SAYYAPARAJU SURAYYA Vs. KODURI KONDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing her suit under Section 77, Registration Act. Plaintiff's husband presented to the Sub-Registrar of Kothapeta on 8th January 1944 a document purporting to be a sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 29th September 1943. The Sub-Registrar refused to register the document as the defendant denied its execution. There was an appeal against that decision of the Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar who agreed with the Sub-Registrar and confirmed his decision. His order is dated 15th November 1944. A suit was thereafter instituted by the plaintiff on 13th December 1944 under Section 77, Registration Act for enforcing registration of the document. The document is Ex. P-2 in the case. The document consists of six sheets of paper of which five sheets are stamp papers of the aggregate value of Rs. 82 8-0. The sixth and the last sheet is a brown paper and there is the thumb impression of the defendant only on the last sheet. There is the "nishani" (mark) put by the scribe on the first five sheets. On the stamp papers, it is significant, there is no thumb impression. It purports to be a sale for a sum of Rs. 5500 of lands of the extent of about 24 acres belonging to the defendant and in which are included about 10 acres of wet land. The document was attested by two witnesses Vageswara Venkataraju and Nadimpilli Ghandraraju. The document, it is in evidence, is in the handwriting of one Appalaraju. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff's husband who was the village Munsif of Vedireswaram represented to her that in order to get the contribution demanded from her to the War Fund reduced it was necessary to present a petition to the, Tahsildar and on that representation her thumb impression was obtained by the plain-tiff's husband on a blank paper. She also pleaded that she could not have sold the property for such a low consideration of Rs. 5500 especially as the property comprised also wet lands of considerable value.

(2.) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself on commission and examined her husband as P. W. 4 and one of the attestors as P. W. 3. During the course of the trial she got Ex. P-17 produced through P. W. 5, which purports to be an application intended to be sent to the Sub-Registrar for procuring his attendance at the house of the defendant for registering the document. The importance of this document is that it purports to bear the thumb impression of the defendant and contains an admission that the property was sold to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5500 though the date of the document is left blank in the petition. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the case was of opinion that the document was not executed by the defendant and that the evidence is (sic.) established its execution was interested and no reliance could be placed upon it. He also found that the consideration for the sale was wholly inadequate, having regard to the evidence regarding the value of the property at or about the time and relied on this as a circumstance improbabilising the case of the plaintiff that the defendant sold the property to the plaintiff. He accepted the version of the defendant that the thumb impression was obtained by the plaintiff's husband on a blank paper on the representation that it was necessary to file a petition to get the contribution to the War Fund reduced and that sheet was utilised as the sixth sheet in the document for bringing into existence a sale deed. He also noticed that in the recitals in the document the description of the properties was repeated more than once in order to bring over the matter to the last sheet, the brown paper. For these reasons the learned Judge in a very exhaustive and careful judgment came to the conclusion that the document could not be directed to be registered under Section 77, Registration Act and the suit was dismissed.

(3.) In this appeal we have been taken through the evidance bearing on the question and we have perused the document. We have no doubt that the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is perfectly justified on the evidence on record. The most striking circumstance which tells against the case of the plaintiff is the absence of the thumb impression on the stamp papers. The importance of this is admitted even by the plaintiff's husband in the witness box, and yet, though he is a village munsif, who must have been acquainted with the formalities required for the execution of documents, he has no explanation to offer for this significant omission. The plaintiff did not examine the scribe and the other attesting witness. There is no satisfactory explanation for the non-examination of these two persons. What is more, the evidence of P. W. 3, the only attesting witness who has been examined in the case, is wholly interested and is not worthy of credence. Exhibit P. 17 no doubt purports to bear the thumb impression of the defendant ; but on a comparison of the thumb impression on Ex. P. 17 with the thumb impression on the last page of the sale-deed, we are satisfied that the two are not identical. The scribe of the document Ex. P. 17 is not known, though the names of two persons are disclosed in the evidence, and the document itself does not bear the signature of the scribe. The date of the sale-deed is left blank, and the document is not proved by any witnesses. No reliance can, therefore, be placed upon the recital in the document that the defendant executed a sale-deed for a sum of Rs. 5500 in respect of her lands in favour of the plaintiff. For these reasons we are of opinion that the decision of the learned Judge on the question of fact is correct.