KALAVAKURTI VENKATA SUBBAIAH Vs. BALA GURAPPAGARI GURUVI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a suit for specific performance seeking a direction to register the sale deed dated July 2, 1979 (Exhibit A-6) and for injunction or possession of the immovable property referred to therein. His case is that the appellant had duly executed the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit premises for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,200/- but the appellant did not get the document registered thereafter. The case set up by the appellant is that he signed sale deed dated July 2, 1979 as a result of fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent taking advantage of the fact that he was an illiterate person. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had to avail of the remedy under S. 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and not bring a suit for specific performance. The matter was carried in appeal. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on the basis that the relief insofar as the decree for specific performance of the later half of the document could be granted and that Section 77 of the Act will not come in the way. A second appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the High Court held that the view taken by the First Appellate Court was correct and dismissed the second appeal. Thereafter review petition was also preferred on the ground that the High Court had proceeded on the view that the judgments of the courts below were concurrent and the matter involves only pure findings of fact. The said review petition was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter the matter is brought up before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and this Court, having granted leave, is now registered it as an appeal.

(2.) On the facts admitted the execution of the deed could not be doubted. However, the trial Court had taken the view that it could not place reliance on the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3. The First Appellate Court critically examined the same and held that the direct testimony of PWs 2 and 3 were free from blame and they admittedly witnessed execution of the deed and the payment of purchase money recited in the deed by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of the execution of the document was clearly proved by the reliable and direct testimony of PWs 2 and 3. The oral assertion of the defendant to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs. 16,000/- was to vary or contradict the term of the instrument and, therefore, was not permissible in view of S. 92 of the Evidence Act. The First Appellate Court did not, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the value of the land was received under Exhibit A-6 and the plaintiff was not disentitled to the registration of the said document.

(3.) In this appeal the question raised is whether the reliefs sought for by the respondent to enforce the registration of the document particularly when the appellant's contention was that document (Ex. A-6) is a deed of sale and, being unregistered, a decree for specific performance based on the same could not be granted.