the appellant/plaintiff. Point No.1 is, therefore, answered against the appellant. POINT No.2: 17. In view of answer to point No.1, point No.2 does not really arise for consideration and in any case, it is well-settled that discretion exercised by the trial Court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, is not found to be arbitrary or capricious even by this Court on reconsideration of pleadings and evidence under point No.1, as above. Even otherwise, even if plaintiff establishes Ex.A1, he is not automatically entitled to specific relief unless the Court finds the said relief just and equitable under the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion exercised by the trial Court, therefore, does not need to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of this case. Point No.2, therefore, is accordingly answered against the appellant/plaintiff. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed ASMP.No.1767 of 2010 for reception of additional evidence. He has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court as to the circumstances in which additional evidence is admissible before the appellate Court under Order XVI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the said additional evidence, primarily, consists of judgments in different suits and proceedings therein, which were defended by the first defendant. The said documents are sought to be introduced to establish that the first defendant had a habit of executing documents and thereafter, denying the execution and in order to further contend that the defence in the present case also is similar and consistent with the said conduct of the first defendant. Irrespective of the admissibility of the said documents under Order XVI Rule 27 CPC it cannot be doubted that the said suits were suits filed by the third parties and on the facts and circumstances of those cases, the competent civil Court has decided the said lis in a particular manner. The said documents, therefore, cannot be admissible under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. The aforesaid documents, therefore, do not have any probative value for the purpose of the present suit, which has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. The said application, therefore, is misconceived and liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. The appellant is at liberty to seek return of the documents, filed as additional evidence,