Summary
The Court restored a decree for possession and accounts founded on a registered sale deed between brothers. The vendor admitted that his brother had discharged his debts and that he and his wife had signed before officials. Claimed ignorance of the document’s nature did not establish fraud or misrepresentation on these facts. Neither nominal consideration nor failure separately to plead its recital invalidated the deed. The opposing suit to annul the sale was dismissed, and two months were allowed to deliver possession.
Issues
- Whether the registered sale deed was invalid for want of consideration, fraud or misrepresentation.
- Whether pleading requirements and the rules excluding contradictory oral evidence supported interference with the sale.
Provisions considered
- Section 25(1), Indian Contract Act, 1872The Court considered the exception for written, registered agreements founded on natural love and affection between near relations, and rejected the finding of a sale without consideration in light of the admitted discharge of debts and nominal consideration recital. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Order VI Rules 2 and 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Material facts, rather than their supporting evidence, had to be pleaded; fraud and misrepresentation required particulars. Reliance on the deed did not require separately pleading all evidence of consideration, while the challenge lacked the necessary plea and proof of fraud. (¶¶ 23, 29)
- Sections 91 and 92, including proviso (1) to Section 92, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Oral evidence may establish a sham transaction or facts invalidating a document, but no pleaded or proved fraud, illegality or failure of consideration justified displacing this registered deed. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Held
- The vendor admitted that the purchaser discharged Rs.12,000 of his debts and that he and his wife attended the registration office and signed the document. The registered deed recited Rs.3,000 consideration. Those circumstances did not support the findings that the transaction lacked consideration or was invalid merely because the recital was not separately repeated in the plaint. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The registered document carried a presumption of lawful execution. On these facts, professed ignorance of its nature did not establish fraud or misrepresentation. The requisite particulars and supporting proof were absent. This was a factual application, rather than a rule making registration conclusive against fraud. (¶¶ 17, 21, 22, 23, 29)
- A party may prove that a document was a sham never intended to operate, or establish an invalidating fact within Section 92’s first proviso. The cited authorities preserved that possibility, but the respondents had not established such a basis here. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The Court did not reopen the discretionary allowance of amendments or decide the competing res judicata argument. It allowed the appeal on the merits, restored the first suit’s trial decree, dismissed the annulment suit and granted two months to vacate. (¶¶ 15, 16, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed. Trial decree in Special Civil Suit No.55/77/I restored; Special Civil Suit No.71/80/I dismissed. Respondents given two months to deliver vacant possession.