Allowed

Sri Muni Reddy v. Smt Sarojamma

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022WP/16305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash the rejection of an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court permitted plaintiffs to produce secondary evidence of an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 18.05.1988 for the collateral purpose of proving properties were joint family assets.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.6 is allowed and plaintiffs are permitted to produce the Agreement of Sale dated 18.05.1988 for collateral purpose.

Sri Muni Reddy Vs Smt Sarojamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.16305/2018 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MUNI REDDY S/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, 1^ST CROSS, BHUVANAPPA LAYOUT, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, D.R.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶8

SRI S.M. JEEYANNA REDDY, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LR’s,

¶9

SMT. GEETHA JAYARANNA REDDY, W/O. S.M. JEEYANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. J. JAYANATHI REDDY D/O. LATE SRI S.M. JEEYANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶11

SRI J. MITHESH KUMAR S/O. LATE SRI S.M. JEEYANNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONER 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.14, 3^RD A CROSS, 21^ST MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 1 PHASE, II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 076. (BY SRI B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

... PETITIONERS

AND:

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O. LATE S.M. CHANDRAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶17

SRI LOKANATH ALIAS LOKANATH REDDY S/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNISWAMAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.39, 2^ND CROSS, KAVERI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPEATIVE SOCIETY LAYOUT, D.R.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶18

SMT. VIDYAVATHY A. SHETTY W/O. SRI ASHOK SHETTY, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.164/D, II MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020.

¶19

SRI K.N. RAO S/O. LATE K.V. RAO, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.2, LAKE VIEW, DEFENCE COLONY, JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE – 560 015.

¶20

SRI N.H. SHIVAMURTHY S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶21

SRI A. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.96, NAGENAHALLI,

¶23

¶24

SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE, NORTH TALUK – 560 064.

¶25

S.C. DASUARATHA S/O. LATE S.M. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SITE NO.27, 7^TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶26

SRI S.C. THRIBHUVANESH S/O. LATE S.M. CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶27

S.C. SHASHIKALA D/O. LATE S.M. CHANDRAPPA, W/O. SRI BABU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, D.R.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. ... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI S. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2 (NOC); V/O. DATED 07/03/2019, NOTICE TO R-3 TO R-9 DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER i) DATED 21.11.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 7384/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AT ANNEX-A; AND ii) ALLOW THE I.A.NO.6 BY PERMITTING TO LEAD SECONDARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 18.05.1988 TO SHOW THAT PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 JOINTLY EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF VENDOR TO SELL THE ITEM NO.1 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶30

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The plaintiffs have preferred the present writ petition assailing the Order dated 21.11.2017 passed on I.A. No.6 in O.S. No.7384/2007 on the file of the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to adduce the secondary evidence in respect of Agreement of Sale dated 18.05.1988 has been rejected by the Trial Court.

¶34

The plaintiffs have filed suit in OS No.7384/2007 for partition and separate possession seeking 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties, ½ share in Item Nos.1 and 2 and also for declaration that the Sale Deeds executed by

¶35

¶36

defendant Nos.5 and 6 along with their father in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs on their 1/4^th share each and other reliefs. Pursuant to the service of summons, defendant No.2 has filed written statement denying the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants.

¶37

This being so, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No.6 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to produce the Xerox copy of the Agreement of Sale by way of secondary evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that in the said Agreement, it has been stated that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and as such, the agreement is relevant for the proper adjudication of dispute between the parties.

¶38

¶39

4. The said application has been rejected by

¶40

the Trial Court.

¶41

Aggrieved by the rejection of I.A. No.6, the present petition is by the plaintiffs.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on records.

¶44

Sri. B. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the rejection of I.A. No.6 filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is contrary to the material and settled proposition of law. It is contended that though the document – Agreement of Sale sought to be produced is an unregistered document, it is only for collateral purpose to show that the properties are the joint family properties and said Agreement dated

¶45

¶46

18.05.1988 is not disputed by the defendants and thus, the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act needs to be allowed for adducing evidence for collateral purpose and sought to allow the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra, Sri. S. Rajesh, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 would justify the order on I.A.No.6 and contend that the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No.6 is just and proper and does not call for interference. It is contended that the document sought to be produced is an unregistered document, which cannot be relied even for collateral purpose and the said Agreement of Sale has been cancelled and therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.

¶48

¶49

9. It is not in dispute that the Agreement of

¶50

Sale sought to be produced by the plaintiffs is admitted but it is the contention of the defendants that Agreement of Sale dated 18.05.1988 has been cancelled. Perusal of the order on I.A. No.6 would depict that the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the said agreement is not relevant for the decision in the suit and also held that the mere execution of the unregistered Agreement of Sale, the ownership cannot be transferred to the Vendee.

¶51

It is relevant to note that the

¶52

petitioners/plaintiffs are not seeking right over by way of Agreement of Sale but sought to rely on the Agreement of Sale to show that the properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and it is only for collateral purpose that the Agreement of Sale is sought to be produced, as per

¶53

¶54

Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:

¶55

“65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. — Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:—

¶56

xxxxxxx

¶57

(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;”

¶58

The Apex Court in the case of M. Chandra

¶59

Vs. M. Thangamuthu and Another reported in (2010) 9 SCC 712 has held that secondary evidence is admissible in exceptional cases, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form and at paragraph Nos.47 and 48 held as under:

¶60

10 -

¶61

“47. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It should be emphasized that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party.

¶62

In the instant case, it is the specific case of the appellant that in the year 1994, that is, much before the assembly elections which were held in the year 2006, she had undergone all the rituals in Arya Samaj only for the purpose of reaffirmation of Hindu faith and

¶63

11 -

¶64

the conversion certificate issued by Arya Samaj was received and acknowledged by her uncle Santhakumar who had accompanied her. It is also her specific case that she did not take back the certificate from her uncle, since she was of the view the same may not be required for her purpose. It is only when the election petition was filed, in order to prove her case of reaffirmation of her faith in Hinduism, she came to know that her uncle has lost the certificate, which necessitated her to obtain a duplicate copy of conversion certificate from Arya Samaj, Madurai. This part of her evidence is not even challenged by the petitioner. In fact the contents of the documents would clearly establish that it was issued for the second time on the request made by the appellant, after she was told by her uncle Santhakumar that the original certificate received by him in the year 1994 is lost by him. In our view, a perusal of the conversion certificate (Ext. R-13) would amply demonstrate that the appellant has successfully proved her claim of reaffirmation of Hindu faith by undergoing rituals of conversion in the Arya Samaj, Madurai.”

¶65

12 -

¶66

A conjoint reading of Section 65 of the

¶67

Indian Evidence Act shows that when the existence of the original document is not disputed by the person against whom it is proved and the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable in present peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the Agreement of Sale dated 18.05.1988 was executed by the parties and same is sought to be taken on record looking into the scope and ambit of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is wide.

¶68

In the light of the provisions of Section 65

¶69

of the Indian Evidence Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra, rejection of the application-I.A.No.6 by the Trial Court is not justified. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that I.A. No.6 needs to be allowed.

¶70

In the result, this Court pass the following:

¶71

13 -

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i. The writ petition is allowed . ii. Order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No.6 in O.S. No.7384/2007 is hereby set-aside and I.A. No.6 is allowed and plaintiffs are permitted to produce the Agreement of Sale dated 18.05.1988 for collateral purpose.

¶74

iii. It is needless to observe that liberty is always reserved to the respondents/defendants to cross-examine the plaintiffs in respect of Xerox copy of the Agreement of Sale. No order as to costs.

¶75

SD/JUDGE

¶76

MBM

Sri Muni Reddy v. Smt Sarojamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muni Reddy v. Smt Sarojamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. N Manjunatha Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S G Corp Spaces Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

The Krishnamurti Foundation India (Kfi) Vs the Government of Karnataka

Mrs Sonam Mahajan Vs Mr Abhinav Khare

N K Prakash Babu Vs Smt. Roopalaxmi

Lokesh @ K P Lokesh Kumar Vs Syed Sadiq Basha