CIVIL APPEAL 172 of 2012 on 21 October 2003

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESHATAMARAVATI

[ouf®jl

THURSDAY.THEFOURTEENTHDAYOFJULYTWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTWO

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLEMSJUSTICEBSBHANUMATHI

ASNO.172OF2012

AppealfiledunderSection96R/WOrder41Rule1oftheCPCagainsttheJudgmentandDecreedated31-10-2011passedinO.S.No.101of2009onthefileoftheCourtoftheIVAdditionalDistrictJudge(FastTrackCourt).Tanuku,WestGodavariDistrict.

Between:

ChegondiSuryanarayana,S/o.RamaMurthy,Agedabout45years.Hindu,Business.R/o.D.No.10-26-1,KonavariStreet,Tanuku,WestGodavariDistrict.

...AppellantZDefendant

AND

ValluriAbbulu,S/o.Venkanna,aged57years.Business,Tanuku,WestGodavari District.

...Respondent/Plaintiff

LA.NO:1OF2012(ASMP.NO:517OF2012)

PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleased-tostayofallfurtherproceedingspursuanttotheJudgementanddecreedated31-10-2011passedinOSNO.101of2009onthefileoftheCourtoftheIVAdditionalDistrictJudge(FTC)Tanuku.WestGodavariDistrictpendingdisposaloftheAppealsuit.

CounselfortheAppellant:SRIPDURGAPRASAD

CounselfortheRespondent:SRICHANDRASEKHARILAPAKURTt TheCourtmadethefollowing:JUDGMENT

THEHON'BLEMs.JUSTICEB.S.BHANUMATHI

JUDGMENT;

AppealSuitNo.172of2012

Thisappealispreferredagainstthejudgmentanddecree,dated31.10.2Q11,passedinO.S.No.lOlof2009onthefileoftheCourtofIVAdditionalDistrictJudge(FastTrackCourt),Tanuku,WestGodavariDistrict.

2. HeardSriA.S.K.S.Bhargav,learnedcounselrepresentingSriP.DurgaPrasad,learnedcounselappearingfortheappellant.Norepresentationfortherespondent.

3. Thefacts,inbrief,areasfollows:

ThedefendantborrowedasumofRs.1,50,000/-incashbywayofexecutingasimpleregisteredmortgagedeedontheschedulepropertyinfavouroftheplaintiffatTanukuSubRegistrarOfficeon21.10.2003forhisfamilyexpensesandagriculturalinvestmentandagreeingtorepaythesametogetherwithinterestwithintheperiodoffouryears,i.e.,onorbefore20.10.2007atatime,andtowritethepaymentparticularsonthebacksideofthemortgagedeeddocumentforcancellationandthenobtainthemortgagedeeddocumentfromtheplaintiff.Thedefendantalsodepositedtheoriginaldocumentrelatingtotheschedulepropertyasvoucher.Theplaintiffhasdemandedthedefendanttopaytheinterestaccruedontheamountborrowedbyhimafterexpiryofmonth.But,thedefendantpostponedtopayinterest.Afterexpiryoffouryears,theplaintiffdemandedthedefendanttorepaythemortgagedebtamountwithyearlycompoundedinterest BSBJA.S.No.172of2012

immediatelyafterexpiryoffouryearsfromthedateofexecutionofthemortgagedeed.Butthedefendantdidnotpayanyamountcoveredunderthemortgagedeed.Hence,theplaintifffiledthesuitagainstthedefendantforadirectiontothedefendanttopaythesuit­amountofRs.5,65,081/-withsubsequentinterestandotherreliefs.

4. ThedefendantfiledwrittenstatementdenyingtheavermentsmadebytheplaintiffandcontendingthattheplaintiffagreedtoadvancealoanofRs.1,00,000/-only,butnotRs.1,50,000/-asallegedintheplaint.Theplaintiffobtainednumberofsignaturesonblankemptypro-notesandwhitepapersandunfillednon-judicialstamppapers.TheallegedmortgagedeedisnotsupportedbyconsiderationofRs.50,000/-becausetheplaintiffobtainedthemortgagedeedforRs.1,50,000/-buthegaveRs.1,00,000/-only.Theattestorsandthescribearekithandkinoftheplaintiff.Thedefendantneverdidanybusinessatanytime.Fromthebeginning,heisdoingcultivation.Thevaluationmadebytheplaintiffisincorrect.ThedefendantpaidtheentireamountofRs.1,00,000/-intwoequalinstalmentsincludingtheinterestinthepresenceofthemediators.Thesuitisprematureandisliabletobedismissed.

5. Basingontheabovepleadings,thetrialCourtframedthefollowingissuesfortrial;-

(i) Whetherthesuitmortgagedeedisnotsupportedbyconsideration?supportedbyconsideration?

(ii) Whetherthesuitisprematureandisliableto bedismissedascontendedbythedefendant?

(iii) Whethertheplaintiffisentitledforthesuit amoLHitasprayedfor?

(iv) Towhatrelief?

6. DuringthecourseoftrialbeforethetrialCourt,onbehalfoftheplaintiff,theplaintiffexaminedhimselfasPWlandgotmarkedexhibitsAltoA4.ThedefendantexaminedhimselfasDWlandgotexaminedMarellaSuryanarayanaasDW2onhisbehalf.Nodocumentswereexhibitedonthesideofthedefendant.

7. Onthebasisoftheaboveoralanddocumentaryevidenceandonhearingthecounselfortheparties,thetrialCourtdecreedthesuitdirectingthedefendanttopayRs.5,65,081/-withsubsequentinterestat12%perannumontheprincipalamountofRs.l,50,000/rfromthe'dateofsuittillthedateofdecreeandat6%perannumonthesaidprincipalfromthedateofdecreetillrealization.ThetrialCourtfurtherdirectedthatthetimeforredemptionissixmonths.

8. Aggrievedthereby,theappellant/defendantpreferredthisappealcontendingthattheimpugnedjudgmentisunsustainableasitfailedtoappreciatetheoralanddocumentaryevidenceavailableonrecordfromproperperspective.TheCourtbelowoughttohaveseenthatthedefendantneverborrowedRs.1,50,000/-andthatheneverexecutedamortgagedeedinfavouroftheplaintiffandthesuitdeedisafabricatedone.ItisfurthercontendedthatthedefendantgotexaminedDW2toestablishthathehasdischargedtheamounttakenbyhimintwoinstalmentsincludinginterest.WhentheplaintifffiledthesuitallegingthathelentRs.1,50,000/-tothedefendantunderexhibitAl,mortgagedeed,andaitisthecaseofthedefendantthattheplaintiffhasnolendingcapacity,itistheobligationoftheplaintifftoprovethesourceofhisincometolendsuchahugeamount.Theconductoftheplaintifffromthebeginningindicatesthattheonly /

4

BSBJA.S.No.172of2012objectoftheplaintiffinbringingthesuitwithoutcancelling’theallegedmortgagedeedisonlytograbthepropertyofthedefendant.The Courtbelowfurthererredin-grantinginterestattherateof12%perannumand-acceptingtheamountclaimed-inthereliefwithoutanycalculation.

9. Thecaseoftheplaintiffissimplecaseofmortgagewhereasthedefenceofthedefendantistotaldenialofthesuittransactionclaimingthatthemortgagedeedisfabricated,butsetsupadefencethatheapproachedtheplaintifftoadvanceRs.1,00,000/-andobtainednumberofsignatureonblankemptypromotesandwhitepapersand unfillednonjudicialstamppapersinthatcontextandthatthesaidamountofRs.1,00,000/-wasentirelypaidintwoinstalments.However,thedefendantpleadedinthewrittenstatementthattheregisteredrnortgagedeedisnotsupportedbyconsiderationofRs.50,000/-becausetheplaintiffobtainedmortgagedeedforRs.1,50,000/-buthegaveRs.1,00,000/-only.Thus,ononehand,hedoesnotadmitthemortgagedeedashecontendedthathesignedonblankdocumentsandontheotherhand,hecontendsthatthemortgagedeedisnotfullysupportedbyconsiderationasspeltoutthereinanditfallsshortofRs.50,000/-.Inviewthereof,asthereisinitialburdenontheplaintifftoprovethetransactionofmortgage,hegothimselfexaminedasPWlandfiledthedeedofmortgageasexhibitAl.Itisthemaincontentionoftheappellantthatasthereisnootherwitness,i.e.,anattestortothemortgagedeed,examinedbytheplaintiff,,asrequiredunderSection68oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872‘,theevidenceunderexhibitAlcannotbeconsideredandthus.thesuitshouldbedismissed.

10. LearnedcounselfortheappellantfurtherplacedrelianceonthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourtinGovindbhaiChhotabhaiPatelandOrs.Vs.PatelRamanbhaiMathurbhai,K.J.Nathanv.S.V.MarutyReddyandothers^;andRosammalIssetheenammalFernandez(dead)byLRs.&othersv.JoosaMariyanFenandezandothers^.Hevehementlyarguedthatthedefendantspecificallydeniedtheexecutionofthedocumentandtherefore,provisotoSection68oftheEvidenceActcomesintooperationandtheplaintiffisobligatedtoexamineatleastoneoftheattestorstothedocumentfailingwhichthedocumentcannotbeleadinevidence.

11. Beforeproceedingfurther,itisapropostoexamineSection68oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872,whichreadsasfollows:

"68.Proofofexecutionofdocumentrequiredbylawtobeattested:-Ifadocumentisrequiredbylawtobeattested,itshallnotbeusedasevidenceuntiloneattestingwitnessatleasthasbeencalledforthepurposeofprovingitsexecution,iftherebeanattestingwitnessalive,andsubjecttotheprocessoftheCourtandcapableofgivingevidence.

Providedthatitshallnotbenecessarytocallanattestingwitnessinproofoftheexecutionofanydocument,notbeingaWill,whichhasbeenregisteredinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheIndianRegistrationAct,1908unlessitsexecutionbythepersonbywhomitpurportstohavebeenexecutedisspecificallydenied."

12. Nodoubt,asinthecaseofaWill,itisnotmandatorilyrequired.incaseofotherdocumentswhichrequireattestationtocomplytheconditionofexaminingonesuchwitness,ifsuchdocumentis *AIR2019SC4822

1965AIR430

’AIR2000SC2857#(2000)7SCC189

Sincethe

registeredandnotspecificaiiydeniedbytheexecutants.Sincethesuitdocumentisaregisteredmortgagedeed,uniessitsexecutionisspecificaiiydenied-,barunderSection68does,notcomeintooperation.Eachcaseistobeexaminedto-ascertain-whetherthereisany.specificdenialoftheexecutionornot.

13. IncaseofRosammalIssetheenammalFernandez(3*^“supra),itisheldthatinconsideringthequestion,whetherthereisanydenialornotitshouldnotbecasuallyconsideredassuchfindinghasveryimportantbearingontheadmissibilityofadocumentwhichhasimportantbearingontherightsofboththepartiesandthatinconsideringapplicabilityofprovisotoSection68thefindingshouldbeclearlyspecificandnotvaguelyornegativelydrawn.Inthatcase.sincedefendants1and2tookthepleaofforgeryofthesignatureoftheirfatheronthegiftdeed-afterinfluencingtheSubRegistrar,itwasheldthattherecannotbedenialmorestrongerthanwhatisrecordedandtherefore,itobligatedtheplaintifftoexamineatleastoneoftheattestorsandinviewofnon-complianceofsuchobligation,giftdeedwasheldtobenotproved.

14. IncaseofGovindbhaiChhotabhaiPatel(1supra),afterconsideringvariousdecisions,examinedthedefencetakenregardingthedisputeddocumentofgiftonthegroundsofforgeryandfabricationanditwasheldthattheappellantshaveadmittedtheexecutionofthegiftdeedbutallegedthesametobeforgedorfabricated.But,theycouldnotproveanyforgeryinexecutionofthegiftdeed.AscanbeseenfromtheobservationsatparagraphNos.38and41in-thesaiddecision,itwasfurtherheldthatintheabsenceofanyevidenceofan-yforgeryorfabricationandintheabsenceof

specificdenialoftheexecutionofthegiftdeed,thedoneewasundernoobligationtoexamineoneoftheattestingwitnessesofthegiftdeed.•But,thelearnedcounselfortheappellanthereinreliedonparagraphNo.32oftheciteddecisioninthiscase.Infact,atparagraphNo.32,theSupremeCourthasreferredtotheearlierdecisionsinRosammalIssetheenammalFernandez(Dead)byLRsandOrs.v.JoosaMariyanFernandezandOrs.(3'''^supra)andK.Laxmananv.ThekkayilPadminiandOrs?,buthasnotgivenanyofitsfindings.Itisonlyatparagraphs38and41,withreferencetothecasebeforeit,ithelditsopinionanddecidedthecase.Inviewofsuchfindingsanddecision,inthepresentcasealso,itcanbesaidthatthereisnospecificdenialoftheexecutionandtherefore,thecaseoftheplaintiffcannotbenegativedonthegroundthatthedocumentissaidtohavenotprovedinviewofSection68oftheEvidenceActforwantexaminationofatleastoneattestingwitness.

15. TheEvidenceActdoesnotspecifyanynumberofwitnessesrequiredtoproveanyfact.Thetestimonyofthesolewitness,i.e..plaintiffcannotbebrushedasidemerelyonthegroundofnotexamininganyotherwitness,ifhisevidenceremainstrustworthy.HisoralevidenceisinconsonancewiththedocumentaryevidenceunderexhibitAl.Whentheplaintiffdischargedhisinitialburdenofprobabilityofhiscase,itisforthedefendanttodischargetheonusshiftedtohimondischargeofinitialburdenbytheplaintiff.Inthisregard,hereliedonhisevidenceasDWlandtheevidenceofDW2.AsrightlyobservedbythetrialCourt,thepresenceofDW2hasnever

beenspeltouteitherinthewrittenstatementorintheevidenceofD.Wl,butsuddenly,heisintroducedinevidenceasifhewaspresentandknowsthetransactionbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendant.

16. Evenforargumentssake,theversionofthedefendantthathedischargedhisentireliabilityofRs.1,00,000/-havingborrowedthesameandpaidonlyRs.1,00,000/-,thisfactorisalso-takennotebythetrialCourt.Incasesofthisnature,nosuchhugeamountwouldbelentwithoutagreeingtorepaythesamewithsomerateofinterestthereon.Moreover,ifatall,thedefendanthasdischargedanypartofhisliability,asthereisawrittendocumentwhenheborrowedthedocument,itisimprobablethathewouldnotgetanyendorsementofpart-paymentsinceitistheconductnotexpectedofaprudentperson.Moreover,thereisnopleadingorproofastothedateonwhichsuchamountswerepaid.

17. LearnedcounselfortheappellantreliedonthedecisioninK.J.Nathan(2"**supra)insupportofthepropositionthatthereisnopresumptionthatbymeredepositoftitledeeds,mortgageisconstituted.However,intheciteddecision,itwasheldthatacourtmaypresumeunderSection114oftheEvidenceActthatundercertaincircumstancesaloanand-adepositoftitle-deedsconstituteamortgage.Thus,eachcaseistobeexaminedinthelightofthefactsestablishedtoascertainwhethersuchapresumptionunderSection114oftheEvidenceActcanberaised.Thedefendantcouldnotpleadandproveastowhytheoriginaltitledeedis.withtheplaintiff.Theplaintiffhasrestedhiscasenotonthegroundofmortgagebydepositoftitledeeds,butreliedonthemortgagedeedforprovidingsecurityofimmovablepropertybythedefendantsecuringamountborrowedfrom BSB.JA.S.No.172of2012

theplaintiff.Therefore,thisdecisiondoesnotcomeinaidtothe appellant.

18. Nextiy,inoneofthegroundsofappeal,itiscontendedthattheplaintiffhasnolendingcapacitytoadvancesuchahugeamount.But,thereisnosuchpleatakenandissueframed.Therefore,thereisnobasisforsuchgroundtoberaisedattheappellatestageforthefirst time.

19. Further,inthecaseofregistereddocuments,thepartywouldbepresentbeforetheRegistrarandwouldbeidentified.Therefore,itgoesagainstthedefenceofthedefendantthathesignedonlyblankdocument.Ifitisanormaldocument,onecaneasilysaythatitwasexecutedwiththecontentsandtheothercaneasilysayitwasmerelysignedonablankdocumentandlaterthedocumentwasprepared.But,incaseofregistereddocument,unlesstheidentityoftheexecutantbeforetheRegistrarisindisputeandthesameispleadedandproved,bymeredeniallikeinthepresentcase,thedefencecannotbeeasilyacceptedtothrowburdenontheplaintiffmoreheavilytodisbelievetheexecutionofthedocument.Insuchcases,itisexpectedthatthedefendantwouldprovethecircumstancesraisingareasonabledoubtastoitsexecutionbythedefendantaspleadedbytheplaintifforinthecircumstancesstatedbythedefendant.But,inthepresentcase,nosuchpleastakendescribingthecircumstances,norwasanyevidencelead,exceptexaminingastrangewitnessasDW2.Underthesecircumstances,itcannotbesaidthatthedefendantcoulddischargehisonus.Assuch,therearenogroundstointerferewiththefindingsofthetrialCourtwhichhasrightlyappreciatedtheevidenceofboththesidesandtheappealisliabletobedismissed.

20. Intheresult,theappealisdismissed-.

BSB.JA.S.No.172of2012

Thereshallbenoorderastocosts.

Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandclosed.

To,

//TRUECOPY//

Sd/-VDIWAKARDEPUTYREGISTRARSECTIONOFFICER_iSr- TrackCourt),Tanuku.WestGodavari 5fwltb'Sekharllapakurthi,Advocate(OPUC)

-;Trt’*VNiTt

atAmaravaU.