LexD.R. RATHNA MURTHY versus RAMAPPA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 755 D.R. RATHNA MURTHY V. RAMAPPA (Civil Appeal No. 6396 OF 2002) OCTOBER 8, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Deeds and documents.· A B Document containing interlineations or alterations - Suit c land sold by registered sale deed - After few years, vendor seeking re-purchase of land by claiming that the sale by him was conditional - Jn the sale deed, the word 'avadhi' was inserted in three places in the margin and an insertion of a clause was made in the last part of the sale deed to make it 0 conditional - Held: Rule 42 mandatorily requires that if there is any interlineations, erasures, alterations etc., it must be mentioned and described at the foot of the document and must be duly signed by the executant before the document is accepted for registration - Nothing was endorsed at the foot E of the sale deed, nor did it bear signatures of the executant - The word "Avadhi" inserted at three places in the margin of the sale deed was not attested by the executant - Thus, Rule 42 was not complied with - The manner in which interlineations were made in the document itself revealed that the insertions were made subsequent to the execution of the document with a purpose to convert the absolute sale deed into conditional sale deed - The insertions in question were surrounded by the suspicious circumstances of a grave nature and, therefore, the same were required to be ignored - Registration - Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 - rr. 41, 42. Admissibility of a document - Held: Document may be admissible but probative value of the entries contained therein may still be required to be examined in the facts and 755 F G H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 12 S.C.R. A circumstances of a particular case Appeal Second appeal - Scope of interference - Held. High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the second appeal, provided the findings recorded by the courts 8 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. 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 P-4) to the respondent for Rs.10,000. In the year 1991- 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 B 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] Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev o Channabasappa & Ors. AI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.