The High Court of Kerala dismissed a first appeal in limine where the appellant contested the validity of settlement deeds executed over three years prior. The court held the suit was barred by limitation and the trial court judgment required no interference.
The first appeal is dismissed in limine. No separate grant of relief is specified.
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 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
RFA NO. 4 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2021 IN OS 60/2019 OF
SUB COURT, PALA
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
A.G.SARADA,
AGED 86 YEARS
W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, ELAMPILAKKATTU HOUSE,
ARUNAPURAM P.O., ARUNAPURAMKARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 574.
BY ADV A.K.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 KRISHNAKUMARI A.G., AGED 42 YEARS
D/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, ELAMPILAKKATTU HOUSE,
ARUNAPURAM P.O., ARUNAPURAM KARA,
PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT AMBADIYIL HOUSE,
VELIYEPPALLIL P.O., VELIYEPPALLIL KARA, MEENACHIL
VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.
2 SREEJITH G, AGED 48 YEARS
AMBADIYIL HOUSE, VELIYEPPALLIL P.O.,
VELIYEPPALLIL KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.
3GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR.T.E.,
AGED 76 YEARS,
S/O.ESWARAN NAIR, AMBADIYIL HOUSE,
POONJAR P.O., POONJAR VADAKKEKARA KARA,
POONJAR VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT AMBADIYIL HOUSE,
VELIYEPPALLIL P.O., VELIYEPPALLIL KARA, MEENACHIL
VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RFA NO. 4 OF 2022
JUDGMENT
The executant of two settlement deeds,
Exts.A1 and A2 dated 20.07.2015 and
30.07.2015, came up with a suit to set aside
both the documents in the year 2019, after
the expiry of more than three years, on the
ground that he came to know about the content
of the documents only in the year 2018.
Regarding the execution of the Exts.A1 and
A2, it is admitted by the plaintiff that she
had executed the same and given consent
before the Registrar for its registration on
the respective date of its registration i.e.
on 20.07.2015 and 30.07.2015. These are the
two settlement deeds executed in favour of
the 1st defendant.
2. Insofar as the execution of documents
RFA NO. 4 OF 2022
is concerned, the period of limitation and
knowledge regarding its execution and
registration would start from the moment of
its execution and registration. In fact, the
suit stood hopelessly barred by limitation.
It is upon the plaintiff to show and
establish that the suit was brought up within
the time of limitation. The suit was filed
only in the year 2019, that is on
25.10.2019. But that question was not taken
up or raised in the trial court, though it is
the initial burden on the plaintiff to show
that the suit was brought up within the time
of limitation. The trial court ought to have
dismissed the suit on that sole ground.
3. What is pleaded by the plaintiff is
the fraud played on her by the 1st defendant
in obtaining two registered settlement deeds
4
RFA NO. 4 OF 2022
Exts.A1 and A2. The pleadings raised in
paragraph 6 of the plaint itself would show
that, on a request made by the 1st defendant,
she expressed her willingness to execute the
documents without knowing the content and
without looking into the necessary factors
and nature of the documents. It is a case,
wherein the plaintiff has admitted that she
had volunteered to execute the documents
without knowing its nature or content based
on the request made by her daughter, the1st
defendant. It is her specific case that, it
is as per the request of her daughter went to
the office of Sub Registrar and executed and
registered the documents so as to avail a
loan from a bank. If that be so, it is not
explained by her why she went to the Sub
Registrar Office for the purpose of execution
RFA NO. 4 OF 2022
and registration of two documents, that too,
on different dates. It will take away the
very basis of the case advanced by the
plaintiff. Improbability and falsity writ
large on its face. The trial court after
consideration of the evidence, found that
there is an utter failure on the part of the
plaintiff to prove her case. Even the case
advanced will not come under the purview of
‘fraud’ as defined under Section 17 of the
Contract Act. The executant of the document
was not vigilant at the time of its execution
cannot be substituted in place of fraud as
defined under that Section. Inter alia, it is
contented that there is misrepresentation,
for which, also there is no sufficient
pleading or evidence. In fact these questions
are not available at the time when the suit
RFA NO. 4 OF 2022
6
was instituted due to bar of limitation.
4.The decree and the judgment of the
trial court hence deserves no interference
There is no reason for admitting the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit to set aside settlement deeds should be admitted given the admission of filing after more than three years of execution.
Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the suit in limine for bar of limitation.
Whether the facts alleged regarding fraud under Section 17 of the Contract Act justify interference with the trial court's finding of failure to prove the case.
A.G.Sarada
Krishnakumari A.G.
Sreejith G
Gopalakrishnan Nair.T.E.
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court