Madras High Court
Ponnammal vs Ranganathan (Deceased) on 25 January, 2023
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
1. Ponnammal
2. Rukmani Ammal
3. Saminathan .. Appellants
Vs.
1. Ranganathan (deceased)
2. Muniammal
3. R.Ezhilappan
4. Ravi
5. Vijaya
6. R.Sivakumar
7. R.RajivGandhi
(RR2 to 7 brought on record as legal
representatives of the deceased sole respondent
vide order dated 30.07.2014 made in
C.M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2008) .. Respondents
Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2003
passed in A.S.No.33 of 2002 by the Fast Track Court-II, Tindivanam
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.03.99 passed in O.S.No.120 of
1992 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Thamizharasan
for Mr.M.Kamalanathan
For Respondent 1 : Died
For Respondents 2 to 7 : No appearance (Notice served)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court challenging the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.33 of 2002 on the file of Fast Track
Court-II, Tindivanam, in and by which, the judgment and decree passed by
the District Munsif, Thindivanam in O.S.No.120 of 1992 was reversed.
2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial
question of law:
“ Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in not
considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for
recording its finds while reversing the judgment of the Trial
Court?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the plaintiffs, the facts of the
case are herein below set out and the parties are referred to in the same
ranking as before the District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. The plaintiffs had
filed the suit in O.S.No.120 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Tindivanam, for a declaration that the sale deed dated 20.04.1988 in favour of
the defendant is null and void, for recovery of the possession and for mesne
profit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property originally belonged
to one Thangavelu Pillai, who had settled the property in favour of his wife
(1st plaintiff herein) under the registered settlement deed dated 17.09.1981.
She has taken possession of the same and also mutated the revenue records in
her name. Thereafter, the said Thangavelu Pillai died within a period of six
months of the execution of the settlement deed. The second and third
plaintiffs are the daughter and son respectively of the deceased Thangavelu
Pillai and the first plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
4. The plaintiffs would submit that the defendant is the permanent
resident of Vairapuram village, in which, the suit properties are situated and
the plaintiffs are permanently residing at Madras. Since the plaintiffs found it
difficult to cultivate the suit properties located at a long distance, the
defendant, who is very well known to the first plaintiff, had approached her
with an offer to cultivate the properties and had requested the plaintiffs to
execute usufructuary mortgage in his favour for a nominal sum advanced by
him as a loan. The first plaintiff was made to understand that the document
which was executed by her on 20.04.1988 was a mortgage deed and being an
illiterate, she had blindly affixed her left thumb impression to the document
and made her children also to execute the document. The value of the
mortgage deed was shown to be a sum of Rs.4740/- and the said amount was
stated to have been extended as loan to the plaintiffs. Therefore, on the basis
of the representation made by the defendant, the plaintiffs had affixed their
signature to the document believing that it was a mortgage deed. In fact, as on
the date of the execution of the said deed, the worth of the properties was
more than a sum of Rs.40,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
5. The first plaintiff would state that in the month of January 1992, she
sought to redeem the mortgage deed and take delivery of possession from the
defendant. At that time, she was given the startling information that the
document that she had signed was not a mortgage deed, but was a regular sale
deed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made enquires and obtained a copy of the
registered document and only then, they came to understand that the
document was a sale deed and not a mortgage deed. In fact, the original
document of title was not handed over to the defendant. The plaintiffs would
further state that even in the year 1981 when the properties were settled in
favour of the first plaintiff, the value of the suit properties was a sum of
Rs.11,000/- Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the suit properties have
been sold for a paltry sum of Rs.4740/- in the year 1988. The plaintiffs,
therefore, submit that they have come forward with the suit in question to
have the said document declared as null and void and for recovery of
possession and mesne profit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
6. The defendant had filed the written statement inter alia denying the
allegations contained in the plaint and stated that the plaintiffs had executed
the document knowing fully well that it was a sale deed. He would further
submit that on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 20.04.1988
possession of the document was given to him. Later, the third plaintiff had
requested the defendant to hand over a copy of the settlement deed for
showing it to the revenue authorities and later, the third plaintiff refused to
part with the settlement deed and started giving evasive answers. The
allegation that the plaintiffs are illiterate was denied and the defendant would
submit that the plaintiffs are well versed in worldly affairs. The defendant
would submit that the value that is shown in the sale deed is the guideline
value as fixed in the Sub-Registrar Office. The defendant would also submit
that the sale deed was executed by the plaintiffs with full knowledge and
therefore, the allegation of fraud and misrepresentation is totally
unwarranted. The defendant would further submit that he had been put in
possession of the suit property only as a purchaser on the date of execution of
the sale deed dated 20.04.1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
7. The defendant would further submit that the suit, without seeking
the relief of setting aside the sale deed is not maintainable and is barred by
limitation. Therefore, he sought for a dismissal of the suit.
8. The learned District Munsif, on perusing the pleadings, had framed
the following issues;
“1/ 20-04-88-e; njjpapl;l thjpfshy;
gpujpthjpf;F vGjpf;bfhLf;fg;gl;ljhf Twg;gLfpdw;
fpuag;gj;jpuk; thjpfSf;F jhd; vd;d
vGjpbfhLf;fpnwhk; vd;W g[hpahky; vGjpf;bfhLj;j
fpuag;gj;jpuk; vd;gjhy; mJ tpHyhdjh rl;lg;go
bry;yj;jf;fjh?
2/ jhth Fwpj;j fhyj;jpy; jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh?
3/ 20-04-88-e;; njjpapl;l fpuag;gj;jpuk;
thjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;gjhy; ePf;fut[
bra;ag;glhky; ,e;j tHf;F jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ epiyepw;fj;jf;fjh?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
4/ 20-04-88-e; njjpapl;l fpuhag;gj;jpuj;jpd;go
gpujpthjpf;F jhth brhj;jpy; mDgtk;
Vw;gl;Ltpl;ljh?
5/ thjpfs; tHf;Fiuapy; nfhupa[s;s
ghpfhu';fisg; bgw chpik cilatuh?
6 thjpfSf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ntW epthuzk;
vd;d?”
9. On the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff had examined herself
as P.W.1 and she had examined three other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2. The defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and one Kannappa
Mudaliar was examined as D.W.2 and EX.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the
side of the defendant.
10. The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence, pleadings,
documents and after hearing the arguments, came to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs had executed the deed dated 20.04.1988 without knowing fully well
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
that the same was a sale deed and therefore, decreed the suit as prayed for.
Challenging the said judgment, and decree the defendant had filed appeal in
A.S.No.27 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tindivanam. The
learned Subordinate Judge had framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the sale deed dated 20.04.1988 is valid and enforceable?
2. Whether Ex.B1/Ex.B2 was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought?
11. The learned Judge, on considering the evidence, came to the
conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the the document Ex.A2 has
been executed under misrepresentation and fraud and declared the sale deed
dated 20.04.1988 as null and void and directed the defendants to hand over
the possession of the suit property by allowing the appeal. Aggrieved by the
same the plaintiffs are before this Court.
12. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
perused the materials available on record. The respondents though served did
not enter appearance.
13. The plaintiffs' case is that Ex.A2, sale deed, has been fraudulently
obtained by the defendant since the first plaintiff is an illiterate woman. It is
their case that the sale consideration quoted in Ex.A2 would by itself prove
that the sale deed is a fraudulent document since, in Ex.A1 Settlement deed
executed in the year 1981, the value of the property has been shown as
Rs.11,000/-. Where in the sale deed of the year 1988 the value is shown as
Rs.4,740/-. However, this contention has been rebutted by the defendant by
stating that the value of the property on the date of execution of the disputed
sale deed was only a sum of Rs.4,740/-. The defendant has not produced any
proof to show the value of the property on the date of the execution of
Ex.A2. was only Rs.4,740/-The witnesses examined on the side of plaintiffs,
namely P.W.2 and P.W.3, have deposed to the effect that the value of the suit
property would be above Rs.40,000/- on the date of the execution of Ex.A2
sale deed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
14. The properties are Nanja lands (Wet lands) which is capable of
giving good yield. That apart, the document Ex.A2 had been referred under
Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act for under valuation and ultimately, the
defendant had to pay extra stamp duty of Rs.2113/-. Therefore, it is clear that
the value shown in Ex.A2 did not constitute the sale consideration. Therefore,
the contention of the plaintiff that it was only the loan that was extended to
them has some basis. The original settlement deed has also not been handed
over to the defendant and therefore, the findings of the Trial Court that the
sale deed had been created through fraud and misrepresentation has to
necessarily be sustained and the order of the Appellate Court in this regard
has to be set aside.
15. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that they came to know about that
the document which was executed by them in the year 1988 was not a
mortgage deed but a sale deed only when they sought to redeem the
mortgaged property in January 1992 and immediately they have filed the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
Therefore, the suit has been filed well within limitation. Further, the
Appellate Court has not given any reason as to why the findings of the Trial
Court was perverse while setting aside the same particularly when, the Trial
Court has given reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the document Ex.A2,
which is now put forward as a sale deed, was never intended to be a sale
deed. The plaintiffs had no intention to sell the properties, but they had only
entrusted it to the defendant for cultivating the same, since they were far
away from the suit properties.
16. The substantial question of law is answered against the defendant
and the Second Appeal stands allowed. The judgment and decree of the
Lower Appellate Court is set aside and the trial Court's judgment is
confirmed. No costs.
25.01.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
nti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
To
1. The Fast Track Court-II, Tindivanam
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
P.T.ASHA, J.
nti
S.A.No.1050 of 2006
25.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
