Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.In his pursuit to discharge the burden of proof, the plaintiff relies on

(a) Ext.A-1 = A-19 lease deed, (b) Ext.A-16 = Ext.X-1, the copy of the Record of tenancy (c) Ext.A-8 to A-11 & A-13 adangal. Ext.A-7 and A-12 http://www.judis.nic.in SA(MD)Nos.37 & 38 of 2013 letters of Ramalingam have relatively limited role in deciding the point. The defendant raises issues on the genuiness, or the correctness of the entries in these documents, as the case may be. If these documents are reliable and worthy of being acted upon, then the plaintiff can lawfully resist the defendant and be in possession of the suit-property. However, how safe are these documents for this Court to act upon? 13.1. First to Ext.A-1 = A-19 lease deed dated 21-09-1963. There is no knowing what was the state of affairs on the day on which this document was alleged to have been executed. It has emerged as an indisputable fact that plaintiff’s step brother Arunachalam had been the lessee of the property under Ext.B-118 dated in 1947. Should not the court presume that a state of affairs which was shown to be in existence as from 1947 continued to be in existence till 21-09-1963, unless the contrary is proved in terms of Sec.114 Illustration (d) of the Evidence Act? The defendant presses this into service, and this Court is now required to see if this presumption has been rebutted with better evidence by the plaintiff. Does Ext.A-1=A-19 provides plaintiff that rebuttal? 13.2. It has to be stated at the very outset that Ext.A-1 and Ext.A-19 http://www.judis.nic.in SA(MD)Nos.37 & 38 of 2013 cannot be stated to be the same document, even though both are certified copies of a purported same registered document. The similarity are in the name of the lessee (the plaintiff), the property, and the power of attorney of the lessor. And there it stops. But as to who the lessor was, there is variance, and this variance is critical. In Ext.A-1, the lessor was stated to be Narasimhamurthy, where as in Ext.A-19 the lessor becomes Srinivasa Rao. If the suit property is an ancestral property in the hands of Srinivasa Rao (Ext.B-64 narrates that it is), and if this is also the admitted position of the the plaintiff, then when the karta of the coparcenary is declared a lunatic, the next senior most male member of the coparcenary would discharge the responsibilities of the karta. Therefore, Narasimha Rao, on he attaining the age of majority, alone would be competent to exercise the responsibility as the karta when he leased the property to Arunachalam under Ext.B-118. If Narasimhamurthy Rao had already assumed this responsibility, then it is puzzling why there be a power of attorney for Srinivasa Rao? Has any Court declared that Srinivasa Rao ceased to be lunatic, or are there any evidence to support it? The same presumption under Sec.114 Illustration (d) of the Evidence Act will necessarily have to be applied here, which would imply that Srinivasa Rao, if he was alive as on 21-09-1963 will continue to be a lunatic. Secondly, how can two http://www.judis.nic.in SA(MD)Nos.37 & 38 of 2013 different persons be a lessor for the same document, interestingly each of them mutually exclude the other? Thirdly, was Lakshmana Rao, a power of attorney at all, and if so whose power of attorney was he? If Srinvasa Rao was a lunatic he is incapable and incompetent to appoint an agent for him. Has any court appointed him replacing Ammini Ammal? This is shrouded in mystery. If Narasimhamurthy had executed the power of attorney, then the production of the power of attorney itself would be mandatory. It is to be seen that in terms of the averments in Ext.B-64 (copy of the petition in O.P.127 of 1941) Srinivasa Rao’s wife Amminiammal was the daughter of a Judge of the Travancore High court, then seated at Thiruvananthapuram. It could also be seen that Srinivasa Rao had then moved to Thiruvananthapuram, from where he had strayed and was found wandering on the streets of Tiruchirapally. They were narrated in Ext B-64. The most probable conclusion that could be inferred is that Srinivasa Rao’s family might have moved to Thiruvananthapuram after he had become a lunatic. The later documents such as Ext.B-100 and Ext.B101, both sale deeds executed in 1979, show that Narasimhamurthy Rao had been a resident of Thiruvananthapuram. Even his sister Vasatha too was a resident of the same place. To emphasis, the property is in Tiruchirapally district. And, Ext.B-64 refers to Lakshmana Rao as the step http://www.judis.nic.in SA(MD)Nos.37 & 38 of 2013 brother of Srinivasa Rao. It therefore leads to a just suspicion that in the absence of the owner of the property to administer it locally, a circumstance apparently had emerged for someone to play fraud. It is hence, the power of attorney document said to be in favour of Lakshmana Rao becomes significant. And, it is not produced. Therefore, to start with even the lease in favour of the plaintiff is shaky, and this Court does not find any material to differ from the findings of the courts below. 13.3. The only defence offered was that Narasimha Rao was competent to deal with the property as in 1963. None can doubt it. But has he authorised Lakshmana Rao to enter into a lease on his behalf is the point, and this continues to remain unanswered.