Second appeal by plaintiffs seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell land for a disproportionately low consideration. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the agreement was a concocted document due to strange valuation terms and witness conflicts, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit on pure questions of fact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
RSA.No. 134 of 2013 (G)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN A.S.NO. 25/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 07-09-2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.220/1995 OF SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 30-06-2008
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF :
(LRS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. A2 TO 7)
2. V.N.SARASWATHY AMMA, W/O.LATE VIDHYADHARAN, VALYAPARAMBU VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
3. SHYAMA PRASAD, S/O.LATE VIDHYADHARAN, VALYAPARAMBU VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
4. SREEKUMARI N.S., D/O.LATE VIDHYADHARAN, VALYAPARAMBU VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
5. JAYASREE.V., D/O.LATE VIDHYADHARAN, VALYAPARAMBU VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
6. N.S.RAJASREE, D/O.LATE VIDHYADHARAN, VALYAPARAMBU VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
7. V.RAJENDRA BABU, S/O.LATE VIDHYADHARAN, VALYAPARAMBU VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR.
..2/-
..2..
RSA.No. 134 of 2013 (G)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 & 5 TO 10/DEFENDANTS 3 & 6 TO 11:
1. VINOD, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KARAKKARA VEETTIL, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 006.
2. SELVAKUMARI, W/O.SATHYAN, PULIKKAPARAMBIL, SANATHANAM WARD, ARYAD THEKKU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.
3. VAIJAYANTHI, MATTATHIL VEEDU, ARYAD NORTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 538.
4. KANAKAMMA VILASAN, THEKKE KOMMADY, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 006.
5. RENUKA, D/O.THANKAMMA, THARAYIL, ARYAD VADAKKU, KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA- 688 006.
6. SREETHAJI, ETTUMVELIYIL, ARYAD NORTH, ALAPPUZHA- 688 006.
7. SINDHU, ETTUMVELIYIL, ARYAD NORTH, ALAPPUZHA- 688 006.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
R.S.A.No.134 of 2013.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is the appellant in this second appeal.
RSA.No.134/2013.
2
for specific performance.
3
RSA.No.134/2013.
concocted document and consequently dismissed the suit. Though the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal.
contended that the finding of the courts below that Ext.A1 is a concocted document is incorrect and unsustainable. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that in the light of the contention raised by the original defendant, the disputed signatures of the defendant as contained in Ext.A1 agreement were referred for an expert opinion and the expert opined that the signatures in the agreement are put by the original defendant himself. He also contended that in addition, the execution of Ext.A1 agreement has been proved by examining two witnesses namely, Pws.3 and 5. In the light of the expert opinion and also the evidence
4
RSA.No.134/2013.
tendered by Pws.3 and 5, according to the learned counsel, the courts below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for.
second defendant contended that the suit property is worth several crores and there is no reason at all for the defendant to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/-. He also contended that the term of Ext.A1 agreement for sale prescribing a period of two years for payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,000/alone is sufficient for the court to infer that Ext.A1 is not a genuine document.
RSA.No.134/2013.
5
agreement is shockingly disproportionate and no prudent man would have agreed to sell such an extent of land for a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/-. That apart, it is seen that as per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff has paid Rs.24,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the agreement itself. Nevertheless, a longer period of two years is prescribed as per the terms of the agreement for payment of the balance sum of Rs.1,000/-. There is absolutely no explanation for the said strange clause in the agreement for sale. Further, Pws.3 and 5, the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ext.A1 have admitted in their cross-examination that the proof affidavits filed by them to the effect that they have witnessed the execution of Ext.A1 agreement for sale were prepared by the counsel for the plaintiff. Further, the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was conducting cases on his behalf has not been disputed by the plaintiff. Again, admittedly, long prior to
RSA.No.134/2013.
6
the execution of Ext.A1 agreement, the defendant has executed a registered Will in respect of the suit property. It has also come out that prior to Ext.A1 agreement for sale, the defendant has also executed a power of attorney in respect of the suit property in favour of the second defendant. In the aforesaid circumstances, the courts below cannot be faulted for having held that Ext.A1 is not a genuine agreement for sale.
made a comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the defendant. A reading of Ext.A8 would indicate that the signatures and thump impressions contained in Ext.A1 are that of the original defendant. I do not think that much credence can be attributed to the said document as the specific case of the defendant is that the agreement for sale is prepared by the plaintiff on the signed papers entrusted to him for conducting cases.
RSA.No.134/2013.
is a genuine document or not is a pure question of fact. The decision rendered on the above question by the courts below against the plaintiff cannot be challenged in a proceedings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The second appeal, in the said circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR,
JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //
PA TO JUDGE.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the extracting of balance sale consideration Rs.1,000/- after two years indicates the genuineness of the agreement for sale.
Whether the disproportionate sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- for 2 acres and 59 cents of land vitiates the plaintiff's claim.
Whether the finding of the lower courts that the agreement is a concocted document is a question of fact challenging which requires special leave.
V. Vidhyadharan (Dead) Lrs.
Vinod
Selvakumari
Vaijayanthi
Kanakamma Vilsan
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
