Karnataka High Court
Sri S Krishna Rao vs Sri Sreenivasa Rao on 2 November, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2100/2010
BETWEEN
SRI.S.KRISHNA RAO
S/O.SREENIVASA RAO
(SINCE DECEASED BY LRs):
1. SMT.PARIMALA RAO
W/O.VINOD RAO
AGE 39 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O.FLAT NO.9
SEEMA C0-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
PLOT NO.88, GHATLA ROAD
CHEMBU
MUMBAI-400 071
2. SMT.PRATIBHA SANTOSH
W/O.SANTOSH B.N.
AGE 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
NO.514, SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA
12TH MAIN, NEAR D.K.AGENCIES
J.P.NAGAR II PHASE
BANGALORE-560 078
3. SMT.MANJULA KRISHNA RAO
AGE 59 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
NO.514, SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA
12TH MAIN, EAR D.K.AGENCIES
2
J.P.NAGAR II PHASE
BANGALORE-560 078
... APPELLANTS
(APPELLANT NO.3 IS DEAD
APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD
AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.09.2012)
(BY SRI.V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.)
AND
SRI SREENIVASA RAO
S/O.SRI KRISHNAMURTHY RAO
AGE MAJOR
NO.514, GROUND FLOOR,
NEAR D K AGENCY, II PHASE
JP NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 078
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M B NARGUND, ADV.)
RFA FILED U/O XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 17.09.2010
PASSED IN O.S.10154/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV-
ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-
45). DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is in appeal against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.10154/2005 dated 17.09.2010 declining 3 decree for possession as sought by him against the defendant.
2. Heard.
3. Perused records in supplementation to the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides.
4. It reveals:
a) The appellant S.Krishna Rao, since deceased had sought eviction of the respondent Sri.Sreenivasa Rao from a portion forming ground floor of the premises bearing No.514, II Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore described in the plaint on a specific contention he (plaintiff) had inducted the respondent as a tenant in the year 1997 after receiving Rs.1,40,000/- as a premium and further understanding that he will not be liable to pay rent. In other words, the interest that would be payable on Rs.1,40,000/- was to be adjusted towards the rent payable and on these terms, tenancy commenced. He sought eviction on the ground he has two daughters who are married and living with their husbands. But one of his daughters viz., Smt.Prathiba Santhosh was with him and accommodation available to him 4 was insufficient. Thus, he wanted to occupy the premises in possession of the respondent for his own use and occupation. Since the respondent did not comply with his request to vacate the premises and postponed it on one pretext or the other for over one year, he terminated his tenancy through a statutory notice issued on 12.09.2005.
He alleged the respondent had received notice but he failed to comply.
b) In the suit, the principal prayer was for eviction of the respondent and possession of the premises in question and the second relief was to order mesne profit at Rs.250/- per month.
c) The suit was resisted by the defendant through his written statement in which interalia he admitted that the appellant was the absolute owner of the property in question and also admitted that he was inducted as a tenant into the premises by him after paying Rs.1,40,000/- in the year 1997. He did not dispute receipt of notice dated 12.09.2005 but denied that the appellant required premises for his own use and occupation as averred. Describing the 5 recital of the notice and the averments in the plaint as factually incorrect, he denied the liability to pay Rs.250/- per month as damages. In para 10 of the written statement, he alleged that the appellant/plaintiff had played fraud on him (defendant) by not only receiving the amount but misleading the Court through his distorted version of the transaction between them.
5. According to him, plaintiff is related to him and because of the proximate relationship, he occupied the premises in the year 1997 initially on lease and paid Rs.1,40,000/- but he learnt that the appellant and his wife had borrowed loan from National Co-operative Bank and fell in arrears. The Bank had contemplated legal action against them and officers were visiting frequently. At that juncture, the appellant and his wife Smt.Manjula approached him for financial assistance offering to sell the portion in his occupation (ground floor). Thus, he submits as he was in need of a building for bonafide use and occupation, he agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and in this regard, binding agreement of sale was entered 6 into between them on 19.01.2000. In terms of the agreement, he agreed to discharge the loan due by the plaintiff to the National Co-operative Bank and in this regard, the appellant's wife addressed a letter on 08.09.2009 to the Bank authorising him to represent in the proceedings.
d) It was alleged that he paid substantial amount to the creditor bank to save legal action against the appellant and his wife, and incurred an expenditure of Rs.4,70,000/- (including Rs.1,40,000/- paid as advance) which was to be treated as sale consideration. On this basis, he alleged there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them as it had translated into a different transaction, i.e. transaction of sale. He thus claimed to be transferee-in-possession of the property in question in part performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.1.2000. On this basis, he resisted the eviction action initiated by the appellant treating him as 'tenant.' 7
e) Based on the material propositions in the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial judge framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the notice dated 12.9.05 is validly issued to the defendant?
2. Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of suit schedule property as an agreed purchaser?
3. Whether the valuation made and court fee paid is insufficient?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. What order or decree?
f) In the trial that ensued, plaintiff-appellant tendered evidence as PW1 and relied on 16 documents, while the respondent-defendant tendered evidence as DW1 and examined 4 witnesses in support of his defence. He produced 8 documents in evidence.
g) Learned trial judge, analyzing the evidence, opined plaintiff's evidence could not outweigh the defence of lack of jural relationship of landlord and tenant and thus dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment.
h) Assailing it, plaintiff is in appeal.
8
6. Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Sona Vakkund for Sri M.B.Nargund have taken me through the evidence on record and raised several contentions and issues, legal and factual, for and against the propositions referred to above, which I have taken into consideration. The following points would necessarily arise for consideration:
(i) Was jural relationship of landlord and tenant subsisting between the plaintiff and defendant as on the date of filing of the suit to entitle the plaintiff for a decree of ejectment?
(ii) Was the defence of the defendant that he was protected as transferee- in-possession of the property in part performance of the agreement of sale, tenable, granting him immunity from an order of eviction?
7. From the plaintiff's ocular and documentary evidence, it is evident that his right, title and interest in the property in question has not been impeached or brought in challenge by the defendant. The defendant in unequivocal terms, has admitted through his pleadings and even evidence that plaintiff was the owner of the property in question which comprises more than one floor structure. 9 He has also admitted that he is in possession of only one portion in the entire building having entered occupation initially as tenant. The evidence of the plaintiff also establishes that because of proximate relationship between him and the respondent, plaintiff had granted tenancy after receiving Rs.1,40,000/- to be treated as premium for lease, and interest on the said amount was to be adjusted towards rent (notionally).
8. The dispute raised by the defendant is, after his induction as tenant, plaintiff had faced financial crisis and was exposed to several legal actions including the threat of losing the property in its entirety. Thus, he and his wife- Manjula had approached him to bail them out of the precarious situation and accepting their request he agreed to purchase the property. Such contention was seriously refused by the plaintiff through his evidence. However, the defendant had taken upon himself the burden of proving change in the nature of legal transaction between them from tenancy to transaction of sale. To support such plea he has averred thus:
10
• That plaintiff and his wife-Manjula offered to sell unto him the ground floor for a sale consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- and permitted him to pay the amount directly to a co-operative bank which had threatened action against them and agreed to adjust that amount towards the sale price.
• The terms of the agreement were reduced to writing by agreement dated 19.1.2000 in terms of which he paid to the creditor bank a sum of Rs.2,92,200/- as evidenced by Ex.D1. He also contends he had paid additional amount totaling Rs.4,70,000/- out of the sale price of Rs.5,25,000/-.
• That in terms of the agreement, his possession was treated as possession in part performance of the agreement of sale, protected by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
9. As I have referred to in paragraphs supra, it shall not hold us long to affirmatively record that the plaintiff- appellant is indisputably the owner of the property in question and he had inducted the respondent as tenant on 7.11.1997. The defendant has not disputed he occupied as a tenant on a premium of Rs.1,40,000/- and paid no rent. Therefore, it has to be held that till the lease subsists between the parties they were knit by vinculum juris of landlord and tenant. The question that needs to be decided 11 is, was there any other transaction between them, like an agreement of sale as contended by the defendant to change the legal status? If so, has position as tenant under the earlier transaction transformed into position of transferee- in-possession of the property in part performance of the contract as envisaged under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
10. Evidence is in abundance. It is brought on record through four witnesses and documents marked a Exs.P1 to P8. His ocular testimony is understandably clearly self- serving when he asserts he has paid a substantial amount towards the sale price totaling Rs.4,70,000/- which resulted in execution of the agreement dated 19.1.2000. His possession is protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. To prove payment of the amount to the bank, he has produced Ex.D1 to show payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/-; both are dated 12.7.2000 and 11.7.2001 respectively. Ex.D3 is the letter from National Co-operative Bank (creditor bank) acknowledging payment of Rs.2,92,000/- by the defendant. He has also placed 12 reliance on the letter dated 20.4.2000 (Ex.D6) by which the plaintiff had authorized him to represent him in recovery proceedings. Ex.D7 recorded by the trial court as proceedings of the bank is said to be statement of accounts produced by the defendant signed by the plaintiff, which shows Rs.4,85,000/- was paid to the bank and Rs.40,000/- is due. Plaintiff has denied it. In this regard, defendant had summoned DW2-K.M.Lakshminarayana said to be the person who had enabled him in receiving money to clear the dues of the appellant. It is on record that DW2- Lakshminarayana owned an autorickshaw which the defendant was driving on hire, and thus he helped him. But it is material to note throughout the defendant has been contending he is financially weak and had to fall back on DW2 to raise money.
11. DW2 in his cross-examination admits he did not make any payment to the bank for and on behalf of the plaintiff towards any loan transaction. Even though he had admitted so, it would have been of no consequence because the question is whether the defendant has established he 13 had the agreement of sale in his favour in terms of which he had made payment to the bank for and on behalf of the plaintiff to be adjusted towards the sale price.
12. Plaintiff does not admit payment of Rs.2,92,000/- is paid by the defendant as acknowledged by the bank towards loan due by him vide Ex.D3. But since it is documentary evidence and the bank has also affirmed its correctness, we go on the premise that Rs.2,92,000/- must have been paid by the defendant for and on behalf of the plaintiff. However, even if we accept defendant's contention that he had paid Rs.2,92,000/- as acknowledged by the bank vide Ex.D3, and has also made further payments, was it towards the sale price?
13. At this juncture, it would be necessary to remind ourselves that the plaintiff has been disputing having entered into the agreement of sale with the defendant and therefore, the burden, undoubtedly, was on the defendant to establish existence of such enforceable transaction between them. In this regard, defendant has, except his 14 ocular statement, failed to produce any documentary evidence. His explanation is, though the written agreement was signed, plaintiff fraudulently took it back on the pretext of producing it before the bank and therefore, he was rendered helpless. He produced a xerox copy of the document which the trial court has not permitted to be received in evidence and alleged agreement is not on record. Therefore, as of now, defendant's case is based on his ocular agreement said to be corroborated by two witnesses. Except for it, there is no documentary evidence.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit as defendant had substantially established he had made payment for and on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff cannot stand hands- down, but was required to explain towards what amount he received money from the defendant. She would submit the payment made by the defendant should be treated as towards sale consideration in respect of the property in question and if it is done, then only the balance would become payable. Since the defendant is admittedly in possession of the property in question and payment has 15 been made by him subsequent to taking possession of the premises, it has to be treated as having obtained possession in part performance of the contract of sale.
15. Learned counsel gains citational support to her contentions by relying on the following decisions:
a) R.KANTHIMATI & OTHERS .vs.
MRS.BEATRICE XAVIER (AIR 2003
SC 4149) AND
b) MAHADEVA & OTHERS .vs.
TANABAI (ILR 2004 KAR 3203)
wherein the apex court in the first judgment referred to supra, has opined thus:
'5. Submission for the tenant is after entering into the agreement, the landlady accepted Rs.20,000/- confirming delivery of possession in this context which clearly constitutes clear intent of the landlady of entering into a new relationship with the tenant under it. Ono the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the words 'already been surrendered' therein only refer to the existing possession of the tenant and nothing more. So far this submission for the respondent, we have no hesitation to reject the same. The reference of the words 'already been surrendered' has been incorporated with consciousness. This is to be construed in 16 the background of landlady having received major amount of sale consideration and as normally if substantial sum is received by the seller, the purchaser is put in possession of the property hence to fall in the same lines the said words were used to confirm of this possession in this context. There could be no other reason to record therein as such. Even if it be said to refer to the possession as a tenant the reassertion in the agreement of sale is only for the purpose of denoting possession given in pursuance to this agreement of sale.
6. Any jural relationship between two persons could be created through agreement and similarly could be changed through agreement subject to the limitations under the law. Earlier when appellants were inducted into tenancy it only means both agreed that their relation is to be that of a landlord and tenant. Later when landlord decides to sell this property to the tenant and tenant agreed by entering into agreement they by their positive act changed their relationship as purchaser and seller. When seller landlord accepts sum he actually acts under this agreement.. This acceptance preceded by agreement of sale changes their relationship. This is how they intended. Once accepting such a change then their relationship of landlord tenant ceases.'
16. In the second decision, the apex court examined the consequence if a person had an agreement of sale in his favour and being in possession in part performance of such 17 agreement, he fails to enforce his right under the agreement. Could he claim protection under Section 53-A of the Act when his right to enforce the agreement has become time barred? The apex court opined thus:
'8. The judgment of the High Court is based on a question framed during the course of writing of the judgment which is in departure from the two questions of law on which the appeal was admitted for hearing. The whole emphasis shifted from the core issues. Then the High Court has not discussed any law and has also not assigned any reason, much less a satisfactory one, for taking a view different from the one concurrently taken by the two courts below. The singular reason assigned by the High Court for denying the benefit of Section 53-A of the TP Act is not a sound reason by itself in view of the decision of this court in SHRIMANT SHAMRAO SURYAVANSHI .vs. PRAHLAD BHAIROBA SURYAVANSHI ([2002] 3 SCC 676). This court has held that merely because the suit for specific performance at the instance of the vendee has become barred by limitation, that by itself is not enough to deny the benefit of the plea of part performance of agreement of sale to the person in possession.' On that basis, it was held even if the right to enforce a specific performance is time barred, protection under Section 53-A of the Act would be available to the person in part performance of the contract.18
17. Smt.Sona Vakkund has also placed reliance on the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1534 (N.BASAVARAJ, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs. .vs. B.SRIDHAR AND OTHERS) to bring home the point the doctrine of part performance embodied in Section 53-A is an equitable doctrine. In paragraph 24 of the judgment, it is held as under:
24. The doctrine of part performance embodied in Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is an equitable doctrine.
The object of this Section is to prevent the transferor or his successor-in-interest from taking any advantage on account of non-
registration of the document, provided the transferee has performed his part of the contract and in pursuance thereof has taken possession of some immovable property. The essentials of this Section Assessee: (i) a contract to transfer immovable property, (ii) the contract must be for consideration, (iii) it must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the transferor, (iv) the terms can be ascertained from the writing, (v) the transferee has taken possession or is already in possession of the property; (vi) he has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and (vi) he has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.
19
18. All these decisions have received my consideration which have to be applied to the facts of the case keeping in mind the other two decisions of the Apex Court, which are as under:
1) SHRIMANT SHAMARAO SURYAVANSHI & ANOTHER .vs. PRALHAD BHAIROBA SURYAVANSHI (DEAD) BY L.Rs. & OTHERS (AIR 2002 SC 960)
2) A.LEWIS & ANOTHER .vs. RAMAMURTHY & OTHERS (AIR 2008 SC
493).
Before I refer to the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be proper to refer to the conspectus of Section 53-A of the Act which reads thus:
53-A: Part performance:
Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee being already I possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, 20 and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefore by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract.
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of part performance thereof.
Thus, it is seen it is the protection which the transferee enjoys, but that statutory protection depends on other factors enumerated in the said provision. As seen from the extracted portion, there are conditions precedent for availing such protection. This could be found in the decision of SHRIMANT SHAMARAO (supra) and, though the cost of repetition, has to be summarized as follows:
21
i) there must be a contract to enforce for
consideration of any immovable
property;
ii) the contract must be in writing signed
by the transferor or any one on his
behalf;
iii) The writing must be in such words from which the terms necessary to construe transfer shall be ascertained.
iv) The transferee must, in part performance of the contract, take possession of the property or any part thereof;
v) the transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract and he must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the contract.
19. From the conditions referred to above, the first and foremost requirement is, the terms of contract should be in writing. Thus is specifically incorporated in Section 53(A) of the Act. The agreement shall be in writing. Therefore, without any hesitation it could be affirmatively held that all those contract though legally permissible to be oral agreements could be enforced but for the protection granted by Section 53(A) of the Act. Protection under Section 53-A of the Act will not be available if is not in 22 writing. In the instant case, defendant merely contended he had the written agreement dated 19.1.2000 in his favour allegedly executed by the plaintiff, but failed to produce it. The plaintiff denied it. There is no agreement in writing on record on which it could be said that the defendant has proved the agreement was in writing. In fact, Smt.Sona Vakkund has assertively contended defendant had established the agreement was in writing by producing the xerox copy and had explained the plaintiff had fraudulently taken it away from him. She did make a very sincere effort, but I am unable to accept this proposition for the reason, if as contended by the defendant, the original was in possession of the plaintiff, even then he was not remediless. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for issuance of notice for production of the document to compel the person in possession of it to produce it, and on his failure, the right accrues to produce secondary evidence. The defendant failed to resort to such remedy. The defendant seeks protection of his right statutorily provided 23 under Section 53-A of the Act and hence he is required to bring his case without such provision.
20. I cannot summon myself to take a view different from the one taken for the Trial Court. This is exactly what the apex court in the subsequent decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 493 (supra) in the case of A.LEWIS has held. It reads thus:
'As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the existence of a right to claim protection under Section 53-A would not be available if the transferee just kept quiet and remained passive without taking effective steps. Further, he must also perform his part of the contract and convey his willingness. On the other hand, the factual finding is that there was no intimation by defendant nos.3 and 4 to perform their part of contract to claim protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Likewise, as rightly concluded by the courts below, there is no material to show that the plaintiff had notice of agreement of sale Ex.D1 in favour of defendant nos.3 and 4. The conclusion of the High Court that defendant nos.3 and 4 or even defendant no.1 who claims through them are not entitled to protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is acceptable and the argument contrary to the said conclusion is liable to be rejected.' 24 From the dictum, it is easily discernable that protection of possession under Section 53-A of the Act is not blanket protection to be applied universally. It will be invoked and will be available subject to fulfillment of conditions referred to above which are enumerated in the case of SHRIMANT SHAMARAO (supra).
21. In the instant case, defendant though has succeeded in establishing he is in possession, he has succeeded in establishing he has paid the amount to the creditor bank for and on behalf of the plaintiff, he has succeeded in establishing there was transaction but has failed his reading and willing him also existence of such agreement in writing. between the parties. As against such evidence, plaintiff has also succeeded in establishing that because of proximate relationship between him and the defendant, he had given him the premises by accepting only Rs.1,40,000/- and permitting to adjust rent towards interest. Therefore, production of receipt vide Ex.D3 acknowledged by the bank for Rs.2,92,000/- paid by the defendant and other documents evidencing payment may 25 aid in establishing defendant has paid amount for and on behalf of the plaintiff, but such payment cannot be construed in the absence of any clinching evidence, as part payment of sale consideration in an agreement of sale, that it was towards sale consideration. Of course equity demands the amount paid by the defendant has to be reimbursed by the plaintiff, but that cannot place the defendant on a higher pedestal as that of a transferee to seek enforcement of the agreement of sale, which, based on evidence, has not been proved.
22. The learned trial judge has not examined the right claimed for the defendant with reference to Section 53-A of the Act in its nakedness but has proceeded to give over emphasis to the payment made by him to the creditor bank, consequent to which the judgment rendered appears in moral trends than within the legal framework. Consequent to such approach, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed which conclusion needs interference. 26
23. In the result, the plaintiff succeeds in his legal pursuit. The suit shall stand decreed as prayed for, for possession, leaving open the right of the defendant to recover the amount, if any, paid by him to the creditor of the plaintiff for and on his behalf.
24. As it is a suit for ejectment, necessarily reasonable time has to be given to the tenant which shall be one year from today subject, of course, to the respondent filing an affidavit in the registry to voluntarily hand over vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff-appellant. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE Vg/vgh*