PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS. & ANR versus JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 30-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 676
676
PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRs. & ANR
v.
JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1491 of 2007)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Contract Act, 1872 – s.25 – Suit for possession and accounts
filed by appellant no.1 against his younger brother-respondent no.1
(defendant no.1) and his wife-(defendant no.2) alleging that he
had purchased the suit property from them by way of registered sale
deed, after settling the creditors of defendant no.1 – Sale denied by
defendants, who filed another suit for declaring the sale deed as
null and void – Appellant’s suit decreed by trial court, respondents’
suit dismissed – First appellate court allowed appeals filed by the
respondents – Affirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: As per
s.25, a registered sale, on account of natural love and affection,
between the parties in near relation, even if it is without
consideration, would not be void – Parties are in near relations,
therefore, if the appellant no.1 being the elder brother had come to
the help of the younger brother who was facing auction of the
property gifted by the parents of the parties, and discharged his
debtors and executed a sale deed mentioning a nominal sale
consideration, it cannot be said to be a sale without consideration
– Further, once there is an admission of the respondent no.1 of
discharge of his debts by appellant, the sale deed registered in
normal course of official duties carries the presumption of
correctness – Respondent no.1 tactically admitted execution of the
sale deed, his only stand is ignorance of the nature of document on
which his signatures were obtained – On facts, such ignorance is
not an instance of misrepresentation/fraud – Decree passed by the
trial court in the suit filed by appellant no.1 is restored – Suit filed
by respondents is dismissed – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.92 – Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 – Deeds and Documents – Fraud.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.92 & proviso (1) – Scope of –
Discussed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Or.VI, r.2 – Pleadings – Held: Every pleading shall contain,
and contain only, a concise statement in form of the material facts
on which the party pleading relies upon, but not the evidence by
which they are supposed to be proved.
Or.VI, r.4 – Held: A party if relies on any misrepresentation,
fraud or undue influence, shall state in the pleadings the particulars
with dates and items.
 Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The sale deed (Ex.P/1) had a recital that the
suit property was sold for a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Section 25 of the
Contract Act is to the effect that an agreement without
consideration is void but if a document is registered on account
of natural love and affection between the parties standing in a
near relation to each other, then such an agreement is not void.
The parties are in near relations, the appellant No.1 being the
elder brother and the sale was executed to help his younger
brother who was facing auction of the property gifted by the
parents of the parties. Even the defendants’ witnesses have
admitted that there was a notice of Court auction of the property
in question by beat of drum. Therefore, if elder brother had come
to the help of the younger brother, discharging his debtors and
executing a sale deed mentioning a nominal sale consideration,
it cannot be said to be a sale without consideration. It is admitted
by respondent No.1 that a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid by the
appellant No. 1 to discharge his debts. Once there is an admission
of the respondent No. 1 of discharge of his debts by appellant
No.1, the sale deed registered in normal course of official duties
carries the presumption of correctness which cannot be said to
be illegal only on the basis of feigned ignorance that his signatures
were obtained on papers which respondent No. 1 and his wife did
not know. [Paras 20, 21][686E, F-G; 687-C-E]
Bellachi (Dead) by LRs v. Pakeeran (2009) 12 SCC 95
: [2009] 4 SCR 823 – relied on.
1.2 The only stand of respondent No.1 is ignorance of the
nature of the document on which his signatures were obtained.
PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRs. v. JOSE FRANCISCO
PINTO
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
Such ignorance is not an instance of misrepresentation or a fraud
in the facts of the present case which would vitiate a sale deed
executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar. It ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.