LAWS(PVC)-1928-11-72

(CHERUKURI) VENKATARATNAM Vs. BOLA GURAVAYYA

Decided On November 13, 1928
(CHERUKURI) VENKATARATNAM Appellant
V/S
BOLA GURAVAYYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 281 of 1925 is by the defendant. The suit corresponding was C.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 Schs. A, A-l and B. The defendant was in possession of A and B scheduled properties and the suit was decreed. Appeal 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-l schedule properties of which possession had been awarded to plaintiffs (in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) by an order under Section 145 Criminal P.C. This was dismissed.

(2.) C.R.P. 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 petitioners in the C.R.P. before us.

(3.) Appeal No. 281 of 1925 (0. S. No. 29 of 1924) had been argued as the main appeal. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged trespass by the defendant on A schedule lands in April 1916. Prior to that date plaintiffs had been in possession of all lands in Schs. A, A-l and B. In 1918 defendant 1 forged a sale-deed which purported to convey all lands in Schs. A, A-l and B to himself. There were registration proceedings in connexion with this document (which will have to be referred to in detail later on) and while these were pending the defendant had possession awarded to him on B schedule lands by an order under Section 145, Criminal P.C. There was a similar order with regard to A schedule lands. In the written statement defendant 1 alleges that the plaintiffs agreed to sell A and A-l schedule lands for Rs. 21,000 and on 24th April 1916 put defendant 1 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-1 and B schedules were sold to defendant 1 and B schedule lands were delivered over to him. It should here be noted that the agreement to sell A and A-l schedule lands is in writing (Ex. 1) and is dated 24 April 1916. Defendant 1 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 ease, the result seems to have been that defendant 1, 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. Defendant 1, 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 in Guravayya V/s. Venkataratnam A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 810. The allegation was that a valid sale-deed for A and A-l schedule properties had been incorporated with the mortgage of B schedule properties, 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, 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 defendant 1 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 4th 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 defendant 1 takes his stand on the sale deed.