2010 (10) TMI 909 - SC - Indian Laws

Interlineation Whether interlineation made without attestation is valid Appellant purchased the land for 10, 000/- on 23/04/1986 and on very next day sold this land for 10, 000/- Subsequently appellant served a legal notice upon the respondent in the year 1991-1992 demanding the re-conveyance of the said land on the ground that registered sale deed executed dated 24th April 1986 was a conditional sale deed and appellant had a right to repurchase the land for the same consideration of 10, 000/- within a period of ten years Appellant had been made interlineation at four places in the sale deed. Word Avadhi had been mentioned at three places in the margin of the sale deed. And The appellant did not attest the said word by putting his signatures at the time of registration Held that - Attestation certifies the genuineness of the document. Attestation and execution are different acts one following the other. Execution includes delivery and signing of the document in the presence of the witnesses and also the whole series of acts or formalities which are necessary to render the document valid. Attestation of sale deed is imperative. In this case animus to attestation remain totally absent. Appellant has made interlineations after the document stood executed. The said additions were made without the consent and knowledge of the respondent. In fact the mind of the respondent did not actuate with his hand while putting his thumb impression on the said sale deed at the time of registration. Thus the additions so made by the appellant cannot be binding on the respondent. The additions in question are surrounded by the suspicious circumstances of a grave nature and therefore the same are required to be ignored. The contract being severable the terms of contract included by these additions being void cannot be taken note of Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale deed dated 24th April 1986 was a conditional sale deed.
2. Whether the appellant had the right to repurchase the suit property.
3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance.
4. Whether the First Appellate Court correctly re-appreciated the evidence.
5. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the First Appellate Court's judgment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the sale deed dated 24th April 1986 was a conditional sale deed:
The appellant claimed that the sale deed executed on 24th April 1986 was a conditional sale deed, allowing him to repurchase the property within ten years. The respondent contested this, alleging that the word "Avadhi" and the reconveyance clause were fraudulently inserted after the execution of the document. The trial court found that these additions were made post-execution, thus making the sale deed an absolute sale deed. The High Court upheld this finding, noting the lack of attestation for the interlineations and the unusual manner of the additions, which suggested manipulation.

2. Whether the appellant had the right to repurchase the suit property:
The appellant argued that he had the right to repurchase the property within ten years as per the conditional sale deed. However, the trial court and the High Court found that the reconveyance clause was added without the respondent's consent and knowledge, thus invalidating the appellant's claim. The High Court emphasized that the interlineations were not attested as required by Rule 42 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, making the additions non-binding on the respondent.

3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance:
The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance, concluding that the sale deed was an absolute sale deed and the reconveyance clause was fraudulently inserted. The High Court supported this decision, highlighting the trial court's proper appreciation of evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and the physical examination of the sale deed, which revealed clear signs of post-execution manipulation.

4. Whether the First Appellate Court correctly re-appreciated the evidence:
The First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and concluded that the sale deed was conditional, directing the respondent to execute the sale deed in favor of the appellant. However, the High Court found this re-appreciation to be flawed, noting contradictions in the oral testimony and the improper consideration of the evidence. The High Court deemed the First Appellate Court's findings as perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record.

5. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the First Appellate Court's judgment:
The High Court reversed the First Appellate Court's judgment, reinstating the trial court's decision. It justified its interference by stating that the findings of the First Appellate Court were perverse and based on misreading of evidence. The High Court's decision was grounded in the statutory provisions and proper appreciation of the evidence, including the examination of the sale deed and the lack of attestation for the interlineations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal. It concluded that the interlineations and additions to the sale deed were made post-execution without the respondent's consent, rendering the reconveyance clause invalid. The appellant's claim for specific performance was thus rejected, and the sale deed was deemed an absolute sale deed. The appeal lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →