Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Mallu Venkatramana Reddy And 7 Others vs Gandluri Govinda Reddy And Another on 21 January, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2013 AP 138, (2013) 4 ANDHLD 23 (2014) 3 CURCC 595, (2014) 3 CURCC 595
Author: Samudrala Govindarajulu
Bench: Samudrala Govindarajulu
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.979 of 2012 21-01-2013 Mallu Venkatramana Reddy and 7 others Gandluri Govinda Reddy and another Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy for Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.V.Bhatt <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 104 2) AIR 2007 SC 2306 3) AIR 2008 SC 380 4) 1977 ALT 534 5) (1996)6 Supreme Court Cases 342 6) (2003)8 Supreme Court Cases 613 7) (2010)6 Supreme Court Cases 193 JUDGMENT:
Unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. Originally the plaintiffs filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit site. Subsequently plaint in the suit was got amended and prayer in the suit was altered from permanent injunction simplicitor to one of declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit site and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaint schedule consists of Ac.0.071/2 cents of house site out of Ac.1-02 cents in S.No.540/1 shown as 'ABCD' in the plaint plan. In the plaint plan, the plaint schedule site of Ac.0.071/2 cents is shown in Red colour with boundaries and their measurements. It is located at 4 roads junction in Piler village and Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 road junction is at the intersecting point of Chittoor-Kadapa Road and Madanapalle-Tirupathi road. It is the plaintiffs' case that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased 'ABCD' site of the plaint plan totalling Ac.1-02 cents under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 21.08.1967 from its owners and obtained possession thereof and that they have sold the same by way of plots to different persons and that plot No.9 in Blue colour in the plaint plan was sold to the 1st defendant under Ex.A-10 registered sale deed dated 22.01.1974 and that Red coloured portion of the plaint plan was retained by the plaintiffs for themselves and that the 1st defendant purchased his plot by way of two portions and that he has no right in Red coloured portion of the plaint plan and that the defendants are calculating to lay foundations overnight on war footing in Red Coloured portion. The 1st defendant contended that the 1st defendant purchased 72 Ankanams of site from the plaintiffs on 22.01.1974. Out of which 36 Ankanams is in first item and another 36 Ankanams is in the second item of his sale deed and that the plaintiffs misrepresented and made the first defendant to believe that they have sold plot No.8 to M.S.Hameed Saheb upto the wall of his house only and rest of the vacant site North of it belongs to them, and that the said plot was measured accordingly and that subsequently Hameed disclosed truth and occupied his site and that therefore in the year 1982 a qualified surveyor was brought by the plaintiffs and the plot was re-measured in the presence of elders and fraud played by the plaintiffs was discovered and the first defendant was asked to enjoy 48 feet East-West and 27 feet North-South equivalent to 36 Ankanams and that subsequently the first defendant sold 26 Feet X 27 Feet to K.Venkatramireddy under registered sale deed dated 05.05.1987 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and K.Venkataramireddy in turn sold site of 12 Feet X 27 Feet to V.Prabhakar Reddy under another registered sale deed and that the 1st defendant was in possession of 36 Ankanams shown as second item and that the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming right in the extent sold to the 1st defendant and that the first defendant perfected right and title by way of adverse possession as he is in possession and enjoyment of Green coloured portion of the sketch filed along with the written statement. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court confirmed decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal without costs. Therefore, the plaintiffs approached this Court with this second appeal.
2) While admitting the second appeal on 26.09.2012 the then Learned Judge of this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether the Courts below have not properly considered the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the disputed suit schedule property based on title of the plaintiffs?
2) Whether the Courts below have failed to properly consider the extent of the property that was purchased by the plaintiffs under registered sale deed dated 21.08.1967 and failed to notice that the subsequent sale deed in favour of the defendants dated 22.01.1974 with regard to measurements on the field establishes the right of the plaintiffs?
3) Elaborate arguments running into several days were addressed by senior counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents in this second appeal on various issues which go beyond the substantial questions of law already framed by the previous Learned Judge of this Court. In those arguments addressed by both the counsel, this Court framed the following further substantial questions of law for determination, which are as follows:
3) Whether the first defendant is entitled to plead and let in evidence contrary to contents of his registered title deed Ex.A-10 dated 22.01.1974, under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on the alleged ground of there being misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant and shifting of second item covered by Ex.A-10 to another location in 'ABCD' of the plaint plan?
4) Whether the first defendant is entitled for any right or title to any portion of the plaint schedule site of Ac.0-071/2 cents without there being a registered document in his favour by way of rectification of Ex.A-10 or otherwise?
5) Whether the first defendant is entitled to plead that the plaintiffs are not entitled to take advantage of their own fraud or misrepresentation towards the first defendant, in the absence of any registered rectification deed or any other registered document in his favour from the plaintiffs?
4) At this stage there is no dispute that the plaintiffs purchased total property shown as 'ABCD' in the plaint plan under Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 21.08.1967 from its previous owners. Subsequently the plaintiff divided a part of 'ABCD' site into 9 plots shown in the plaint plan as Plot Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and sold the respective plots to different purchasers under Exs.A-2 to A-10 registered sale deeds respectively. Plot No.9 consisting of 2 items which together form into 'L' shape was sold by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant under Ex.A-10 sale deed dated 22.01.1974 (another copy was marked as Ex.B-5). In the plaint plan plot No.9 sold to the 1st defendant in two items is shown in Blue colour. According to the plaintiffs; are sale of plot Nos.1 to 9 to different purchasers including the 1st defendant, they still own the suit land of 0.07 1/2 cents which is shown in Red colour in the plaint plan. The entire site in 'ABCD' covered by Ex.A-1 sale deed is in S.No.540/1 measuring Ac.1-02 cents in Piler town.
5) One Hameed purchased plot No.8 to the south of plot No.9 from the plaintiffs under Ex.A-9 sale deed dated 31.05.1969. Ex.A-9 is for Ac.0.10 1/2 cents. There is no dispute that by the date of purchase of plot No.9 by the 1st defendant under Ex.A-10 sale deed, Hameed constructed his house property in Plot No.8. It is pointed out by senior counsel for the appellants that in Ex.A-10, southern boundary for item No.1 of plot No.9 is given as 'house' of Shaik Hameed Saheb and northern boundary is given as site of the vendors/plaintiffs retained by them. For item No.2 of plot No.9 in Ex.A-10, southern boundary is given as house of Shaik Hameed Saheb and western boundary is given as site retained by the vendors/plaintiffs in the same number. As per Ex.A-10 sale deed of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs have got Red coloured site of Ac.0.07 1/2 cents lying to the north of item No.1 and to west of item No.2 of plot No.9 purchased by the 1st defendant. The said site is subject matter of the litigation between the parties herein. It is contended by the respondents' counsel that mentioning of southern boundary for item No.1 of plot No.9 as house of Hameed was wrongly given and that it is the result of fraud and misrepresentation of the plaintiffs. It is pointed out by the respondents' counsel that in Exs.A-2 to A- 9 sale deeds relating to plot Nos.1 to 8 respectively, northern boundaries are shown as site retained by the plaintiffs and southern boundaries are shown as 'site' of southern owner. It is contended that it is only in Ex.A-10 sale deed relating to plot No.9 in favour of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs have ingeniously recited southern boundary for item Nos.1 and 2 of plot No.9 as 'house' of Hameed Saheb instead of 'site' of Hameed Saheb. According to the respondents' counsel, beyond the house of Hameed Saheb, the said Hameed Saheb still owns part of its site left by him towards North. Instead of reciting southern boundary for item Nos.1 and 2 of plot No.9 as 'site' of Hameed, it is contended that wrong description was given in Ex.A-10 sale deed as if southern boundary for items 1 and 2 of plot No.9 as 'house' of Hameed. According to the 1st defendant's case, in the year 1982 when he raised dispute in the presence of mediators, the plaintiffs have agreed that the 1st defendant should enjoy 48 feet East-West X 27 feet North-South abutting Tirupathi-Madanapalle road which is equivalent to 36 Ankanams. As pointed out earlier, the 1st defendant further pleads that he sold 24 feet X 27 feet to K.Venkatrami Reddy and under Ex.B-3 sale deed dated 05.05.1987 who in turn sold site of 12 feet X 27 feet to V.Prabhakar Reddy under another registered sale deed, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Finally it is contention of the 1st defendant that realizing mistake or fraud, as the case may be, the plaintiffs gave 48 feet X 27 feet abutting Madanapalle-Tirupathi road totaling 36 Ankanams. The Courts below after considering oral and documentary evidence of both the parties, found favour with the 1st defendant on factual aspect of the case. The question to be considered in this second appeal is whether even if the facts pleaded by the 1st defendant are true and correct, whether the said facts convey any legal title to the 1st defendant for any part of Ac.0.07 1/2 cents shown in Red colour in the plaint plan?
6) The 1st defendant as D.W-1 in cross-examination deposed that at the time of purchase of plot No.9 consisting of two items, he got the site purchased by him measured and took delivery of the same and that at the time of taking measurement after purchase under Ex.A-10, the site was measured from house wall of Hameed in Plot No.8. There is no dispute that the 1st defendant obtained possession of plot No.9 as described in the schedules in Ex.A-10 sale deed. If the 1st defendant is stated to have realized in the year 1982 about the plaintiffs selling some portion of site in item No.8 to the North of house wall of Hameed, as part of site in Plot No.9 as described in Ex.A-10 sale deed, then the 1st defendant should have obtained a rectification deed from the plaintiffs for Ex.A-10 sale deed showing southern boundary of both the items therein as 'site' of Hameed Saheb in the place of 'house' of Hameed Saheb. The 1st defendant did not take any steps towards that end. Instead, the 1st defendant is stated to have raised dispute before mediators including D.W-2. During mediation, the plaintiffs are stated to have given alternative site of 36 Ankanams out of the site retained by the plaintiffs. According to the 1st defendant, the said alternative site of 36 Ankanams extends upto Madanapalle- Tirupathi road on the North. Neither the mediation nor the plaintiffs giving alternative site of 36 Ankanams to the 1st defendant in that mediation, is borne out by any record. Without there being a regular conveyance of the alleged alternative site of 36 Ankanams by way of regular registered sale deed on proper stamp papers from the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant will not get valid right, title or interest therein as per law.
7) It is contended by senior counsel for the appellants that Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Evidence Act excludes evidence of oral agreement altering terms of a registered sale deed like Ex.A-10. The Supreme Court in S.Saktivel Vs. M.Venugopal Pillai1 observed as follows:
"Once under law a document is required to be in writing, parties to such a document cannot be permitted to let in parol evidence to substantiate any subsequent arrangement which has effect of modifying earlier written document. If such parol evidence is permitted it would divest the rights of other parties to the written document. We are, therefore, of the view that the subsequent oral arrangement set up by the defendant-appellant cannot be proved by the parol evidence. Such an evidence is not admissible in evidence."
8) Therefore, entire evidence let in by the 1st defendant on the plea of mistake or fraud in giving southern boundaries for both the items in Ex.A-10 and the plaintiffs during mediation in the year 1982 giving alternative site of 36 Ankanams to the 1st defendant in lieu of the alleged mistake/fraud in Ex.A-10, is liable to be excluded as law precludes the 1st defendant from leading such evidence. The said plea in the written statement of the 1st defendant and evidence let in by the 1st defendant in support of the said plea become untenable and irrelevant in law.
9) Senior counsel for the appellants also placed reliance on P.Chandrasekharan V. S.Kanakarajan2 wherein the Supreme Court on scope of Section 100 C.P.C observed that when the Courts below misread and misinterpreted a document of title read with other documents and the plan for the identification of the suit lands whereupon the plaintiffs relied upon, a substantial question of law arise for determination of the High Court in between the parties in suit. He also placed reliance on Boodireddy Chandraiah V. Arigela Laxmi3, wherein the Supreme Court observed on scope of Section 100 C.P.C to the following effect:
"13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
10) This Court in this second appeal did not reconsider or reassess evidence let in by both the parties in order to come to its own findings on facts. This Court is of the opinion that even if concurrent findings on facts recorded by the Courts below are acceptable on evidence, law does not permit such evidence in view of Proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act. It follows that findings on facts recorded by the Courts below on such inadmissible and irrelevant evidence become illegal. In the absence of regular conveyance by properly stamped and registered document, the 1st defendant did not get any title to any part of the plaint schedule property which was retained by the plaintiffs after sale of plot Nos.1 to 9 to various purchasers including the 1st defendant. In so far as the plaint schedule, land of Ac.0.07 1/2 cents is concerned, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs retained the said extent of site with themselves after selling different plots to different persons including the 1st defendant under Exs.A-2 to A-10 after purchasing Ac.1-02 cents under Ex.A-1 sale deed.
11) It is contended by the respondents counsel that having played fraud in drafting Ex.A-10 sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage on their own fraud. In order to demonstrate that plot No.8 of Hameed did not end with his house wall on the north and Hameed still owns some more site to the north of his northern house wall, the respondents' counsel took this Court through Ex.A-8 sale deed dated 31.05.1969 under which Hameed purchased plot No.8 from the plaintiffs and also Exs.A-12 to A-15 documents. Ex.A-12 is registered sale deed dated 14.09.1970 under which Hameed sold Ac.0-10 1/2 cents to his brothers Azeez and Jaffer. Ex.A-13 is registered sale deed dated 31.01.1985 under which Hameed sold 80 Sq. yards to the north of Azeez's house to Goujula Mallikharjuna. Ex.A-14 is registered gift settlement deed dated 20.10.1984 executed by Hameed in favour of S.K.Reddy Basha and his wife Sabira Begum for 90 Sq. yards. Ex.A-15 is registered sale deed dated 30.04.1990 executed by Hameed in favour of Sabira Begum and Fazloon Begum for 70 Sq. yards of site. Fazloon Begum is described as wife of Hameed himself. Out of Ex.A-12 to A-15 documents, Exs.A-13 to A-15 are totally irrelevant for the purpose of present litigation between the parties as those documents are subsequent to Ex.A-10 sale deed dated 22.01.1974 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the 1st defendant for plot No.9. In case there was any litigation between owners of plot Nos.8 and 9 i.e., between Hameed and the 1st defendant with regard to extent upto which each person's plot extends, then it will not give cause of action for the 1st defendant to make attempt to grab the site retained by his vendors who are the plaintiffs.
12) The respondents' counsel placing reliance on Kanchi Subbamma V. Mannepalli Penchalaiah4 of this Court contended that Commissioner's report is not regarded as substantial evidence and it can only be used for the limited purpose of appreciating the evidence which the parties have lead with reference to what he personally saw on the site when he inspected the land and that it can never prove title or possession. No doubt, Commissioner's report in a suit cannot have any bearing in deciding title or possession, but it is relevant only to the limited extent of noting physical features on the land at the time of Commissioner's visit and inspection.
13) The respondents' counsel placed strong reliance on some legal maxims in support of his contention that a person who is guilty of fraud cannot take advantage of his fraud in Court of law.
In Ashok Kapil V. Sana Ullah5 the Supreme Court observed that the maxim Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity and that in the normal course a party cannot secure assistance of a Court of law for enjoying fruit of his own wrong.
In Harikrishna Lal V. Babu Lal Marandi6 the Supreme Court observed:
"13. A reference may usefully be made to the maxim "falsa demonstratio non nocet, cum de corpore constat" which means mere false description does not vitiate, if there be sufficient certainty as to the object. "Falsa demonstratio"
means an erroneous description of a person or a thing in a written instrument; and the above rule respecting it signifies that where the description is made up of more than one part, and one part is true, but the other false, there, if the part which is true describes the subject with sufficient legal certainty, the untrue part will be rejected and will not vitiate the device; the characteristic of cases within the rule being that the description, so far as it is false, applies to no subject at all, and, so far as it is true, applies to one only. (See Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., pp. 426-27.) Broom quotes (at p. 438) an example that an error in the proper name or in the surname of the legatee should not make the legacy void, provided it could be understood from the Will what person was intended to be benefited thereby."
In Eureka Forbes Limited V. Allahabad Bank7 the Supreme Court reiterated as follows:
"66. The maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria has a clear mandate of law that, a person who by manipulation of a process frustrates the legal rights of others, should not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong or manipulations. In the present case Respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant have acted together while disposing off the hypothecated goods, and now, they cannot be permitted to turn back to argue, that since the goods have been sold, liability cannot be fastened upon Respondents 2 and 3 and in any case on the appellant."
14) The above maxims considered by the Supreme Court in the above three reported decisions viz., "Falsa demonstratio" and "nullus commodum" can be applied only with reference to the property or status in respect of which such false representation or fraudulent representation was made. In the case on hand, relying on the above maxims, the first defendant cannot be permitted to grab and retain other property than the property covered by Ex.A-10 in respect of which a false representation is stated to have been made. The suit site of Ac.0.07 1/2 cents is not the property covered by Ex.A-10 sale deed. If any false representation was made by the plaintiffs to the first defendant at the time of obtaining Ex.A-10 sale deed in so far as southern boundary for items 1 and 2 therein are concerned, then it is for the first defendant to fight it out against the plaintiffs in a Court of law to get the extent of site lost by the first defendant due to false description of southern boundary as 'house' of Hameed instead of 'site' of Hameed; or in case there was any mediation in which the plaintiffs are stated to have agreed to provide alternative site, it is for the first defendant to obtain a registered rectification deed for Ex.A-10 or fresh registered conveyance for the alternative site provided by the plaintiffs.
15) There is no evidence before the Court as to the extent of site lost by the first defendant by way of mis-description of southern boundary in Ex.A-10 as 'house' of Hameed instead of 'site' of Hameed. Each of items 1 and 2 covered by Ex.A-10 is of 36 Ankanams. According to the first defendant, the plaintiffs agreed and gave alternative site of 48 feet X 27 feet which is equivalent to 36 ankanams in the place of 2nd item of Ex.A-10. There is no material by way of measurements to show the extent of loss said to have been suffered by the first defendant due to mis-description of southern boundary. In the absence of regular registered conveyance for site of 48 feet X 27 feet equivalent to 36 ankanams in favour of the first defendant, the first defendant did not get any legal title to any portion of the suit site of Ac.0.07 1/2 cents. The first defendant also cannot be permitted to lead parol evidence contradicting the contents of Ex.A-10 sale deed, in view of Proviso (4) to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, in the absence of any document evidencing the alleged mediation in the year 1982, cause of action for the suit cannot be taken as started in the year 1982. The plaintiffs rushed to the trial Court when the defendants were trying to lay foundations overnight in the plaintiffs' property of the suit site of Ac.0-07 1/2 cents prior to filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is well within time and it is not barred by limitation. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
16) It cannot be said that the suit site of Ac.0.07 1/2 cents is unspecified. The plaintiffs have given boundary measurements for the said Ac.0- 07 1/2 cents and also appended plan to the plaint which is now attached to the decree with the above description, in order to localize the suit land. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the decree becomes inexecutable even if it is granted as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
(N.B: As per written statement of 1st defendant Ankanam is equivalent to 6 feet X 6 feet = 36 Sq. feet or 4 Square yards).
17) In view of my above discussion of material aspects of the case and particularly legal position, it follows that decisions of both the Courts below are unsustainable in law. The first defendant cannot have any legal defence to oppose the plaintiffs' claim of Ac.0-07 1/2 cents of the suit land.
18) In the result, the second appeal is allowed with costs throughout setting aside decrees passed by the Courts below and granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants as prayed for in the plaint. The first defendant is given liberty to remove any constructions made in the suit site during the period between filing of the suit and now in the suit site of Ac.0.071/2 cents and take away material therefrom within 2 months from today. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.21st January, 2013