IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 RSA.No. 825 of 2010(F) -------------------------------- (AS.NO.324/2005 OF I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM, OS.NO.114/2004 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOCHI) .................... APPELLANTS/ IN A.S & DEFENDANTS 2 & 3 IN O.S: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. O.V.PRASAD,AGED 53,S/O.VASU,RESIDING AT C.C.16/411,KURUPPUTHARA,WEST KARUVELIPPADY, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK,THOPPUMPADY.P.O, KOCHI-682 005. 2. SOUMINI,AGED 48 YEARS,W/O.PRASAD, RESIDING AT C.C.16/411,KURUPPUTHARA,WEST KARUVELIPPADY,THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK, THOPPUMPADY.P.O,KOCHI-682 005. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.MATHEW (MANNOOR ETTONNIL). RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1,3,4, & 5 IN A.S. & PLAINTIFFF/IST DEFENDANT IN O.S. - R2 IN A.S. VASU DIED): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAMEELA, AGED 48,W/O.SAMBASIVAN, GOOURI NIVAS,C.C.19/113,PALLURUTHY RAMESWARAM VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI-682 006. 2. PREETHY GOPINATH,D/O.VASU AND W/O.GOPINATH,AGED ABOUT 57,HOUSE NO.C.C.18/2425, KALLUTHARA HOUSE,PALLICHAL ROAD,PYARI JUNCTION, NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.C.C.18/1781,KALLUTHARA VILLAGE,VELIPARAMBU,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI-6. 3. O.V.PRABHU,AGED ABOUT 51,S/O.VASU, KURUPPUTHARA HOUSE,KARUVELIPPADY,NOW RESIDING AT C.C.IX/520,KURUPPUTHARA HOUSE,KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-682 005. R.S.A. NO.825/2010-F: 4. PRADEEP KUMAR,AGED ABOUT49 YEARS, S/O.VASU,JEWEL CROWN,JEWEL HOMES APARTMENTS, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-682 025. PRESENT ADDRESS:- PRADEEP KUMAR.O.V,POST BOX NO.1059,JIBRO,POST CODE 114,SULTANATE OF OMAN. BY ADV. SMT. VANAJA MADHAVAN. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.S.A. NO.825/2010-F: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 1819/2010 IN R.S.A. NO. 825/2010-F CLOSED 28/07/2010. SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- R.S.A No.825 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the concurrent findings against them, the defendants in O.S No.114/2004 before the Sub Court, Kochi, have come up in appeal before this Court. The parties and facts hereinafter referred to as are available before the trial court. 2. The suit was one for eviction. According to the plaintiff, she obtained plaint schedule property as per Ext.A4 sale deed dated 6.5.2000 executed by her mother. First defendant is the father of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant is the brother and 3rd defendant is the sister in law. Even after the sale deed, defendants were permitted to continue the occupation of the premises. But they resorted to filing of false complaints against her and commit mischief in the property. She demanded them to vacate the premises but they did not do so. Hence the suit. 3. Defendants 2 and 3 entered appearance and contested the suit. It is pointed out that the suit was filed as a counter blast to O.S 82/2002 a suit for partition and for R.S.A No.825 of 2010 2 setting aside the sale deed. They denied that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property and sale deed was valid document. According to them, it was without consideration and obtained by undue influence, fraud and coercion. It is contended that executant was taken to the Registrar's office without disclosing the purpose and signature was obtained. At the relevant time, she was undergoing treatment and she was not in a position to understand the nature of things. It is therefore prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. Defendants had examined DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. 5. The trial court on an evaluation of evidence in the case found that sale deed namely Ext.A4 to be valid document and accordingly decreed the suit. 6. Defendants 2 and 3 carried the matter in appeal as A.S No.324/2005. The lower appellate court on an R.S.A No.825 of 2010 3 independent evaluation of the evidence in the case came to the same conclusion as that of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the Second Appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the courts below has erred in law in casting the burden on the defendants. The specific contention was that the signature was obtained on Ext.A4 by misrepresentation, fraud and coercion. 8. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court in Krishna Mohan Kul V. Pratima Matty [AIR 2003 4351] in which it was held that in such case burden is cast on the person who supports such documents to show that it was validly executed. 9. The suit is one for eviction. The document namely Ext.A4 was found to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiff in her favour . It is true that the appellants have pleaded certain vitiating factors, which according to them, will show that the sale deed was not executed voluntarily by the deceased Thankamma. 10. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for R.S.A No.825 of 2010 4 the appellants can have no application to the facts of the case. In that case the document was executed by a lady aged 106 years who was ailing and illiterate. There was nothing to show in the case on hand that executant was mentally weak or she was not in a position to understand the nature of things. 11. It is interesting to note that the 2nd defendant had affixed his signature on Ext.A4 which he denied while in box.. Even though they disputed the signature of deceased Thankamma, he admitted that his mother was looked after by the plaintiff. There is absolutely no evidence to show that document was vitiated in any manner. DW1 stated that his father and uncle are aware of all the facts and that Thankamma had told them about the affixture of signature to the document and DW1 has only hearsay knowledge. He could have very well examined his father or uncle. The courts below were inclined to accept the evidence of PW1 and were convinced that Ext.A4 was valid and binding. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Ext.A4 is vitiated by due to the reasons namely threat, R.S.A No.825 of 2010 5 misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence. 12. One does not start with the presumption that a registered document is invalid in law. In fact, it is too contrary. Registered document has some sanctity and value in law. The contention that burden was wrongly cast by the court below is without any basis since it was the defendanst who were pleading vitiating facts the burden is on them to establish the same. The courts below have given convincing and cogent reasons for upholding the document. Findings are essentially on questions of facts. The courts below have concurrently found that defendants have failed to establish that Ext.A4 was vitiated by fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. It is not shown that the findings are perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record calling for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. No substantial questions of law arose for consideration. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma R.S.A No.825 of 2010 6