IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2009 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1931 AS.No.515 of 2002 --------------------- OS.6/1995 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------- 1. SUDARSANAN NADAR, S/O.CHELLAN NADAR, AGED 38, 'DARSANA', VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. (DIED. LRs RECORDED AND IMPLEADED). 2. LALITHA, D/O.DAKSHAYANI, AGED 34, 'DARSANA', VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. (RECORDED AS THE LR OF THE 1ST APPELLANT) (IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 1ST APPELLANT DIED AND THE 2ND APPELLANT IS HIS LEGAL HEIR - VIDE ORDER DT. 16/7/07 ON I.A.2381/07). ADDL. APPELLANTS 3 & 4 IMPLEADED: ADDL.A3: RAHUL S.L., 'DARSANA', VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. ADDL.A4: RAJANI S.L., 'DARSANA', -DO- -DO- (REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND APPELLANT AS GUARDIAN). (LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 1ST APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 - VIDE ORDER DT.16/7/07 ON I.A.2381/07). BY MR.P.R.VENKETESH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------- 1. GOPINADHAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 48, CHENNAKKAL VEEDU, VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. AS.No.515/2002 ...2... 2. VILASINI AMMA, D/O.KAMALAMMA PILLAI, AGED 40, CHENNAKKAL VEEDU, VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. BY MR.J.S.AJITHKUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R1 & R2. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS.No.515/2002 Order on I.A.No.3709/2008 in A.S.No.515/2002 Dismissed. 30.04.2009 Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. // True Copy // P.S. to Judge. smp PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- A.S. No. 515 OF 2002 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The first defendant first appellant died pending appeal and the second appellant second defendant has been recorded as the legal heir of the first appellant and additional appellants 3 and 4 have been impleaded as the other legal heirs. The parties will be referred to, as they were before the trial court. The case of the plaintiffs (respondents in the appeal) is that the plaintiffs are husband and wife and that the defendant are also husband and wife. The plaint schedule properties item Nos. 1 and 2 originally belonged to defendants 1 and 2 respectively. Plaint B-schedule building is situated on A-schedule item No.1. While the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the properties A- schedule item No.1 was offered as security to the first AS. N0. 515/02 -2- plaintiff for a sum of Rs.20,000/- borrowed from him by the first defendant by executing a security document bearing No.2813/92. Subsequently, the first defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- more and executed sale deed No.1880/94 in respect of item No.1 in favour of the first plaintiff. The second defendant sold plaint schedule item No.2 in favour of the second plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,000/- by virtue of sale deed No.1881/94. Item Nos. 1 and 2 lie contiguously as a single plot with compound walls on four sides and a gate on the front side. Since the date of those sale deeds plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the A-schedule properties. The defendants were residing in the building on the plaint schedule building prior to the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. After the sale deeds the first defendant requested the plaintiffs to let the plaint schedule house on rent to the defendants till they complete the maintenance work of the house. In such circumstance, B-schedule AS. N0. 515/02 -3- building was let out to the first defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. A rent deed was executed on 9-7-1994. Defendants are residing on the B-schedule building as tenants. The rent is in arrears from the date of the rent deed. On the terms of the rent deed defendants are bound to vacate the building on demand. Hence there is no need to issue any statutory notice to them under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendants are interfering with plaintiffs' rights and possession over the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to get the defendants vacated from the building. Hence the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the B- schedule building and for realisation of a sum of Rs.250/- per month towards damages for use and occupation and also for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from committing acts of waste or mischief and from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights over the AS. N0. 515/02 -4- properties. 2. The defendants filed joint written statement with a counter claim. It was contended that the first defendant conducted a saw mill and wood industry at Chappath in Kottukal Village. When he was in financial difficulties he borrowed some amount from the first plaintiff. The first defendant executed a document of security in respect of a portion of the amount so borrowed by him. Subsequently, he became constrained to execute a sale deed in respect of item No.1 for borrowing the amount for tiding over his financial difficulties. There was no free consent in executing the above sale deed. The sale deed was executed due to the undue influence of the first plaintiff. When the second defendant approached the plaintiff to borrow some more amount, the first plaintiff demanded the execution of an agreement to sell plaint item No.2 in his favour. Accordingly, agreement for sale bearing No. 2814/92 was AS. N0. 515/02 -5- executed regarding item No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.65,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was received as advance. That sum with interest was repaid by the defendants. Subsequently, the second defendant executed an agreement to sell plaint item No.2 in favour of the first plaintiff after borrowing some more amount from the plaintiffs. That amount was also returned. When the defendants approached the plaintiffs to borrow some more amounts the first plaintiff demanded to execute a sale deed in respect of plaint schedule item No.2. It was under such circumstance, that second defendant became constrained to execute sale deed bearing No.1881/94 in favour of the second plaintiff as security. Defendants never intended to sell their properties in favour of the plaintiffs. The worth of the property is more than Rs.10 lakhs. The sale deeds executed by the defendants are sham and inoperative documents. Plaintiffs have not derived any title over the AS. N0. 515/02 -6- properties by virtue of the sale deeds. Defendants continue to be owners in possession. The first defendant has never executed any rent deed. The rent deed was brought into existence for the purpose of the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed. By way of counter claim defendants sought for a declaration of title over the properties and for a declaration that the sale deeds 1880/94 and 1881/94 of Balaramapuram Sub Registry are sham and inoperative documents. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have title over the plaint schedule properties? 3. Whether the sale deeds relied on in the plaint are vitiated by undue influence and want of free consent? 4. Whether the alleged rental arrangement in respect of plaint B schedule building is true? AS. N0. 515/02 -7- 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for declaration and recovery of possession and for realisation of arrears of rent and to recover damages for use and occupation as prayed for in the plaint? 6. Reliefs and costs.? Addl. 7. Whether the sale deeds bearing the Nos. 1880/94 and 1881/94 of Balaramapuram Sub Registry are sham documents as contended by the defendants? 8. Whether the defendants are the owners in possession of plaint schedule properties as contended in the written statement? 9. Whether the counter claim is allowable? 10.Whether the counter claim is barred by limitation? 4. The evidence at trial consisted of the oral evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 and the documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A11 and B1 to B11. Ext.B1 was copy of the agreement executed by second defendant to the first plaintiff. B2 was copay of the agreement by first defendant to the first plaintiff. B3 was copy of the agreement by second defendant to the first plaintiff. B4 was copy of the AS. N0. 515/02 -8- death certificate. B5 was copy of the judgment in O.S. 90/94. B6 was copy of the decree in O.S.90/94. B7 was copy of the agreement executed by the second defendant in favour of Krishnan Nair. B8 was tax receipt. B9 was arrears clearance notice issued to Kerala Financial Enterprises, Vellayambalam Branch. B10 was copy of stay order in CMP.1850/2000. B11 was coy of the amendment application in AS. No.175/2000. PW1 was the scribe attached to the office of the document writer who gave evidence regarding A3 rent deed and DW1 was the first defendant. 5. Issue No.1 regarding maintainability was answered by the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff holding that no serious arguments were addressed by the defendants regarding that issue. Issue Nos. 2 to 5 and additional issue Nos. 7 to 9 were considered by the learned Judge together. Evaluating the evidence and after AS. N0. 515/02 -9- considering arguments addressed on either side the learned Sub Judge would find all the above issues in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.10 pertaining to the contention of the plaintiff that the counter claim raised by the defendants is barred by limitation was however answered in favour of the defendants and it was held that the counter claim is not barred by limitation. Accordingly the suit was decreed as prayed for, directing both sides to suffer their respective costs. 6. Sri.P.C.Chacko Pulimood, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondents have addressed me in detail. Sri.Chacko would argue that the appreciation of the evidence in the case by the trial court was wrong, that the trial court has not appreciated the circumstantial evidence which according to him would lead to the irresistible inference that the sale deeds in question were executed only by way of security AS. N0. 515/02 -10- and was the result of undue influence exercised by the plaintiffs on the defendants. Mr.Chacko argued that when Exts.B1, B2 and B3 agreements are scanned it will be seen that there is difference in the total consideration in those agreements and the total amounts advanced as per the sale deeds. This circumstance would clearly indicate, according to him, that the agreements were executed only by way of security. Counsel pointed out that though the properties were lying within the local limits of Vengannur Sub Registry, the documents were got registered at the Balaramapuram Sub Registry and this act of the plaintiffs will reveal their fraudulent intention. The evidence adduced by the defendants was sufficient to prove the undue influence exercised by the plaintiffs, according to Mr.Chacko. The market value of the suit properties would come to Rs.10 lakhs while the sale is only for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. Gross undervaluation in the matter of the sale itself was a AS. N0. 515/02 -11- vitiating circumstance, according to Mr.Chacko. The non- examination of the plaintiffs in this case, according to Mr.Chacko was fatal. The transaction will appear to be unconscionable in the light of the evidence adduced by the defendants and hence plaintiff had burden to adduce rebuttal evidence. There was no evidence to show that the defendants were experiencing financial constraints and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the court below at all. Counsel argued that the court below was not justified in relying on the so-called admissions in the written statement filed in OS. No.90/94. Counsel submitted that the finding of the court in OS. No. 90/94 where the defendants had made the so-called admission was that the document relied on by the plaintiffs were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and were not expected to confer any valid title in favour of the assignees under the documents. Counsel pointed out that the present plaintiffs are having knowledge AS. N0. 515/02 -12- about the suit and therefore the judgment in O.S.90/94 is binding on them. Ext.A7 written statement in O.S.90/94 was not admissible in evidence, according to Mr.Chacko. Ext.A3 rent deed has not been proved by the plaintiffs. No notice terminating tenancy and demanding arrears of rent had been issued before filing the suit and hence the suit for terminating the lease was not maintainable, according to Mr.Chacko. Mr.Chacko would fortify his submissions on the basis of a catena of decisions. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidyadhar v. Mankikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 was relied on by Mr.Chacko in support of his argument that the non-examination of the plaintiffs in this case was justification for drawing an adverse inference against them. Mr.Chacko also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iswar Bhai C.Patel v. Harihar Behera, AIR 1999 SC 1341 in support of the same proposition. Mr.Chacko relied also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anathula AS. N0. 515/02 -13- Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 for arguing that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Counsel argued that even in respect of land without structures such as agricultural land, possession can be established with reference to actual use and cultivation. In suits for injunction question of title is not an issue though the same may arise incidentally or collaterally. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra, AIR 1993 SC 957 Mr.Chacko argued that in this case where it was evident that the plaintiff did not have possession over the land comprised in item Nos. 1 and 2, the suit which is merely for declaration and injunction without any prayer for recovery was not sufficient. Mr. AS. N0. 515/02 -14- Chacko referred also to Gangabai v. Chhabubai, (1982) 1 SCC 4 and argued that the bar imposed under section 92(1) of the Evidence Act on oral evidence applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction and not when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham document. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatsoever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but to some other transaction altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties. Section 92 of the Evidence Act was misconstrued by the learned Sub Judge, according to Mr.Chacko. The AS. N0. 515/02 -15- judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685 was also relied on by Mr.Chacko to argue that where the defendant is in possession of some of the suit properties and the plaintiff in his suit does not seek possession of those properties but merely claims a declaration that he is the owner of the suit properties, the suit is not maintainable. Sri.Chacko relied also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satish Chand v. Govardhan Das, AIR 1984 SC 143 to argue that where a suit for ejectment and mesne profits was filed without a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act against a tenant in occupation of the rented property after expiry of lease, the suit would not be maintainable. Such person is a tenant holding over and notice to quit under section 106 of the T.P. Act was necessary. It cannot be said that on expiry of the specified term under the unregistered lease deed executed before the filing of the suit, he became AS. N0. 515/02 -16- tenant at sufference under Section 111(a) of the T.P.Act and the suit was maintainable without notice under section 106. The unregistered lease deed cannot be taken into consideration on the ground that such deed can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose, invoking proviso to section 49 of Registration Act. Mr.Chacko referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Thampy v. Varkey Emmanuel, 2005(4) KLT S.N. Page 9 and argued that in the absence of proof regarding accuracy of the photostat copy or of its having been compared with or being a true reproduction of the original, acceptance of the photostat copy as secondary evidence in terms of section 63 (2) of the Evidence Act is improper. Lastly Mr.Chacko referred to the judgment of this Court in Selin Joseph v. Vijayan, (1999(3) KLT 898) to argue that the court cannot act upon the commission report in another case, unless the commissioner is examined. AS. N0. 515/02 -17- 7. Sri.J.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondent was able to meet the submissions of Mr.Chacko satisfactorily. He would support the judgment of the court below on the various reasons stated in the judgment. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Oskar Louis v. Saradha, (1990 (1) KLT 469) he submitted that even in the absence of essential averments required in a specific performance, suit the court can allow amendment of the plaint for the purpose of incorporating those averments but for which the suit was liable to be dismissed. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Pratap Narain v. Sri Krishna Chandra, (AIR (35) 1948 Patna 28) was relied on to argue that where a cloud has been thrown on the title of the plaintiff by the conduct of the defendant but there is no evidence to show that the plaintiff was ever dispossessed by any act of the defendant, a suit for a mere declaration of title without any further relief is maintainable. Such suit is AS. N0. 515/02 -18- not barred by the fact that the defendant interfered with the possession of plaintiff as interference with possession is not necessarily dispossession. Mr. Ajith Kumar relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Yamunabai v. Ram Maharaj, (AIR 1960 Bombay 463) for the proposition that the suit is maintainable as suit for declaration with injunction alone then the plaintiff pleads constructive possession. Reliance was placed on paragraph 14 of the above judgment wherein the Division bench of the Bombay High Court has observed as follows: “Where defendants are in constructive possession through tenants, and plaintiff desires to have constructive possession only, the utmost that the plaintiff can ask for, or obtain, against the defendants is a declaration of rights, binding the defendants, coupled with an injunction preventing them from interfering with such rights.” “The plaintiff is not bound to ask for actual physical possession from the tenants, and that there is no rule of law to compel a man to seek for all the relief that he is entitled to or might obtain if he desired it.” 8. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions AS. N0. 515/02 -19- addressed before me in the light of the pleadings raised by the parties and the evidence which is available in the case. After hearing both sides in full, I explored the possibilities of a settlement of the disputes between the parties by ordering attendance of the parties before the court. It will be stated immediately that the endeavour failed. 9. The learned Munsiff had formulated an issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and it is seen that at hearing no arguments whatsoever were raised by the defendant and the learned Subordinate Judge rightly found that the suit is of a civil nature within the jurisdiction of the court not barred by any provision of law. I am not persuaded to hold the submissions of Mr.Chacko notwithstanding, that the present suit is not maintainable. 10. The all important issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are having title over the plaint schedule properties and whether the sale deeds relied on by AS. N0. 515/02 -20- them are vitiated by undue influence and want of free consent. Incidentally issue also arises whether sale deeds 1880/94 and 1881/94 are sham documents as contended by the defendants. The contention of the defendants is that the sale deeds A1 and A2 were executed against their will due to undue influence exercised by the plaintiff under the circumstances stated by them in the written statement. There is a further contention that the sale consideration shown in the sale deeds is grossly inadequate and that the sale deeds are sham and inoperative and that no title has passed on to the plaintiff under those sale deeds. The defendants have set up a counter claim in their written statement for the declaration of their title and possession over the plaint schedule properties and for consequential declaration that Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds are sham and inoperative documents. It is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has analysed and appreciated the AS. N0. 515/02 -21- evidence adduced in the case properly. The first witness PW-1 examined on the side of the plaintiff was the scribe attached to the office of the document writer. He deposed to the execution of Ext.A3 rent deed by the first defendant. He also deposed that the first defendant put his signature on Ext.A3 in his presence. He is an attester to Ext.A3. It is seen that the learned Subordinate Judge has taken the entirety of the transactions between the parties, the necessity for the sale of plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs and the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the execution and registration of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds and the subsequent conduct of parties in relation to the properties for taking decision regarding the vitiating facts and circumstances alleged in the written statement and the validity of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds. B1 to B3 registered agreements will show that prior to the execution and registration of Exts.A1 and A2 the defendants AS. N0. 515/02 -22- had borrowed certain amounts from the plaintiffs. In fact the borrowal of amount from the plaintiffs on different occasions and execution and registration of Exts.B1 to B3 agreements in their favour are virtually admitted by the defendants. There is no acceptable evidence at all to hold that Exts.B1 to B3 agreements were not executed by the defendant with free volition. It is seen that Exts.A1 and A2 sale deed were executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs when they were in need of some more amounts which was paid to them by the plaintiffs. It is discernible from Ext.A7 that the sale of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs and their absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties pursuant to such sale are unequivocally and unambiguously admitted by the defendants in paragraph 15 of their written statement in O.S.90/94. The first defendant in his evidence as DW-1 has virtually admitted that soon after the execution and AS. N0. 515/02 -23- registration of Exts.A1 and A2 he became aware of the fact that those documents were the sale deeds with respect to the plaint schedule property. As rightly noticed by the learned Sub Judge DW-1 is an educated person. Defendants never made any complaints before any authorities or regarding the execution and registration of Exts.A1 and A2 sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs at any point of time before filing the written statement in the present suit. The sale deeds were executed as early as on 7-7-1994 and the present suit as noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge was filed on 2-1-1995 and the defendants filed written statement in the present suit only on 10-6-1996. Their belated plea of undue influence was noticed by the learned Sub Judge