D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA

The suit land was purchased by the appellant on C 23rd April, 1986 by way of a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.10,000. The next day, the appellant sold the said land by way of a registered sale deed (Ex In the year 1991- P-4) to the respondent for Rs.10,000. 1992, the appellant served a notice on the respondent D demanding the re-conveyance of the suit land on the ground that the sale deed dated 24th April, 1986 executed in favour of respondent was a conditional sale deed and appellant had a right to re-purchase the suit land for Rs.10,000/- within a period of ten years from the date of E execution of the sale deed. The respondent did not respond to the notice. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance. The said suit was contested by the respondent on the ground that there was an absolute sale deed in his favour and the terms of re-conveyance F were fraudulently inserted by the appellant after the execution of the document and that the manipulation was done at several places in the said sale deed and the word 'Avadhi' was inserted in three places in the margin and the last part i.e. Ex. D-2 was added after the execution of G the sale deed i.e. Ex. P-4. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court held that it was a conditional sale deed and directed the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. The High Court reversed the judgment of the first appellate court and restored that of the trial court. The instant appeal H D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA 757 was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the second appeal, provided the findings recorded by the courts below are found to be perverse i.e. not being based on the evidence or contrary to the evidence on record or the reasoning is based on surmises and misreading of the evidence on record or where the core issue is not decided. There is no absolute bar on the re-appreciation C of evidence in those proceedings, however, such a course is permissible in exceptional circumstances. [Para 7] [764-F-G] B Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev o Channabasappa & Ors. AIR SC 2000 2108; Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 189; Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. JT 2010 (5) SC 534 - relied on. E F

2.1. The sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, was a registered document. The document was admitted by the other side. Most of the contents were also admitted. However, it was disputed that the word "Avadhi" and last clause were inserted subsequent to execution of the document. In such a fact-situation, the probative value of that part of the document was required to be assessed. The appellant had examined himself, the scribe and one of the attesting witnesses to the document. The trial court relied upon the deposition of the attesting witness of the sale deed, wherein he had admitted in cross-examination that there was no clause as to after how many years the suit land was to be re-purchased and the word "Avadhi" was written in the margin after completion of the document. In view of the said findings, the suit was dismissed. The first appellate court had 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A unnecessarily laboured to find fault with the trial court's judgment and without realising that there was contradiction in the oral testimony of two marginal witnesses, re-appreciated the entire evidence and reached the contrary conclusion. [Paras 8-10] [764-H; A; B 765-D; 766-8-D]

2.2. Attestation testifies/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 C witnesses and also the whole series of acts or formalities which are necessary to render the document valid. Attestation of sale deed is imperative. [Para 15.2] [770-B]

2.3. Rule 41 of the Karnataka Registration Rules, D 1965 provides for examination of a document by the Registering Officer and made an obligation on his part that if there are unattested interlineations, alterations, erasures or blanks, which the Registering Officer considers should be attested, by the signatures of the E executant, he shall not alter the document himself in any way. Rule 42 mandatorily requires that if there is any interlineations, erasure, alteration etc., it must be mentioned and described at the foot of the document and must be duly signed by the executant before the F document is accepted for registration. In the instant case, the provisions of Rule 42 were not complied with. Nothing was endorsed at the foot of the sale deed, nor it bore signatures of the executant. The word "Avadhi" was inserted at three places in the margin of the sale deed. It G was not attested by the executant. The part Ex. D-2 was inserted in Ex.P-4 in an unusual manner. The entire sale deed was scribed in double space while the part Ex.D-2 was in single space. It was necessary to do so as the parties had already signed the document. Had it been H written in ordinary course, it could have gone below the D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA 759 signatures of the parties in the sale deed. Therefore, it is A crystal clear that such insertion were made to convert the absolute sale deed into a conditional sale deed. Thus, the trial court and the High Court rightly believed the testimony of the respondent that there was no mention of Ex.D-1 and D-2 in Ex.P-4 and the appellant was not B entitled for re-conveyance of the suit property. The manner in which interlineations were made in the document itself revealed that the addition was made subsequent to the execution of the document otherwise there was enough space to insert such a clause in the c same manner in which the entire sale had been scribed. This particular clause had to be squeezed in a small space and to adjust the same before the signature already made by the appellant. The first appellate court committed grave error in not properly appreciating the evidence of 0 PW.1 and PW.2 in this regard, though the Court took note of the admission made by PW.2, the attestator, that no time was fixed for re-conveyance, thus, the term "Avadhi" was written in 'margin' and also Ex.D-2 was written after Ex.P-4 has completely been written. [Paras 12-13] [765-C-F-H; 768-A-F] E Du/aria Devi v. Janardan Singh & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1173 - relied on.

2.4. It was admitted by the appellant that he sold the F land to the respondent as he was in dire need of money to pay to his vendee. He had himself purchased the property only one day before i.e. on 23rd April, 1986. It is not understandable if the appellant was not having money, why did he purchase the property from his vendor G on 23rd April, 1986 and in order to pay him the sale consideration sold it to the respondent on the very next day i.e. on 24th April, 1986 for the same amount. There is nothing on record to show as under what circumstances the sale deed was executed in favour of H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A the appellant by his vendor without receiving the sale consideration and how could he be put in possession. The first appellate court failed to appreciate that there was no shara (noting) in respect of interlineations in the sale deed. Had it been a case of conditional sale, the B appellant could have asked the respondent to wait for mutation or raise the objection before the Revenue Authorities in spite of the fact that mutation is a revenue entry and does not refer to the title of the land. Had it been the case of conditional sale deed enabling the c appella.1t to repurchase the land any time within ten years, the respondent could not have spent huge amount of his life savings for improving the land, nor would he have dug a Well in the suit land spending twenty thousand of rupees. The said circumstances 0 would make it clear that the respondent had never agreed for re-conveyance. [Para 14 and 15] [768-G-H; 769-A-B; F-H] Bharatha Matha & Anr v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. JT 2010 (5) SC 534; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Radha E Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1984 - relied on. F

#3. The case is required to be examined from another angle also. The appellant had purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 23rd April, 1986. He sold the land on the very next date for a sum of Rs.10,000/ reserving his right to purchase the land for the same consideration within a period of ten years. In normal circumstances, the vendor would not agree for reconveyance for the same consideration for the reason G that the value of the land generally goes upwards and within a period of ten years it could have at least become double. [Para 16] [770-E-F]