Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chandrika W/O Govindaswamy vs Sri Srinivasa @ Srinivasamurthy on 23 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:39485
RSA No. 530 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2013 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANDRIKA
W/O GOVINDASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NEW EXTENSION
M C HALLY, KASABA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H N M PRASAD & R. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI SRINIVASA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY
S/O THANAPPA
Digitally
signed by R SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
DEEPA 1(A) SRI. KUTHAN
Location: AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
HIGH S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY
COURT OF
R/AT GANAPATHY NAGAR
KARNATAKA
REDDYKUPPAM ROAD
VIKRAVANDI POST
VILLUPURAM DISTRICT - 605652
TAMILNADU
1(B) SMT. SENGENI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE IYYAPPAN
D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:39485
RSA No. 530 of 2013
R/AT MARIANMMAN KOIL STREET
SEMMEDU VILLAGE AND POST
PANRUTHI TALUK
CUDDALORE DISTRICT - 607 106
TAMILNADU
1(C) SMT. VALLI @ EGAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY
STALIN NAGAR, WARD No.23
CUDDALORE - 607 001
TAMILNADU
1(D) SMT. VIMALA
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O LATE LAKSHMAN & DAUGHTER IN LAW
LATE SRI. SRINIVASA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY
1(E) MR. AJITH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMAN & GRANDSON OF
LATE SRI. SRINIVASA @ SRINIVASAMURTHY
1(D) AND 1(E) ARE R/AT
No.21, PRIMS NAGAR
KAMMING PETTAI
THIRUPADIRIPULIYUR POST
CUDDALORE DISTRICT - 607 002
TAMILNADU.
2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O N. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT HURULIHALLI
KASABAHOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK
3. SRI. L. GANGADHAR
S/O SRI. LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT M.C. HALLI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:39485
RSA No. 530 of 2013
KASABA HOBLI
TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARCHANA MURTHY P, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) & R3
R1(B), R1(C), R1(D), R1(E) & R2 SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 23.1.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.68/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT, CHIKMAGALUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 20.4.2012
PASSED IN OS.NO.54/2007 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2013, passed in R.A.No.68/2012 by the learned Fast Track court, Chikmagalur and the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012 passed in O.S.No.54/2007 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere.
2. For convenience, parties are referred to according to their ranking before the trial Court. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance of the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the owner of Sy.No.12/P5-2, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. The defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property situated at H.Rangapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere taluk. To discharge his family necessities and for the development of his wife's land, the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-
Accordingly, the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs.2,46,000/-. Accordingly, the defendant executed the registered agreement of sale on 18.05.2007. It was agreed that the balance consideration amount would be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale deed.
Subsequent to the execution of an agreement of sale, the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 plaintiff came to know that the defendant was attempting to sell the suit schedule land with an intention to defraud the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the application before the Sub-Registrar, Tarikere, not to register the suit land in favour of the intending purchaser. It is contended that, the plaintiff was/is ready and willing to perform her part of contract, but the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the registered sale deed. But the defendant went on postponing on one or the other pretext.
Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of a contract.
4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale and receiving the part consideration amount. It is contended that the defendant is an illiterate person. The husband of the plaintiff by name Govindaswamy, by taking undue advantage of his illiteracy, has taken him to the Sub- Registrar office and, on the pretext of obtaining the loan -6- NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 from the Bank, has obtained some signatures on the document. He does not know the Kannada language, and he was not aware of the contents of the document dated 18.05.2007. It is contended that the plaintiff and her husband played fraud on the defendant and created the alleged agreement of sale. It is contended that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay the consideration amount as mentioned in the alleged agreement of sale. It is contended that the defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.57/2005 against the plaintiff, questioning the alleged partition deed fabricated by the plaintiff with respect to his landed property. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the suit.
5. The trial Court on the basis of the above pleadings, framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff -7- NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 for sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and accordingly executed registered agreement of sale on 18.05.2007 by receiving advance of Rs.2,46,000/- as stated in the plaint?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant had also agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of him by receiving balance amount of Rs.24,000/- at the time of registration?
3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
4) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the contract as prayed?
5) Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff has obtained his signature fraudly on sale agreement to grab the suit schedule property as stated in the written statement?
6) Whether the defendant further proves that, he has executed an agreement of sale of the suit schedule property on 21.08.2008 in favour of one Perumal S/o Adhimula of H.Rangapura for valid consideration of Rs.3,20,000/- by receiving advance amount of Rs.3,00,000?
7) What decree or order?
6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined herself as PW.1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to 8. The -8- NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 defendant examined himself as DW.1 and examined 2 witnesses as Dws.2 and 3 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.D1 to 6. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the negative, issue No.5 in the affirmative, issue No.7 as per the final order. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 20.04.2012.
7. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54/2007 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.68/2012. The first Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration.
1) Whether the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tarikere in O.S.No.54/2007 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside?
2) What order?
8. The first Appellate Court on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative, point No.2 as per the final order. The first -9- NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2013. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, filed this regular second appeal.
9. Heard Sri. H.N.M Prasad, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Smt. Archana Murthy P, learned counsel for R1(a) and R3.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid part of the consideration amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and the defendant executed the registered agreement of sale dated 18.05.2007. He submits that the plaintiff was/is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. But the defendant did not perform his part of the contract. He submits that the defendant has committed a breach of contract. He also submits that, admittedly, the agreement of sale is registered. The courts
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 below could have drawn the presumption in regard to the execution of an agreement of sale. In order to buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RANGANAYAKAMMA AND ANR VS. K.S.PRAKASH (D) BY L.RS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2008 AIR SCW 6476 and in the case of RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. NIRMAL GILL AND OTHERS ETC. REPORTED IN AIR 2021 SC
899. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the defendant has denied the execution of Ex.P1. The heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of Ex.P1. She also submits that by virtue of the alleged agreement of sale, no part consideration amount was passed, and she submits that there is a presumption in regard to the execution, but there is no presumption in regard to the contents of documents. She also submits that the defendant has specifically denied in
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 the written statement stating that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property, but to establish that the plaintiff had a sufficient source of income for purchasing the schedule property, she has not produced any records. Further, she submits that the plaintiff has failed to establish the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Further, there is a pendency of the suit in O.S.No.57/2005. Hence, there is no question of execution of an alleged agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, and the said alleged agreement of sale was created during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.57/2005, and the said document is hit by Doctrine of lis pendens. Hence, she submits that PW.2 has not supported the case of the plaintiff regarding the passing of part of the consideration amount. She submits that the plaintiff has failed to establish that Rs.2,40,000/- was paid towards the part of the consideration amount. Hence, she submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove the contents of the alleged registered agreement of sale and further, in order to buttress her arguments, she placed reliance on
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VEENA SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2022 LIVE LAW (SC) 462 and also in the case of RAMATHLAL AND OTHERS VS. K.RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2023 LIVE LAW (SC) 666. Hence, she submits that both the courts below were justified in recording the finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish the contents of Ex.P1. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. This court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :
1) Whether the courts below were justified in arriving at a conclusion that Ex.P1 agreement of sale dated 18.05.2007, which was duly registered before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar Office was not proved by plaintiff though attesting witness PW.2 has reiterated the contents of Ex.P1?
2) Whether the courts below were correct in arriving at a conclusion that
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 defendant has proved that Ex.P1 has come into existence under fraudulent circumstances?
13. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW:
Both substantial questions of law are interlinked with each other. Hence, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts. The plaintiff in order to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1 and she has deposed that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards part consideration amount and it was agreed that balance consideration amount be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The defendant executed the registered agreement of sale on 18.05.2007. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount. The defendant did not receive the balance consideration amount and executed
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 the registered sale deed. The plaintiff, in order to establish that the defendant had executed the registered agreement of sale, produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the original registered agreement of sale, which reveals that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. Ex.P2 is the RTC extract pertaining to the suit land for the year 2006-07, which stands in the name of the defendant to the extent of 20 acres and stands in the name of the plaintiff to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. Ex.P3 is the MR extract, which discloses that the said property was mutated in the name of the defendant and plaintiff vide mutation order 23.12.2005. Ex.P4 is the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 28.09.2002, Ex.P5 is the certified copy of Nativity certificate issued by the Tahsildar which reveals that defendant is the 3rd son of Danappa and residing at Manapakam village, Tamilnadu. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the endorsement issued by Tahsildar dated 01.10.2002. Ex.P7 is the certified copy issued by Grama Panchayath, president of Manapakam, which
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 discloses that on the petition submitted by V.Govindaswamy, he has issued a certificate stating that the defendant is residing at the address permanently and he is living along with his family members. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the Nativity certificate issued by the Taluk office, which discloses that the defendant is residing in the Manapakam Panchayath area.
14. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that the defendant denied the execution of a registered agreement of sale and received part consideration of Rs.2,40,000/-. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1, and further, it was suggested to PW.1 that the defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.57/2005, seeking the relief of declaration regarding the partition deed against the plaintiff. She admits regarding the pendency of the suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.57/2005, and further, it was suggested to PW.1 that the plaintiff did not possess any sufficient income for purchasing the suit schedule property. PW.1 admitted
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 during the course of cross-examination that she was not possessing funds to purchase the suit schedule property. In order to prove the execution of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff examined attesting witness Mani as PW.2, and he has deposed that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- and accordingly, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as part of the consideration amount, and the defendant executed the registered an agreement of sale. During the course of cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that in his presence, neither the plaintiff nor her husband paid any amount to the defendant at the time of execution of Ex.P1. The said admission of PW.2 is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff has not paid any amount in the presence of PW.2.
15. Further, in rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, and he denied the execution of Ex.P1. He has deposed that the defendant is illiterate, and the plaintiff, taking undue advantage of illiteracy, has obtained
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 the signature and created the alleged agreement of sale, and the plaintiff has not paid part of the consideration amount as alleged in the alleged registered agreement of sale. Further, the defendant also examined two witnesses, DWs.2 and 3, as another attesting witness to Ex.P1. DW.2 also deposed that at the time of execution of the alleged registered agreement of sale, the plaintiff had not passed any consideration amount in favour of the defendant.
16. From the perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, PW.1 in the examination-in-chief, stated that she had paid part of the consideration amount, but in the course of cross-examination, she had stated that her husband had paid the part of the consideration amount to the defendant and none of the attesting witnesses were present in her house when the advance amount was paid to the defendant. From the perusal of the pleadings, the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint that her husband had paid part of the consideration amount. Admission of PW.1 creates doubt in the mind of the court regarding the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 passing of part of the consideration amount mentioned in Ex.P1, though said document is a registered document, and there is a presumption regarding the execution of a document. However, there is no presumption regarding the contents of the document. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the contents of Ex.P1 and PW.2 have not supported the plaintiff's case. As PW.2 and DW.2, who are said to be the attesting witnesses to Ex.P1, they have deposed that the plaintiff has not passed any part of the consideration amount to the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VEENA SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR/ ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (F/R) AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2022 LIVE LAW (SC) 462, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 39 which reads as under:
"39. Section 35(1)(a) of the Registration Act uses the expression "admit the execution of the document", while Section 35(3) (a) uses the expression 'denies its execution'. Similarly, Section 72(1) has adopted the expression 'denial of
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 execution', while Section 73(1) uses the expression 'denies its execution'. However, the word 'execution' itself is not defined by the Registrarion Act. Before us, two possible interpretations have been urged by the parties:
(i) First, that 'execution' is tantamount to 'signing' a document. Hence, once a person admits to their signature on a document, they admit to having executed it; and
(ii) Second, that 'execution' cannot be equated with merely signing a document. Hence, even if a person's signature on the document admitted, they can still deny its execution if they did not agree to or understand the contents of the document while signing it."
17. It is held that the execution of a document does not stand; merely a person admits to having signed the document. The said judgment is aptly applicable to the present case on hand as the defendant has admitted his signature on Ex.P1. But the plaintiff has filed to prove the contents of Ex.P1. The heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant executed an agreement of sale and agreed to sell the suit schedule property. Though the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 defendant has taken a contention that he is an illiterate, said fact was not denied by the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of RAMATHLAL AND OTHERS VS. K.RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 2023 LIVE LAW (SC) 666. held in para 19, which reads as under:
"19. The ingredients of the plea of non est factum as laid down not only in the case of Bismillah (supra) are existing in the present case, but also the three parameters as can be deduced from Saunders (supra) were in existence in the present case as well. The aforementioned test for a successful plea of non est factum requires that:
A. The person pleading non est factum must belong to 'class of persons, who through no fault of their own, are unable to have any understanding of the purpose of the particular document because of blindness, illiteracy or some other disability". The disability must be one requiring the reliance on others for advice as to what they are signing. As Lord Pearson had aptly put:
"In my opinion, the plea of non est factum ought to be available in a proper case for the relief of a person who for permanent or temporary
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 reasons (not limited to blindness or illiteracy) is not capable of both reading and sufficiently understanding the deed or other document to be signed. By "sufficiently understanding" I mean understanding at least to the point of detecting a fundamental difference between the actual document and the document as the signer had believed it to be."
B. "The "signatory must have made a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the contents of the document being signed", including its practical effects. Lord Wilberfore has succinctly put this aspect:
"In my opinion, a document should be held to be void (as opposed to voidable) only when the element of consent to it is totally lacking, that is, more concretely, when the transaction which the document purports to effect is essentially different in substance or in kind from the transaction intended"
C. The document must have been radically different from one intended to be signed. As Lord Reid Remarked in the judgment:
"There must, I think, be a radical difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing -- or one could use the words
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 "fundamental" or "serious" or "very substantial." But what amounts to a radical difference will depend on all the circumstances."
All these three criteria are clearly pleaded and made out in the instant case as well."
18. Defendant No.1 took a plea that the plaintiff, by playing fraud on the defendant, had obtained the signature on Ex.P1. From the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and DW.2, one thing is clear that the plaintiff has failed to establish the passing of part of the consideration amount. Though the defendant has taken substantial defence in the written statement, the plaintiff had no financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property. To establish the plaintiff has the financial capacity to purchase the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that the plaintiff has a sufficient source of income for purchasing the suit schedule property. Though the agreement of sale was executed on 18.05.2007, the suit was filed in the year 2007. Before the institution of the suit, the plaintiff has not established
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 that, the plaintiff was/is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The trial Court was justified in recording the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she was/is ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
19. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.57/2005 against the plaintiff alleging that plaintiff got created a partition deed and the said partition deed was challenged in O.S.No.57/2005 and the plaintiff is a party to the said suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff got created an alleged agreement of sale dated 18.05.2007, that no person would think of executing document during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.57/2005. Further the documents produced by the plaintiff creates doubt in the mind of the court regarding the contents of Ex.P1.
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 RANGANAYAKAMMA AND ANR VS. K.S.PRAKASH (D) BY L.RS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2008 AIR SCW 6476, there is no dispute in regard to the presumption in regard to the registered instrument. Said presumption is applicable only to the execution, but not regarding to the contents of the said document. Said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is not applicable to the present case in hand. Further, he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS VS. NIRMAL GILL AND OTHERS ETC. REPORTED IN AIR 2021 SC 899, wherein, it is held that considering Section 90 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption in regard to the ancient document i.e., 30 years old document, as observed above, applicable only regarding the execution of the documents and not the contents of the documents. Even the said judgment is not applicable to the present case on hand. Further, he also placed judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VIMAL CHAND GHEVARCHAND JAIN & ORS VS RAMAKANT EKNATH JAJOO REPORTED IN (2009) 5 SCC 713 wherein, it
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 is held that registered sale deed carries a presumption that the transaction was a genuine one.
21. Admittedly, in the instant case, the evidence of PW.2 and DW.2 is not corroborated to the case of the plaintiff in regard to the passing of part of consideration amount. The plaintiff has failed to establish regarding the execution and passing of part of the consideration amount. Hence, both the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial questions of law 1 and 2 in the affirmative.
22. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. However, learned counsel for respondent No.1(a) and respondent No.3 fairly concede that defendant is ready to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the litigation expenses.
Submission is placed on record.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:39485 RSA No. 530 of 2013 The defendant is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS