The High Court of Kerala, in RSA No. 771 of 2013, dismissed a second appeal regarding a suit to set aside a sale deed. The bench found no merit in the contentions concerning the validity of subsequent agreements and the testator's state of mind, upholding the concurrent lower court decisions.
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
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937
RSA.No. 771 of 2013 (A)
AS.NO. 146/2008 OF II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.NO. 262/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 31-03-2008
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS :
1. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. ALIYARU KUNJU KANJICKAL MEKKATHIL FROM SHAN MANZIL ADINADU SOUTH MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
2. SHAN (MINOR) AGED 17 YEARS, S/O SHAHUL HAMEED KANJICKAL MEKKATHIL FROM SHAN MANZIL ADINADU SOUTH MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY DIED ON 28.5.2010.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.V.BEENA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS :
1. SULEKHA BEEVI, AGED 57 D/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, NOUSHAD MANZIL, ADINADU SOUTH MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM PIN-690 542.
2. HAMEED KUNJU, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. MYTHEEN KUNJU, NOUSHAD MANZIL, ADINADU SOUTH MURI ADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM PIN:690 542.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.RAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
R.S.A. No.771 of 2013
Dated 21st January, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
The first plaintiff in a suit for setting aside a sale deed is the appellant in this second appeal.
RSA 771 of 2013
2
between the plaintiffs and Sajitha Beevi to convey the plaint schedule properties to the second plaintiff and that Sajitha Beevi had transferred the suit properties to the first defendant, her mother, violating the terms of the said agreement. The suit was filed, in the circumstances, seeking a decree setting aside Ext.A5 sale deed executed by Sajitha Beevi in favour of the first defendant. Ancillary reliefs were also sought in the suit. The defendants resisted the suit contending that Sajitha Beevi was the absolute owner of plaint schedule properties and she had conveyed the same to the first defendant for valid consideration and therefore, Ext.A5 document is valid. The trial court accepted the case of the defendants and dismissed the suit. Though the plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The first plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against him has thus come up in this second appeal.
RSA 771 of 2013
3
contentions. According to him, Ext.A3 is a document admittedly executed by Sajitha Beevi in which she has agreed that she has no objection in the second plaintiff or his successors enjoying the plaint schedule item No.1 property after her death. According to the learned counsel, Ext.A5 document was executed prior to Ext.A3 and if Sajitha Beevi had a steady and disposable state of mind at the time of execution of Ext.A5, she would not have executed a document in the nature of Ext.A3. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended that Ext .A3 is a family arrangement by which Sajitha Beevi had
agreed to transfer the property for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and that therefore, Ext.A5 is invalid.
RSA 771 of 2013
4
Beevi had no right, title or interest in plaint schedule properties at the time of execution of Ext.A3 agreement, the recitals, if any, in Ext.A3 concerning the said property are void and not binding on the defendants. As regards the contention raised by the learned counsel concerning the state of mind of Sajitha Beevi, merely for the reason that Sajitha Beevi had executed a document in the nature of Ext.A3 after Ext.A5 sale deed, it cannot be said that she was not having a steady and disposable state of mind at the time of execution of Ext.A5 sale deed. As such, I am in full agreement with the view taken by the courts below in the matter of rendering the judgments impugned in the second appeal. There is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs
(true copy)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts correctly dismissed the suit for setting aside a sale deed despite allegations of invalid family arrangements and lack of steady state of mind.
Whether there is a substantial question of law involved to warrant interference in this second appeal.
SHAHUL HAMEED
SHAN
SULEKHA BEEVI
HAMEED KUNJU
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
