2021 (9) TMI 1386 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court validates sale deed, dismisses fraud claims, orders property return

PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) by LRs & ANR. Versus JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO & ANR.

PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) by LRs & ANR. Versus JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO & ANR. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the sale deed dated 14.9.1970.2. Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the sale deed.3. Consideration for the sale deed.4. Principle of res judicata.5. Admissibility of oral evidence to contradict the written sale deed.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Sale Deed:The primary issue was whether the sale deed executed on 14.9.1970 was valid. The plaintiff claimed possession based on this sale deed, while the defendants contended it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court found the sale deed valid, noting that the defendants' evidence did not rebut the duly registered document. The First Appellate Court, however, found the sale deed invalid, citing lack of consideration and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the validity of the sale deed, stating that the elder brother (plaintiff) had discharged the younger brother's (defendant No. 1) debts, which constituted valid consideration.2. Allegation of Fraud and Misrepresentation:Defendants alleged that the sale deed was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, claiming they were unaware of the nature of the document they signed. The trial court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The First Appellate Court, however, accepted the defendants' claims, stating that the signatures were obtained by misrepresentation. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the defendants admitted to signing the document in the presence of officials and that there was no substantive evidence of fraud. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the document's nature does not constitute fraud or misrepresentation in this context.3. Consideration for the Sale Deed:The First Appellate Court held that the sale deed was void for lack of consideration, as the plaintiff did not plead the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as consideration. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, pointing out that the plaintiff had discharged debts amounting to Rs. 12,000/-, which was acknowledged by the defendants. The Court stated that the sale deed, which mentioned a nominal consideration, was valid as it was executed out of natural love and affection between the brothers, aligning with Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.4. Principle of Res Judicata:The second suit filed by the defendants sought to declare the sale deed null and void, which the trial court dismissed as barred by res judicata. The First Appellate Court allowed amendments to the pleadings and considered the second suit on its merits. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into the res judicata issue, focusing instead on the substantive findings of fraud and consideration.5. Admissibility of Oral Evidence:The First Appellate Court found that oral evidence contradicted the terms of the sale deed, which it deemed inadmissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court reiterated that while oral evidence can be used to prove fraud, there was no sufficient plea or proof of fraud in this case. The Court emphasized that the written and registered sale deed carried a presumption of correctness, and the defendants' admission of debt repayment by the plaintiff supported the validity of the sale deed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff and dismissing the second suit. The defendants were given two months to vacate and hand over possession of the property. The Court's decision hinged on the lack of substantive evidence of fraud, the validity of the consideration, and the presumption of correctness attached to the registered sale deed.