IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
A.S.No.182 of 2009
A.MURALI KRISHNA PRASAD,
HABZIGUDA, HYDERABAD
VS
T.NAGAMMALLESWARA RAO,
KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD
JUDGMENT:
The respondent filed O.S.No.950 of 2005 in
the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ranga
Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, against the appellant for the relief of specific
performance of the agreement of sale dated 7.03.2005 in respect of the suit
schedule property. It was pleaded that the appellant is the absolute owner of
the property and the same was agreed to be sold for a consideration of
Rs.5,05,000/-. The entire sale consideration is said to have been paid on the
date of agreement of sale itself and the possession of the property was also
delivered. The respondent pleaded that in spite of repeated demands, the
appellant did not execute the sale deed.
The appellant did not dispute the execution
of agreement of sale. However, he denied receipt of entire consideration. He
admitted that the possession of the property was delivered. Such delivery of
possession was said to be only for looking after and up keep of the property. A
further plea was taken to the effect that the agreement of sale was revoked on
1.07.2005 under Ex.A.3. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment,
dated 22.12.2008. Hence this appeal.
Sri Rama Rao Ghanta, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the oral and
documentary evidence and decreed the suit as prayed for. He submits that the
recital in Ex.A.1 as regards to payment of consideration was on the basis of
firm belief and mutual confidence, but as a matter of fact, consideration was
not paid. He further contends that the agreement was revoked through Ex.A.3 and
still the suit was decreed.
Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, submits that there was clear a recital in
Ex.A.1-agreement of sale to the effect that the entire sale consideration was
paid and in that view of the matter there was no basis for the appellant to
plead otherwise. He further submits that agreement of sale was registered and the
question of revoking it through a unilateral letter does not arise.
The trial Court framed the following issues
for consideration.
1. Whether the revocation
agreement of sale dated 1.07.2005 is void?
2. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for injunction as prayed for?
4. To what relief?
On behalf of the respondent PWs.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of the appellant DWs.1 to 3
were examined but no documentary evidence was adduced.
The only point that arises for consideration
before this Court is as to whether any oral evidence can be adduced contrary to
the recitals in the registered document.
The appellant acquired the property through
Ex.A.2. The fact that he executed Ex.A.1-agreement of sale is not in dispute.
It is a registered document and the appellant did not even plead that he did
not execute that document. The two contentions raised by the appellant while
opposing the suit were that he has revoked Ex.A.1 through Ex.A.3 and that he
did not receive the consideration.
Ex.A.1 is an agreement of sale cum G.P.A.
While the agreement of sale confers rights upon the respondent to insist on the
specific performance thereof, the G.P.A. clothes him with power to do certain
acts. It is a power of attorney supplied that interest. The law is
well settled to the effect that a registered document cannot be revoked
unilaterally. Further, a registered document cannot be set at naught by the
appellant alone. The only alternative for him was to file a suit for
cancellation of that document. Therefore, this plea cannot be accepted.
The second contention advanced by the
appellant was that he did not receive the consideration. It is no doubt true
that any transaction is not supported by consideration is void in the eye of
law. There would have been some basis for this plea.
It is a case where the assertion by the
respondent was not supported by any written document. In Ex.A.1 itself there is
a clear recital to the effect that the entire consideration was paid by the
appellant. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that no oral evidence
can be received to contradict the recitals in a written document. The principle
applies with greater vigor where the document is registered. Viewed from any
angle, the contention advanced by the appellant cannot be sustained in law. The
trial Court has appreciated the matter in correct perspective and this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
(L. Narasimha Reddy, J.)
13th October, 2009
Js.
No comments:
Post a Comment