Madras High Court
Jubaida Ummal vs S.Abdul Azees on 25 February, 2011
Author: R. Mala
Bench: R. Mala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA Appeal Suit No.27 of 2009 Jubaida Ummal .. Appellant/Defendant .. Vs .. S.Abdul Azees .. Respondent/Plaintiff Prayer : This First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.27 of 2006, dated 28.09.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal. For Appellant : Mr.T.P.Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.S.Sounthar - - - - - JUDGMENT
This appeal has been arising out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.27 of 2006, dated 28.09.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.
2. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2006 are as follows:-
The defendant is the owner of the suit property. She borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a simple mortgage deed on 24.07.2002, which was duly executed, attested and registered. The defendant has undertook to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On 25.07.2003, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.40,000/- towards principal and interest and a receipt was also issued by the plaintiff for the same. Except this amount, the defendant has not paid any other amount. In spite of various demands, the defendant has failed to repay the balance amount and discharged the mortgage. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 13.05.2004 calling upon the defendant to repay the balance amount. The defendant received the said notice on 15.05.2004, but she neither sent a reply, nor repaid the balance amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money due on mortgage deed and prayed for a decree.
3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant is as follows:-
(i) During the beginning of second half of the year 2000, the defendant and her husband viz., Mr.Meidin Abdul Kader were badly in need of Rs.40,000/- for the admission of their son Mr.Jamaldeen in a private Engineering College at Trichy for B.E. (EEE) Course. At that time, one Mr.Balaraman, French Teacher Street, Karaikal, came forward to lend money to the defendant for a monthly interest of 3%. The said Mr.Balaraman is a Financier and he represented to the defendant and her husband that he would arrange funds from prospective creditors, if they could offer their immovable property as collateral security for the proposed loan. Since the defendant was in dire need of the money, she handed over the Xerox copy of a title deed. The said Mr.Balaraman had kept prepared the sale agreement purporting to be an agreement of the sale of the defendant's lands at Subarayapuram to one Abdul Azees. When the defendant and her husband made an enquiry, the said Mr.Balaraman informed them that it is the practice of indigenous money lenders to get an agreement of sale from the borrower for a higher amount and that the agreement of sale was meant only as a security. A sale agreement was executed on 15.07.2000 as if the defendant has agreed to sell her properties for Rs.1,25,000/- and that she had received an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- from Abdul Azees. But the said Mr.Balaraman gave a sum of Rs.38,750/- to the defendant stating that he has deducted a sum of Rs.1,250/- towards advance interest for one month. Even in the year 2000, the Government Guideline rate of the properties covered in the sale agreement dated 15.07.2000 was Rs.3,00,000/-. For one year, the defendant had, through her husband, paid interest at Rs.1,250/- per month to Balaraman. It is only at that juncture, the aforementioned Abdul Azees viz., the plaintiff came to the house of of the defendant and told her that not to pay interest to Mr.Balaraman and to pay the interest directly to him.
(ii) During the 1st week of July 2002, the plaintiff called on the defendant at her residence and told her a shocking news that Mr.Balaraman had availed a loan of Rs.60,000/- from him and as he had neither paid the principal nor paid the interest, he demanded that the defendant must pay the entire sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff also gave a complaint against the defendant to the Superintendent of Police, Karaikal. The defendant's husband went to police station and an enquiry was conducted by the Station House Officer, Karaikal Town Police Station. The Station House Officer has directed the defendant to offer her house property, which is situated at Nehru Nagar, as a security for repayment. Realising that the defendant was made a scapegoat as Mr.Balaraman ditched her, the defendant's husband hesitatingly agreed to execute a mortgage deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff persuaded the defendant's husband only in the presence of the defendant's brother-in-law viz., Mr.M.M.E.Abdul Jabbar for name sake mortgage deed dated 24.07.2002 is created and that he would talk to Mr.Balaraman and find a solution amicably and told the defendant to arrange for Rs.40,000/- as early as possible and to pay monthly interest of Rs.1,250/- in the meanwhile. As agreed, the defendant continued to pay interest every month to the plaintiff punctually. On 25.07.2003, the defendant and her husband, with the help of the said M.M.E. Abdul Jabbar, approached the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Once again, the plaintiff had mischievously executed and issued a receipt to the defendant acknowledging receipt of Rs.40,000/- but stating that the balance together with interest should be paid within six months. The plaintiff affixed 4 revenue stamps on the reverse of the receipt dated 25.07.2003 and told the defendant that she could retain the original receipt with her and that he would get back from her when the moneys are paid by Mr.Balaraman.
(iii) After one year, the plaintiff had sent a notice to the defendant. On receipt of the notice, the defendant's husband called on the plaintiff and explained his unenvious position. The plaintiff told the defendant's husband to meet Mr.Balaraman and to show the notice to him. As per the instruction of the plaintiff, the defendant's husband met Mr.Balaraman and made enqiries. Mr.Balaraman took the notice from the defendant's husband and told him that not to bother anymore and to ignore the notice. The original title deed of suit property is in the hands of one Mr.S.T.Nehru. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The suit is hit by the doctrine of suppresioveri. Hence, the plaintiff had prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
4. The learned trial Judge, after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, had framed four issues for consideration. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 and D.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.B.1, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for in the plaint, against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant.
5. After Considering the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, this Court had framed the following points for consideration:-
"1. Whether the trial Court is correct in granting decree ignoring the fact that the defendant has not received any amount under Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed dated 24.07.2002?
2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable?
3. To what relief the appellant/defendant is entitled to?"
6. The respondent as the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money due on a suit mortgage deed dated 24.07.2002 stating that he lend a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant. But the appellant/defendant paid only a sum of Rs.40,000/- as per Ex.A.2. Therefore, the appellant/defendant is liable to pay the balance amount. After issuance of notice under Ex.A.3, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit. The trial Court has decreed the suit.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would submit that Ex.A.1-mortgage deed is not supported by consideration and the attestation has not been proved. The trial Court has not considered the fact that the appellant/defendant has paid interest at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per month and the same was not given credit to. The respondent/plaintiff has not produced any document to show that on which date he lent Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant under Ex.A.1. Mr.Balaraman was examined as D.W.2 and his evidence has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant had prayed for allowing of this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also relied upon the decisions stating that the appellant/defendant has every right to rebut the presumption. The rebuttal need not be always direct evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant further submitted that the proof of document is not a proof of contents.
9. Rebutting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that Ex.A.1 is the registered document. The appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed the mortgage deed. On the side of the appellant/defendant, one Mr.Abdul Jabbar was examined as D.W.3, who is the attestor of the Ex.A.1 document. His evidence is fully supporting the case of the respondent/plaintiff. So, the attestation has been proved and also the contents of the document have been proved. Even though the appellant/defendant has raised a plea of undue influence, but it ought to have been properly pleaded and proved.
10. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied upon Ex.A.2 equal to Ex.B.1, which is clearly proved the payment of Rs.40,000/-. The recital itself is clearly proved in the execution of Ex.A.1-mortgage deed. Therefore, the trial Court has considered the evidence both oral and documentary and came to the correct conclusion. Hence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff had prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Considering the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, Ex.A.1 is a simple mortgage deed. Even though the attestor was not examined by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant herein/defendant has examined one of the attestor Mr.Abdul Sabbar as D.W.3, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the appellant/defendant that is her sister's husband. While considering the evidence, it is clearly proved that the appellant herein has executed the simple mortgage deed after knowing the contents. So, it is appropriate to consider the oral evidence of D.W.3, attestor. D.W.3 is a secretary of wakf board of Pondicherry Government. In his evidence, he has stated that on the date of execution of Ex.A.1, the respondent/plaintiff has not paid any money. In his cross examination, he has fairly conceded that the appellant/defendant has accepted Ex.A.1 and signed the same. He was called by the appellant/defendant. So, he gone to the Registration Department on his own volition.
12. D.W.2 is Mr.Balaraman. He has given evidence supporting the case of the appellant/defendant. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has no contact with the respondent/plaintiff. One Mr.Singaram alone is the broker for this transaction. Through him only, the appellant/defendant has obtained loan. D.W.2 has deposed that he has not gone through the document. Further, he has stated that in Ex.A.1, he is not one of the attestor. But the evidence of D.W.2 has been falsified by Ex.A.1. The respondent/plaintiff has appeared in the registration department and in Ex.A.1, the photo of the respondent/plaintiff has been affixed. In such circumstances, the evidence that the respondent/plaintiff was not present is unacceptable one. So, the evidence of D.W.2 is not trustworthy and it is unacceptable.
13. As already stated above, in Ex.A.1, one of the attestor is D.W.3, who is none other than the husband of defendant's own sister. D.W.3 has fairly conceded that the appellant/defendant has appeared in the registration department on her own volition and executed the simple mortgage deed. Therefore, Ex.A.1 is a true and genuine document. It is also pertinent to note that Ex.A.2 is equal to Ex.B.1. In that, D.W.3 is one of the attestor. In Exs.A.2-B.1, it was stated as follows:-
"jh';fs; vd;dplk; gj;jpu gjpt[ vz; 1264/02 (D.M.) go fld; th';fp ,Ue;j U:gha;f;F B-1 mrYk;. tl;of;fhf U:gha; ,d;W njjpapy; (25.7.03) moapy; fz;l rhl;rpfs; Kd;dpiyapy; xU bjhif U:gha; 40,000/- (ehw;gJ Mapuk;) kl;Lk; bgw;Wf; bfhz;nld;/ mjw;F ,Jnt urPJ/ ghf;fp bjhiff;F mrYk;. tl;oa[k; 6 (MW) khjj;jpy; bfhLj;J jPh;j;J tpl ntz;oaJ/"
14. At this juncture, the evidence of D.W.3 is necessary to decide whether Exs.A.2-B.1 is true and genuine. In the cross-examination of D.W.3, he has stated as follows:-
"gp/1 ia vGjpaJ ahh; vd;W vdf;F epidtpy;iy/ urPJ goj;J ghh;j;Jjhd; ifbaGj;Jg; nghl;lhh;/ ehDk;. gpujpthjpa[k; goj;Jg;ghh;j;njhk;/ me;j mk;khs; rhp xj;Jf;bfhz;ljhy;jhd; ehDk; ifbaGj;Jg; nghl;nld;/"
The evidence of D.W.3 shows that Exs.A.2-B.1 is true and genuine document. The appellant/defendant has accepted the recital in Exs.A.2-B.1 and signed the same. So, the defence raised by the appellant/defendant that she has not aware of the contents in Exs.A.2-B.1 is unacceptable one.
15. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant/defendant has received a notice Ex.A.3 under Ex.A.4 on 15.05.2004. But she has not sent any reply. The appellant/defendant has not disputed the execution of Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed. First time, after filing of the suit only, she has raised a plea since she has badly in need of money, the appellant/defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- through one Mr.Balaraman and executed a sale agreement. The respondent/plaintiff had demanded money from the defendant, since the amount was not paid by the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff has given a complaint to the police. Therefore, the appellant/defendant and her husband gone to the police station, where, the police directed the appellant/defendant to offer her house property as a security to the loan. So, she was forced to execute Ex.A.1. It is also pertinent to note that Mr.Balaraman has not stated anything about the same. As already stated above, the evidence of Mr.Balaraman is not trustworthy. The evidence of D.W.3-Abdul Sabbar clearly proved that Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed has been executed by the appellant/defendant on her own volition.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant relied on a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1992 Madras 132 (A.S.Duraisami Chettiar Sons, Vs. S.Rathnaswami Gounder), wherein, at paragraph No.9, this Court has held as follows:-
"9. The learned counsel no doubt also refers to the decision reported in Ramasamy Chettiar V. Sri Devi Talkies, (1976) 1 Mad LJ 22 wherein it was held that to rebut the presumption under S.118, the defendant must adduce acceptable evidence. But, as already stated, there are several authorities including that of the Supreme Court holding that the said rebuttal need not always be by direct evidence adduced by the defendant may be by presumption of law or fact."
17. I am of the view that as per the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1992 Madras 132, the presumption can be rebutted not only through the direct evidence even indirect evidence. There is no quarrel over the proposition. But the appellant/defendant has not led in any evidence neither directly nor indirectly to rebut the presumption that Ex.A.1 is not supported to the consideration.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1993 (2) LW 587 (K.Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. K.Natarajan and another), wherein, this Court has observed as follows:-
Held: A glance at the language used in S.67 of the Indian Evidence Act also supports the view that the proof of the document by proving the signature of the first-defendant herein cannot extend to the proof of the genuineness of the contents thereof, for, the contents of Ex.A4 are in the hand-writing of sombody else. In a case like one in hand, when signature is found to have been proved in accordance with law, but the genuineness of the contents are in dispute it is all the more necessary that the author or the scribe of the contents is examined, so that opportunity is afforded to the person, who disputed the genuineness of the contents to elicit from the author or the scribe, informations which would show one way or the other as to the genuineness thereof."
19. Relying the decision of this Court reported in 1993 (2) LW 587, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that proof of document need not be the proof of contents. There is no quarrel over the proposition. D.W.3 is one of the attestor, who is a Secretary to the wakf board and who is none other than brother-in-law of the appellant/defendant that is sister's husband of the appellant/defendant. In his evidence, D.W.3 has stated that the appellant/defendant has voluntarily came to the registration department and executed a simple mortgage deed Ex.A.1 on her own volition after knowing the same. In his cross examination, D.W.3 has stated as follows:-
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED which shows that the appellant/defendant herself after gone through the recital has signed in Ex.A.1. In such circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant reported in 1993 (2) LW 587 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1992 KERALA 103 (Joseph Zacharia and others Vs. Joseph Kuriakose and another), wherein, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, at Paragraph No.8, has held as follows:-
"8. ........ If really Ext.A2 was executed as a result of undue influence and coercion 2nd defendant had sufficient time and opportunity to dispute the validity of the same. Till the suit was filed no action to question the validity of Ext.A2 was taken by the second defendant. This would certainly probabilise the case of the plaintiff that there was a settlement of the claim for compensation and it was as a result of such settlement Ext.A2 was executed."
21. Relying the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1992 KERALA 103, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the appellant/defendant has pleaded that in what circumstances Ex.A.1 came into existence. But the appellant/defendant has not taken any steps to question the validity of the document till filing of the suit. So, the agreement is not vitiated by undue influence and coercion.
22. As already stated, it is true that Ex.A.1 came into existence on 24.07.2002. The appellant/defendant has paid a part payment of Rs.40,000/- and obtained a receipt under Ex.A.2 on 25.07.2003. D.W.3-Abdul Sabbar has deposed that the appellant/defendant was well aware of the recital in Ex.A.2. In Ex.A.2, the execution of Ex.A.1 has been accepted. Since the appellant/defendant has not repaid the balance amount, notice was issued by the respondent/plaintiff under Ex.A.3 on 13.05.2004 and the same has been received under Ex.A.4 on 15.05.2004. But the appellant/defendant has not sent any reply. She kept quiet all along. After filing of the suit on 18.04.2006, which was taken on file on 01.08.2006, the appellant/defendant has filed written statement on 30.09.2006 and raised such plea in paragraph No.5 of her written statement that in what circumstances, Ex.A.1 came into existence.
23. In such circumstances, the appellant/defendant has not questioned the validity of the document Ex.A.1. So, she is not entitled to question the same after accepting Ex.A.1 under Ex.A.2. Hence, the appellant/defendant has failed to prove that she has not received any amount under Ex.A.1, simple mortgage deed. The trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and passed the preliminary decree of mortgage. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for in the plaint. The point No.1 is answered accordingly.
24. Point Nos.2 and 3:
In view of the answer given to point No.1 in proper perspective, the trial Court has considered all the aspects and granted preliminary decree. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Hence, it is liable to be confirmed. So, the appellant/defendant is not entitled to any relief. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is hereby dismissed.
25. In fine,
(i) The First Appeal is dismissed with costs.
(ii) The preliminary judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal, in O.S.No.27 of 2009, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Two months time is granted for payment.
jrl To
1. The Additional District Judge, Puducherry at Karaikal.
2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Chennai