The Kerala High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging the validity of a sale deed executed during a chitty dispute mediation. Upholding lower courts, the court held the deed was valid under the Transfer of Property Act and the admission of mediation negated claims of coercion.
Second appeal dismissed; original suit and appeal decrees remain confirmed.
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.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940
RSA.No. 236 of 2006 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT, DATED 30.11.2005, IN AS NO.164/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT, DATED 18.3.2004, IN OS NO.240/2001 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
PURANDERAN, PENSIONER, S/O.AYYAPPAN, ARACKAPARAMBIL, PANAMPUKADU DESOM, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
SMT.S.AMINA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11, 13, 14 AND NON PARTIES/
DEFENDANTS 1 TO 11, 13, 14 & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF 12TH DEFNDANT::
R.S.A.NO.236 OF 2006 C
:: 2 ::
ADDL.RESPONDENTS 18 TO 20 IMPLEADED:
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 18 TO 20 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2007 IN I.A.NO.1732/2007.
R.S.A.NO.236 OF 2006 C
:: 3 ::
R1 TO R17 BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) R1 TO R17 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR R1 TO R17 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R1 TO R17 BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN R18 TO R20 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.07.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.Somarajan, J.
R.S.A. No.236 of 2006 (C)
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
Against the concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court and the first appellate court in O.S.No.240 of 2001 and A.S.No.164 of 2004 respectively, the defeated plaintiff came up with this second appeal.
R.S.A. No.236 of 2006 (C)
:: 2 ::
executed in favour of defendants 1 to 14 in part consideration of the amount due to them under the chitty transaction and also for releasing the debts due to various subscribers of the chitty from the plaintiff. It was executed on 5.11.1999, after the first episode of wrongful restraint alleged by the plaintiff. The trial court as well as the first appellate court found that the sale deed is valid and it was executed by the plaintiff fully knowing about its consequences and hence the suit was dismissed and it was confirmed in appeal.
R.S.A. No.236 of 2006 (C)
:: 3 ::
side and they themselves selected fourteen persons and a decision was taken in that mediation talk that for the amount due to all the subscribers including defendants 1 to 14 the plaintiff shall execute a sale deed in their favour in full satisfaction and discharge of the amount due to various subscribers and accordingly the sale deed was executed. The suit was filed on the ground that the sale deed is hit by coercion and misrepresentation played by the defendants along with other subscribers. As disclosed earlier, there is a clear admission in the plaint itself that a decision was taken in the mediation and the sale deed was executed as per the decision taken in the mediation. A consideration of part-paid and part-promised would intake valid consideration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case, the sale deed was executed in discharge of the amount due to defendants 1 to 14 as part consideration and for discharging the liabilities of other subscribers of the chitty. So it would satisfy the ingredient which constitute a valid sale as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of
R.S.A. No.236 of 2006 (C)
:: 4 ::
Property Act. In fact, the admission made in the plaint itself would take away the cause of action for the suit based on coercion and misrepresentation. Section 92 of the Evidence Act will not come into play in that situation as there is no scope for adducing any parol evidence showing existence of any other agreement, apart from the deed executed. Further, the case advanced by the plaintiff itself would show that it is the plaintiff who advances the existence of another parallel agreement. The discharge of liabilities of various subscribers has not been included in the document and it is the case advanced by the plaintiff that the sale deed was executed for that purpose also. Hence the concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court as well as the first appellate court do not call for any interference by this court.
The appeal fails. Dismissed. No order as to costs.
sd/- P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in finding the validity of a sale deed executed as per a mediation decision.
Whether the admission in the plaint regarding mediation bars the claim of coercion under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Purandran
Chitrangan
Uthaman
Gangajan
Sreekanth
Gananath
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
