IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
SECOND APPEAL No.102 OF 2010
Between:
P. Narayana Swamy
.....APPELLANT
AND
A. Chidambara Reddy
....RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
SECOND APPEAL No.102 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2007, in A.S.No.62 of 2004, on the file of III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree, dated 23.08.2004, in O.S.No.130 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, passing preliminary decree with costs for an amount of Rs.2,84,834/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization and granting two months’ time for redemption, were set aside passing preliminary decree with costs for the principal amount of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 ½ % per annum from 15.05.2001 till the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization and further, granted two months’ time for redemption.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows:
The defendant borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.05.2001 and executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the debt with interest at 24% per annum. Subsequent to the execution of the mortgage deed, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the debt. Thereby, the plaintiff issued a registered legal notice on 13.07.2002 demanding the defendant to repay the amount, but the defendant neither repaid the amount nor sent any reply. Hence, the suit.
3. The defendant filed written statement stating that he has not borrowed Rs.2,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.05.2001; that he never executed the suit mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff mortgaging the schedule mentioned property and agreeing to repay Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at 24% per annum and that the mortgage deed came into existence under the following circumstances:
The defendant executed the mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff for the debt due by him to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, Rs.20,000/- to one Rajanna, Rs.30,000/- to one Ramudu, Rs.10,000/- to one T. Venkatesulu and Rs.10,000/- towards interest on the debt due to the plaintiff and Rs.10,000/- towards registration expenses of the mortgage deed. The alleged mortgage deed was obtained by the plaintiff and the above persons under threat and duress in the name of plaintiff and so, no cash consideration was paid under the alleged mortgage deed. Immediately after the mortgage deed, the defendant convened a panchayat in the presence of elders. On the same day, a consent agreement was drawn between the plaintiff and defendant and the defendant agreed to pay the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- within three years from 15.05.2001 and after payment of Rs.2,20,000/-, the plaintiff agreed to disburse the amount among the creditors. The plaintiff though agreed for three years time for repayment of amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, he filed the present unjust suit only with a view to knock away the crop existing on the land. Due to serious drought condition, the defendant is yet to realize the crop from the orange garden and it takes few days time to realize the money. Hence, the suit is instituted for recovery of money suppressing the facts. The suit is not at all maintainable on the foot of a mortgage deed, which is not supported by consideration. The contents of the mortgage deed are disproved in the consent agreement dated 15.05.2001. The original consent agreement dated 15.05.2001 is available with the plaintiff and he is bound to produce the same into the Court. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
“1. Whether the suit mortgage was obtained under threat and duress by the plaintiff?
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed for?
4. To what relief?”
5. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked, and on behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 to 4 were examined, but no document was marked.
6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant and accordingly, passed the preliminary decree for Rs.2,84,834/- with interest at 24% per annum. On appeal, the said judgment was set aside by the appellate Court but passed a preliminary decree for Rs.2,20,000/- with interest at 12 ½ % per annum. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the defendant.
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant since the document Ex.A1 is a compulsorily attestable document under Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (for short, “the TP Act”), and unless one of the attesters of the document is examined to prove the document, it is not admissible in evidence under section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; that therefore, it is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal; that the signature of the defendant on the mortgage deed was obtained by force and threat; that by cross-examination of DWs.2 and 3, it is clear that Ex.A1 was not executed by the defendant voluntarily after receiving the consideration and hence, he prays to admit the Second Appeal.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that there is no substantial question of law involved so as to admit the appeal; that the scribe of Ex.A1 is examined to speak about the execution of the document, besides examination of PW.1; that once execution of Ex.A1 is proved, it is clear that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- under Ex.A1; that in spite of taking steps by the respondent to summon the attesters of Ex.A1, the Court has not issued summons and therefore, in those circumstances, non-examination of attesters cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the respondent; that furthermore, the attesters were examined on behalf of the appellant/defendant; that therefore, due execution of Ex.A1 has been proved and hence, there are absolutely no grounds to admit the Second Appeal.
9. Now the point for determination is whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal?
10. By virtue of amendment to Section 100 C.P.C., the admission of Second Appeal is not routine or automatic. The appellant must raise a substantial question of law to admit the Second Appeal. The ‘substantial question of law’ is not defined under C.P.C. But, it must mean that it substantially affects the rights of the parties. If the findings of both the Courts below are based upon proper appreciation of the facts, the question of admitting the Second Appeal does not arise.
11. According to the case of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant executed a registered mortgage deed having received consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. When the appellant failed to repay the same, the respondent got issued a notice under Ex.A2. The same was acknowledged by the appellant under Ex.A3 – Acknowledgement. The appellant has not given any reply to the notice got issued by the respondent. In the earliest point of time, it has to be shown that the appellant has not received any consideration under Ex.A1 and that the signature of the appellant on Ex.A1 was obtained by threat or coercion. No doubt, under Section 58 of the TP Act, a mortgage deed is compulsorily attestable document. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Proviso to the said Section reads that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. The specific denial of execution must be taken in the written statement. The plea taken in the written statement is that the mortgage deed was obtained by the respondent/plaintiff under threat and duress. Under such circumstances, examination of the attesting witness for the purpose of proof of the execution of the document was not necessary as there is no specific denial of execution of mortgage deed. It is not in dispute that PW.2, who is the scribe of Ex.A1 – mortgage deed, was examined. His evidence is clear that the respondent/defendant executed the mortgage deed and the same was registered in the Sub-Registrars Office, after receiving total consideration of Rs.2,20,000/-. Since the attesters of Ex.A1 are closely related to the appellant, the respondent has taken some steps to summon them through process of Court. But, that petition was dismissed. Therefore, it is not a willful omission on the part of the respondent in examining the attesters. Even otherwise, the attesters have been examined by the appellant himself. Therefore, it is a proper compliance within the meaning of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Once it is proved by the respondent that Ex.A1 was executed by the appellant on receipt of consideration of an amount of Rs.2,20,000/-, the burden shifts to the appellant/defendant to substantiate that Ex.A1 was not executed by him voluntarily and no consideration was passed, in view of the fact that the appellant has asserted that Ex.A1 was executed by threat and coercion; that no consideration was passed and so, he is not liable to pay the amount covered under Ex.A1. To discharge the said burden, the appellant himself examined as DW.1 and DWs.2 and 3, who are the attesters of Ex.A1, were also examined. It is not in dispute that DWs.2 and 3 are closely related to the appellant. Mere close relationship of a witness with a party does not by itself is a ground to discredit the testimony of that witness. The evidence of relations has to be appreciated like that of the evidence of any other witnesses. The case of the appellant and as well as the case of DWs.2 and 3 is that Ex.A1 was obtained by the respondent by threat and coercion. In view of the fact that the document has been registered at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, it is highly improbable to believe that before the Sub-Registrar the respondent obtained the document under threat and coercion. Even assuming for a moment that before the execution of Ex.A1 there was threat, nothing prevented the appellant in giving a report to police immediately after the registration of the mortgage deed in the Office of the Sub-Registrar. No steps have been taken in lodging a complaint either by DW.1 or DWs.2 and 3 that Ex.A1 was obtained by the respondent by threat or coercion. No doubt, when a document was obtained by threat or coercion, it is not a valid contract in terms of Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, but at the same time, the same has to be proved by the defendant by producing the evidence beyond preponderance of probability. Such evidence is lacking. Even after receipt of notice from the respondent, the appellant did not state about obtaining Ex.A1 by threat or coercion. No explanation was forthcoming by the appellant for not giving reply to the notice, Ex.A2, at the earliest point of time. So, these circumstances would clearly indicate that the theory of obtaining Ex.A1 by threat or coercion was introduced for the first time in the written statement. So, when the recitals in Ex.A1 have been proved by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and the appellant failed to establish that Ex.A1 was obtained by threat or coercion and not supported by consideration, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the said decree and judgment was rightly confirmed by the appellate Court. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. It is not the case of the appellant that inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked by both the Courts below. So, when the issues as well as the points have been decided by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court respectively, basing on proper evaluation and appreciation of the evidence, which is not shown to be incorrect, the question of interfering with the findings of the fact does not arise. Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of law, the question of admitting the Second Appeal does not arise.
12. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________
K.C. BHANU, J
February 07, 2011
MD
No comments:
Post a Comment