RENGANAYAKI Vs. K.R.RENGANATHAN MUDALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. The Appeal Suit : This Appeal Suit arises out of the common judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/1988, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Arani in O.S.No.27 of 1985 and O.S.No.20 of 1986.

(2.) The case of the Purchaser is that the suit property belonged to the Vendor. The Vendor and her husband sold the property to the Purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.47,000.00. On 19/5/1983, the sale deed was duly executed by the Vendor and it was witnessed by her husband. It is mentioned in the sale deed that an advance of Rs.30,000.00was received for payment of loans. After receiving the said advance amount and signing the sale deed, the Vendor did not discharge the loan amount and did not come forward to get the document registered. After the exchange of legal notices, the Purchaser, therefore, sought compulsory registration of the sale deed under Sec. 74 of the Registration Act. The said petition in O.P.No.2 of 1984 was ordered by the Sub Registrar, Kannamangalam, who had the powers of the District Registrar under the Act, after a detailed enquiry. Thus, the said sale deed dtd. 19/5/1983 was duly registered. After the sale, the defendant was bound to quit and deliver the vacant possession to the Purchaser and therefore, the Purchaser filed O.S.No.27 of 1985 to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property and to award the costs of the suit.

(3.) The case of the Vendor is that she is the owner of the property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Purchaser agreed to purchase the house property for a total sale consideration of Rs.75,000.00 and paid an advance of Rs.10,000.00 and a balance amount of Rs.65,000.00 had to be paid. The Vendor had to discharge the debts namely pro-note debt of due to one Lakshmanan S/o Thandavaraya Gounder of Nellore, mortgage debt due to one Hameed Sahib of Kannamangalam, and the debt due to Co-Operative Housing Bank, Arni. The Purchaser had insisted that the sale deed can be written for a sum of Rs.20,000.00 stating that the stamp duty for Rs.75,000.00 will be more and if the value is more than Rs.50,000.00, the procedure of income tax clearance will also arise. The Vendor did not object to the said course of action. The Purchaser got stamp papers required for the value of Rs.20,000.00 and had written the document with the help of a scribe. In the said document, the figures were written only in pencil. The sale consideration of Rs.20,000.00, the advance amount of Rs.10,000.00 were all written with a pencil. The Purchaser represented that if the value is more as per the guideline value in the Sub Registrar's Office, it can be altered accordingly and therefore, the entries were made in pencil. The Purchaser thus paid an advance of Rs.10,000.00 alone. But however, failed to pay the balance of Rs.65,000.00 inspite of repeated demands. Thereafter, clandestinely, the Purchaser issued a notice on 25/7/1993 on false allegations as if the total sale consideration was Rs.47,000.00 and Rs.30,000.00 was paid as advance. The Vendor sent a reply notice on 29/7/1983. The Purchaser initiated proceedings for compulsory registration in O.P.No.2 of 1983. The Vendor had contested the enquiry but, the Sub Registrar by his order dtd. 23/11/1984 ordered the registration of the document. The signature was obtained from the Vendor in a document, in which, the facts and figures were written by the pencil and thereafter, with the help of the scribe subsequently it was altered to Rs.47,000.00 instead of Rs.20,000.00 and the advance amount was altered to Rs.30,000.00 instead of Rs.10,000.00. The Vendor never agreed to sell the property for only Rs.47,000.00. Thus, it is an act of fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, the sale deed is to be declared as null and void. Therefore, the vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 1985. The said suit was subsequently transferred to be tried along with the present suit and was re-numbered as O.S.No.20 of 1986.