Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. When one examines the impugned judgment, it becomes evident that the Trial Court has been persuaded to find against the plaintiff for the following reasons:

(a) She did not mention anything regarding the Rectification Deed - a copy of which has been marked as Exhibit B2 - in the plaint and was 'reluctant' to speak about it in her testimony as PW1. The Court thus concluded that the plaintiff's allegations against the Sale Deed - originals of which have not been produced by either party, but copies are marked as Exhibit A2 on the side of the plaintiff and as Exhibit B1 on the side of the defendants - cannot be found to be true, since if the same had been got executed practicing deceit on her by the defendants, she would not have, thereafter, executed the Rectification Deed.
(b) The signature of the plaintiff in Exhibit B2 Rectification Deed is the same as appearing in her written statement and vakalath, thus establishing that she signed it.
(c) The burden of proving that Exhibit A2 Sale Deed is void is on the plaintiff, but her evidence has been 'inconsistent', since she virtually admitted Exhibit B2 Rectification Deed as having been executed by her.
(d) No reasonable person would offer a property having an extent of over 58 cents as security for a Bond of Rs.25,000/-, thus rendering the allegations of the plaintiff unworthy.

36. Pertinently, the evidence of DW2 - Scribe was totally to the contrary. He said he accompanied the first defendant to the plaint schedule property, where the plaintiff was residing and read out the draft of the Rectification Deed to her. He unambiguously averred that the draft of the Rectification Deed and that of the Sale Deed were read out to the plaintiff at the same place, namely the plaint schedule property (see page 4 of cross-examination of DW2). Again, the Trial Court never noticed these serious discrepancies. D. Sale Consideration

46. Further, DW2 also admitted that the draft of the Rectification Deed was read out to the plaintiff, the day before it was registered, namely on 03.04.2008, at her residence in the plaint schedule property. Of course, the stand of the first defendant in his oral evidence is that after Exhibit A2 Sale Deed had been executed and registered, the plaintiff shifted to a place called 'Thatta' and that for reading out the draft of the Rectification Deed, he brought her on 03.04.2008 to the plaint schedule property. This statement cannot be even trusted for a moment because DW2 stated that he travelled from Ernakulam to Punalur along with the first defendant and that they went directly to the plaint schedule property, where the plaintiff was residing (see page 4 of cross-examination of DW2).