CHERUKURI VENKATARATNAM Vs. BOLLA GURAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No, 281 of 1925 is by the defendant. The suit corresponding was O.S. No. 29 of 1924 and asked for possession of A and B schedule lands and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to lands in schedules A, A-I and B. The defendant was in possession of A and B scheduled properties and the, suit was decreed. Appeal No. 196 of 1926 is by the plaintiff (defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) corresponding to Suit No. 61 of 1924 which was for recovery of A-I schedule properties of which possession had been awarded to plaintiffs (in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) by an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was dismissed.

(2.) Civil Revision Petition No. 626 of 1925 corresponds to O.S. No. 1 of 1925 which was a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession of A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff was defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924, and the suit was dismissed. Hence the defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924 is the appellant in both the Appeals and the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition before us.

(3.) Appeal No. 281 of 1925 (O.S. No. 29 of 1924) has been argued as the main appeal. In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged trespass by the defendant on A schedule lands in April 1916. Prior to that date plaintiffs bad been in possession of all lands in schedules A, A-I and B. In 1918 1 defendant forged a sale-deed which purported to convey all lands in schedules A, A-I and B to himself. There were registration proceedings in connection with this document (which will have to be referred to in detail later on) and while these were pending the; defendant had had possession awarded to him on B schedule lands by an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. There was a similar order with regard to A schedule lands. In the written statement the 1 defendant alleges that the plaintiffs agreed to sell A and A-I schedule lands for Rs. 21,000 and on 24 April, 1916, put the 1 defendant in possession of same, that money was required to pay plaintiff's creditors and when it was found that the debts exceeded Rs. 21,000 there was a fresh agreement whereby the lands in A, A-I and B schedules were sold ito 1 defendant and B schedule lands were delivered over to him. It should here be noted that the agreement to sell A and A-I schedule lands is in writing (Ex.I) and is dated 24th April, 1916. The 1 defendant sets up an oral agreement to sell B schedule lands, whereas the plaintiff alleges that what was agreed to as regards B schedule was only to mortgage them for Rs. 8,000. In any case, the result seems to have been that 1 defendant got into possession of B schedule lands also during the registration proceedings. These proceedings arose from the presentation of the document Ex. A-2 for registration which was refused by the District Registrar, First defendant appellant then brought a suit O.S. No. 17 of 1920 for its compulsory registration under Section 77, Registration Act, which was decreed. On appeal to the High Court a Division Bench differed, Phillips, J., holding the suit should be decreed and Devadoss, J., that it should be dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal came before a Bench of three Judges and is reported as Bolla Grouvayya V/s. Cherukuri Venkala-rathnam 82 Ind. Cas. 483 : 47 M. 833 : 47 M.L.J. 271 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 810 : 20 L.W. 977. The allegation was that a valid sale-deed for A and A-1 schedule properties had been incorporated with the mortgage of B schedule propertier, the signature and attestations preserved and part of the rest treated as a palimpsest, i.e., the original writing obliterated and a fresh writing superimposed thereon. The character of the alterations and the appearance of the document were commented on by the learned Chief Justice in the report. The Letters Patent Bench decided that all that the Registrar had to do was to look at the form and not the substance of the document and that in a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, the same considerations should guide the Court which guide the Registrar. The Chief Justice further says that the inference that the alterations in Ex. A-2 were made after the execution of the document in its original state by the defendants "is almost irresistible." I interpolate this expression of opinion by the learned Chief Justice here because it may have a bearing on the question hereafter to be considered though it is no part of my duty in this case to enquire whether the 1 defendant had in fact forged Ex. A 2. To return to the written statement of the defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924 it was filed on 4 October, 1921 after, it is said, the decree in the District Court in O.S. No. 17 of 1920 in favour of the defendant. There is no doubt that in the written statement the 1st defendant takes his stand on the sale deed.