Madras High Court
Kannan vs S.Damodaran on 21 November, 2014
Author: S. Tamilvanan
Bench: S.Tamilvanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.11.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN S.A. No.2 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Kannan .. Appellant -vs- S.Damodaran ... Respondent Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.03.2007 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 30.11.2005 made in O.S.No.1014 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif (District Judge Training), Tiruvannamalai. For Appellant : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Mukund for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates JUDGMENT
The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 22.03.2007 passed in A.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2005 made in O.S.No.1014 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif (District Judge Training), Tiruvannamalai.
2. The appellant herein was the defendant before the Trial court and the suit was filed by the respondent herein seeking specific performance of a contract. The respondent / plaintiff has averred that after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.28,000/-, as per the terms of the registered conditional sale deed, dated 17.05.2003, delivery of possession of the suit property should be given to the respondent / plaintiff by the appellant / defendant. However, the appellant / defendant was not ready and willing to receive the consideration back and execute sale deed in terms of the conditional sale deed, hence, the suit was filed by respondent / plaintiff, seeking specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed by the trial court, by its judgment, dated 30.11.2005, directing the appellant / defendant to execute re-conveyance deed, as per the terms of the conditional sale deed, dated 17.05.2003 and the Appellate Court, has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, by its Judgment, dated 22.03.2007, aggrieved by which, the second appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
"a) Whether the Appellate Court is correct in holding that Ex.A.1 contains the entire conditions pre-requisite for re-conveyance when, Ex.B.13 in writing given by the plaintiff embodies some of the other pre-requisite conditions concerning the transaction ?
b) Whether the learned Judge is correct in decreeing the suit for specific performance without considering equity, balance of convenience and hardship that would be caused to the appellant / defendant ?"
3. It is seen that Ex.A.1 is a certified copy of the original conditional sale deed, dated 12.05.2003, Ex.B.11, executed by the respondent / plaintiff in favour of the appellant / defendant herein, whereby the suit property was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.28,000/-. Ex.B.13 is said to be an unregistered agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent on the same day. The case of the appellant / defendant is that on the aforesaid date, the respondent / plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, for which executed the conditional sale deed, stating the sale consideration only as Rs.28,000/- and executed an unregistered agreement, whereby he agreed that after returning the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, he would get re-conveyance deed before 11.11.2004 in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in Ex.B.11, conditional sale deed, if the sale consideration is repaid on or before 11.11.2004, the respondent / plaintiff would be entitled for re-conveyance and in case of non-compliance, the appellant / defendant would be the absolute owner of the property.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent / plaintiff has sought judgment and decree, as per the terms and conditions of the conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11, dated 12.05.2003, whereby the appellant / defendant, after receiving the sale consideration, Rs.28,000/- should re-convey the property in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and deliver the possession of the property, failing which, the Court below has to execute sale deed through an officer of the Court, in terms of the registered conditional sale deed, dated 12.05.2003.
5. The short point to be decided towards the substantial questions of law is whether the respondent / plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of the conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11, referred to above or whether the appellant / defendant could raise a plea, based on the unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13 and argue that the respondent / plaintiff was not ready and willing in getting re-conveyance on or before the stipulated date, as agreed by both the parties.
6. The defence raised by the appellant / defendant in his written statement is that the conditional sale deed was executed by the respondent / plaintiff in favour of the appellant / defendant, only for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, though the sale consideration received by the respondent / plaintiff is stated as Rs.28,000/- in the conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11. Learned counsel for the appellant / defendant submits that the sale consideration under the registered conditional sale deed was Rs.1,00,000/- and that was the mutual understanding between the parties, however, the respondent / plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13 relating to the conditional sale deed, hence, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit.
7. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that the plaintiff and the defendant were originally friends and the plaintiff was in urgent need of money, for which, he approached the appellant / defendant. As per the conditional sale deed, the plaintiff received Rs.28,000/- as sale consideration from the defendant and based on the consensus arrived at the conditional sale deed was executed by the appellant herein.
8. It is crystal clear that the original of the conditional sale deed, dated 12.05.2003 marked as Ex.B.11 is an admitted document by both parties and the copy of the conditional sale deed, dated 12.05.2003 marked as Ex.A.1 on the side of the respondent / plaintiff. As per the conditional sale deed, the defendant received only Rs.28,000/- as sale consideration and it is stated that if the amount is repaid on or before 11.11.2004, as per the terms and conditions stipulated therein, the plaintiff would be entitled to get re-conveyance of the property from the appellant / defendant.
9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant that the Courts below are not correct in holding that the condition stipulated in Ex.B.11 / Ex.A.1 is the prerequisite for re-conveyance and not considering the unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13 that embodies some of the other prerequisite conditions concerning the transaction of re-conveyance. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant cited the following decisions :
1. Tyagaraja Mudaliyar v. Vedathanni, Privy Council Appeal No.13 of 1934
2. Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, (2007) 7 MLJ 832
3. Indira Kaur v. Sheo Lal Kapoor, AIR 1988 SC 1074
10. In Tulsi v. Chandrika Prasad, reported in (2007) 7MLJ 832, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per Section 58 (c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transaction, if evidenced by one document may be held to be a mortgage with conditional sale. The conditions precedent for arriving at conclusion that the transaction is a mortgage with conditional sale or, there must be an ostensible sale. Document must contain a condition that on default of payment of mortgage amount on a stipulated date, the sale shall become absolute or that, on such payment being made, the sale shall become void or on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller. Referring Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the said section mainly forbids proving of the contents of a writing otherwise, than by writing itself and merely lays down the 'best evidence rule'. It, however, does not prohibit the parties to adduce evidence, in a case, the deed is capable of being construed differently to show how they understood the same.
11. In the instant case, both the parties to the second appeal have admitted the conditional sale deed, dated 12.05.2003 marked as Ex.B.11. As per this document, both the parties have agreed for the sale consideration fixed by the parties was Rs.28,000/- and that was received by the respondent / plaintiff on the said date and executed the conditional sale deed. As per the terms and conditions available at page number 5 of the said document, the respondent / plaintiff should return the sale consideration on or before 11.11.2004 for getting re-conveyance of the property sold by him, otherwise, the appellant/ defendant would be entitled to get the property as absolute owner, by getting sub-divisional number from the revenue authorities. The averments of this document, Ex.B.11 / Ex.A1, cannot be disputed by both the parties, as it is the conditional sale deed, an admitted document.
12. It is the case of the appellant / defendant that the sale consideration fixed was Rs.1,00,000/-, however, the sale deed was executed, stating it only as Rs.28,000/-, considering the fact that more stamp duty was payable by the appellant / defendant. However, the said plea cannot be accepted as a legal defence. There should be no suppression of the real value and the actual consideration paid thereon in a sale deed by any party and no one is entitled to take any dual stand, one for evading from paying the correct stamp duty, stating a lesser value of the property and another, a higher value of the property for some other claim. Having admitted the fact that the sale consideration paid by him as Rs.28,000/- in the registered conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11, it is not open to the appellant / defendant to say that the actual sale consideration was Rs.1,00,000/-, based on Ex.B.13, an unregistered document written agreement in a Non-Judicial stamp paper.
13. It is seen that the very same witnesses have signed the unregistered agreement. The Courts below have categorically held that the suit and the appeal cannot be decided, based on the unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13 and hold that the sale consideration was Rs.1,00,000/-, though the same is stated as Rs.28,000/- in the registered sale deed, Ex.B.11 and further, when there is no counter claim made by the appellant / defendant, the Courts below cannot go into the genuineness and legality of the document, Ex.B.13. It is seen that the Non-judicial stamp paper for the sale deed, Ex.B.11 was purchased on 12.05.2003 in the name of the appellant / defendant, however, the stamp paper relating to Ex.B.13, unregistered agreement is said to have been purchased on 09.12.2002 in the name of S.Damodharan of Pallikondanpattu village.
14. It is well settled that an unregistered agreement relating to the immovable property worth Rs.1,00,000/-, according to the appellant for a period for more than one year, cannot be taken as a legally accepted document, as it was not been registered in the manner known to law. As held by the Courts below, it is not open to the appellant / defendant to dispute the averments made in the registered conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11, based on an unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13. It is clear that before the expiry date, 11.11.2004, the respondent / plaintiff had sent legal notice with a bankers cheque, stating that he was ready and willing to repay the sale consideration and requested for re-conveyance, as per the terms of the conditional sale deed. However, that was not received by the respondent, but returned unserved, hence, the conduct of the parties is also relevant in this case. In support of the said contention, the respondent / plaintiff produced copy of the legal notice, xerox copy of the Bankers cheque sent to the appellant / defendant. The defendant has produced and marked Exs.B.1 to B.10 before the Court below, which are blank cheque, each for Rs.1,000/- signed by the respondent / plaintiff. The respondent / plaintiff, as P.W.1 has deposed that the same were given by him only towards the interest for the amount, since the said amount received by him was only a loan amount to be repaid by him, for which he executed the conditional sale deed and also issued the signed blank cheques.
15. In S.Saktivel v. M.Venugopal Pillai and ors, reported in 2001-1-LW 855, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
"92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement - When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms.
Proviso (4) - The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents."
16. As held by the Courts below, as there is no counter claim made by the appellant / defendant and also the settled proposition of law that the unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13 would not prevail over the registered conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11 / Ex.A.1, this Court is of the view to answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and against the appellant / defendant.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the terms of a registered document cannot be altered by an unregistered document. On the aforesaid circumstances, the Court cannot consider any equity and hold that the unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13 would prevail over Ex.B.11, registered conditional sale deed and decide anything in favour of the appellant / defendant, in deciding the second substantial question of law. It could rightly be said that balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant / defendant, as there is no counter claim and raising a plea based on an unregistered agreement, Ex.B.13, against the registered conditional sale deed, Ex.B.11 and the terms and conditions, stipulated therein. The respondent / plaintiff is entitled to get re-conveyance, if he was ready and wiling to repay Rs.28,000/-, received as consideration under Ex.B.11, conditional sale deed, to the appellant /defendant. The legal notice and bankers cheque for the said amount sent by the respondent / plaintiff would also probablise the case of the respondent / plaintiff and the other evidence available on record would clearly establish that the respondent / plaintiff was ready and willing to return the money and to get re-conveyance of the property, as per Ex.B.11, conditional sale deed. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no error or illegality on the part of the Courts below in giving a concurrent finding in favour of the respondent / plaintiff, accordingly, the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and against the appellant / defendant.
18. In view of the answers given for the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant / defendant, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
21-11-2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes tsvn S. TAMILVANAN,J.
tsvn To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge Tiruvannamalai.
2. The II Additional District Munsif (District Judge Training), Tiruvannamalai.
judgment in
S.A. No.2 of 2008
21-11-2014