It is thus obvious that the person authorised must hold registered Power of attorney and if he does not hold registered power of attorney, the registration at his instance is void. The registration of the sale-deed (Exh.81) is, therefore, void.
Bombay High Court
First Appeal No.198 Of 1999 vs : on 14 August, 2009
Bench: C. L. Pangarkar
1. This is first appeal by the plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows -
One Motilal Jadia was uncle of the plaintiff. Defendant nos.1 and 2 are the sons of late Motilal Jadia. The original plaintiff Dulichand is dead. Dulichand - the original plaintiff came to Nagpur in 1970 to join the business run by defendant nos.1 and 2.
While the plaintiff started working with defendant nos.1 and 2 in their business, the plaintiff's family was at Calcutta. Plaintiff Dulichand while at Nagpur was residing with defendant nos.1First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 3 and 2. Plaintiff Dulichand was trying to build up his career in the jewellery business. However, up to the age nof 49 he had not secured any accommodation for the family. He, therefore, decided to give top priority for securing residential accommodation for himself and his family. Due to his tremendous labour and industry, the plaintiff Dulichand was able to purchase a plot at Nagpur on 18th April, 1971. The said plot was in the occupation of the tenant and he was carrying on business there. Since property was in occupation of the tenant, the plaintiff could purchase it at a lesser price. The plaintiff purchased the said plot for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-. The defendants had established their business at Nagpur and their business was thriving, while Dulichand was financially weak. He had no local influence at all. The defendants always used to remind the plaintiff of his weak financial condition and of his being new to Nagpur. The plaintiff contended that when the defendants came to know of the purchase of the property, they rebuked the plaintiff as to how the plaintiff has purchased the property which is in occupation of the tenant. The plaintiff First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 4 Dulichand was also told that he neither had financial capacity nor resources to evict the tenant. The defendants thus scared the plaintiff. Due to this, the plaintiff felt very scary and in good faith he told the defendants to do whatever was necessary to be done in the matter so as to have a residential accommodation for the plaintiff. Taking advantage of the goodness of the plaintiff-
Dulichand, the defendants told the plaintiff to execute one sham document in favour of the defendants and they assured that the said document would not be acted upon. It was assured to the plaintiff that the said document would, in fact, be used merely to show to the people that the defendants were the owners of the property. It was also assured that if that is so done, the tenant would come to terms and would vacate. The plaintiff further contends that the defendants suggested that an agreement for sale be made showing purchase price of Rs.20,000/- and earnest amount of Rs.10,000/-, but in reality, there would be no monetary transaction and the agreement would be sham. The plaintiff believed in the said assurance and executed an agreement of sale inFirst Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 5 favour of defendant no.2 on 8th of July, 1971. He also executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant no.2. The plaintiff submits that he was never paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as mentioned in the agreement. The plaintiff further contends that the said documents were obtained from him under undue influence, coercion and fraud. The plaintiff also contends that the plaintiff had time and again requested the defendant to cancel and revoke the said power of attorney. The defendants assured that the said agreement and power of attorney were sham documents and there was no question of them being used for any other purpose. It was also assured that since the documents were executed long back, they were deemed to be cancelled. The plaintiff contends that in the month of December, 1986 he had come to Nagpur due to the death of his uncle. When he came to Nagpur in December, 1986, he learnt that defendant no.2 had allegedly sold the suit property to defendant no.1. The plaintiff became apprehensive and contacted a lawyer. The lawyer served a notice on defendants. The plaintiff submits that he had never authorized defendant no.2 to sell the property to defendant no.1. The said sales are void and do not confer any title on defendant no.1. The plaintiff denies to have received any consideration under the sale-deed. Further, it is contended that in the month of January, 1988 the plaintiff received a registered letter from defendant no.1 containing a draft of Rs.
5000/-. On reading those letter and the draft the plaintiff finally came to know that the house has been sold by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 for Rs.40,000/-. In fact, the house was not to be sold and was acquired by the plaintiff for his own use.
3. The plaintiff had filed the suit at Calcutta. The court at Calcutta held that the suit could not be entertained by Calcutta court for want of territorial jurisdiction, as no cause of action arose there. The plaint was returned to plaintiff. It was represented by the plaintiff at Nagpur and at the time of representation an amendment was made to the effect that the uncle of the plaintiff had died in September, 1986 and he had come to attend the funeral and at that time he came to know of the alleged sale-deed. He had First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 7 then instructed the lawyer to issue the notice. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the agreement of sale and the power of attorney executed were null and void and were nominal documents, and also for a declaration that the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant no.1 was also void.
4. Defendant no.1 filed written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties. The defendant denies all the allegations of undue influence, fraud and coercion. The defendant also denies that the documents i.e. the agreement of sale and the power of attorney were sham and bogus. The defendant further denies that he has not paid consideration to the plaintiff. In fact, it is his contention that entire consideration has been paid to the plaintiff and the sale-deed has been executed in his favour by the power of attorney and therefore, it is valid document. The main contentions that have been raised by the defendant are that the tenant of the suit premises had filed an inter pleader suit in which Dulichand as well as defendant nos.1 and 2 were party. The tenant First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 8 had called upon Dulichand on one part and defendant nos.1 and 2 on the other part to interplead. In the said suit it was held that defendant was entitled to receive the rent and were landlords. The defendant contends that these findings recorded in civil suit No. 437 of 1981 operate as res judicata. It is his contention that the plaintiff Dulichand had never contested the suit. The next contention that is raised is that the suit is barred by limitation. Rest of the defendants did not file written statement in the matter.
5. On these pleadings of the parties, the leaned judge of the trial court framed issues and he found that plaintiff had failed to prove that the agreement of sale and the power of attorney were executed either by coercion, undue influence or fraud. He found that the sale deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 acting on the basis of power of attorney was not void. He also further found that the suit was not within limitation and suit was barred by principles of res judicata. Holding so, he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff feels aggrieved and prefers this appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.
7. Following points arise for determination -
POINTS ig FINDINGS.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Power of attorney and the agreement of sale were brought about either by coercion or fraud ? ...... .. No.
2. Whether they were brought about by exercise of undue influence ? ...... .. No.
3. Does he prove that the general power of attorney and the agreement of sale were sham documents and were never intended to be acted upon ? .. Yes.
4. Is the registration of the sale-deed in favour of defendant no.1 void ? .. Yes.
5. Is the suit filed within limitation ? .. No.
6. Whether the judgment in Civil Suit No.437/81 operates as res judicata ? .. No.
7. Is the plaintiff entitled to declaration as sought ? .... .. No.
- R E A S O N S -
8. Points No.1 and 2 :- The plaintiff in para no.8 of the plaint simply alleges that the two documents i.e. General Power of Attorney and the Agreement of Sale were brought about by fraud, coercion and undue influence. Order 6 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. requires a party raising the above plea to give particulars. As far as coercion is concerned, I find that there are no particulars of coercion. There is nothing suggesting that any threats were given to the plaintiff or any act forbidden by Indian Penal Code was committed by the defendants at the time of execution of the said document. With regard to the fraud, the said plea must fail due to the following averements made in the plaint.
6. That apart from making the plaintiff Dulichand scared in the aforesaid manner, the Defendants and their father also told the plaintiff that by purchasing the aforesaid plot the plaintiff was creating unnecessary complications and the First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 11 defendants and their father would be compelled to disassociated the plaintiff Dulichand from the jewellery business if the plaintiff continued to create further complications in regard to the purchase of the said plot. The plaintiff Dulichand felt his future aimless and mirky and thus out of good faith told the defendants and their father to do the needful so that the plaintiff Dulichand could at least raise a residential accommodation on the said purchase plot.
7. That taking the advantage of goodness of the plaintiff Dulichand and his reliance on the defendants and their father, the defendants and their father told the plaintiff to execute one sham document whereby it would be shown that the plaintiff was about to sale the said plot of land to the defendants. The defendants assured the plaintiff that such sham document would not be used for any actual purpose between the plaintiff Dulichand and the defendants but the same would be published to create atmosphere that the defendants were going to be owners of the said plot of land. The defendants also gave First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 12 out the idea that the tenant occupying the said plot of land would certainly come to compromises once the said tenant came to know about the possibility of eviction after knowing that the defendants have acquired ownership of the said plot of land. The defendants also assures the plaintiff Dulichand that the agreement for purported sale would be made showing the purchase prices of the land to be Rs. 20,000/- and payment of earnest money of Rs.
10,000/- but in reality there would be no monetary transaction to constitute consideration for the said sham agreement. Making the plaintiff Dulichand believe the aforesaid assurances and creating undue influences and coercion on the plaintiff Dulichand just after few months of purpose of the sale dated July 8, 1971 executed by the plaintiff Dulichand at his Calcutta residence sometime in the 3rd week of July, 1971. In the said sham agreement of sale it was purportedly agreed that the plaintiff would sale the said plot of land to the defendants for a price of Rs.20,000/- only. The said sham agreement was, however, made without any First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 13 consideration and the plaintiff Dulichand never received the alleged Rs.10,000/- as earnest money nor did the plaintiff Dulichand received any other money from the defendants or any one of them or from any other person in consideration of executing the said sham agreement for sale.
9. Thus, it is clear that out of good faith, the plaintiff voluntarily executed the documents. Good faith has been defined in Indian Penal Code, General Clauses Act as well as in the Limitation Act.
The definition in Indian Penal Code says that anything done with due care and attention shall be deemed to be done in good faith.
To my mind, the definition as given in the General Clauses Act would be more useful in this regard. It says that if a thing is done honestly, it is said to be done in good faith. The word honestly has been defined in advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition by Ramnath Ayer as follows -
"Absence of fraud, collusion or deceit"
10. Therefore, when the plaintiff comes out with a case that he First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 14 executed the document in good faith then it must be deemed to have been executed by free will and after knowing the consequences. The plaintiff, therefore, himself honestly believed that execution of such document is necessary. His case of undue influence and fraud on this count alone must be negatived.
11. Further more, the plaintiff also says that the documents were sham and not to be acted upon. When the plaintiff pleads that the documents were sham and were not to be acted upon as such, it must be assumed that he knew the nature of the documents he had executed but he was assured of the fact that they will not be so acted upon; i.e. they will not be used for the purported purpose. In Para no.11 of the plaint the plaintiff says that he time and again requested the defendant to cancel or revoke the agreement and power of attorney but defendant assured that they being too old were invalid. This clearly shows voluntary execution of document.
So, in no case it could be said that they were the outcome of fraud, undue influence or coercion. For these reasons, there is no need First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 15 even to consider evidence in the matter. The points are answered accordingly.
12. Point No.3 :- The plaintiff has clearly pleaded that the documents - Power of attorney and agreement of sale were not to be acted upon and they are sham. It is his case that they were executed with a view to get tenant evicted through the defendants who were considered influential persons.
13. The original plaintiff Dulichand died before his evidence could be recorded. That has certainly put the plaintiff in disadvantageous position.
14. PW 1 - Ashok son of Dulichand does not seem to have personal knowledge about the transaction. He admits in cross-
examination that he does not have any idea about transaction between his father and defendant no.1. He also admits that he has not even till day read the plaint. Obviously his evidence is of noFirst Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 16 help to decide the question.
15. It is said that men may lie but circumstances do not. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 18th of April, 1971 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-. It is plaintiff's case that he purchased the suit property in order to have his own house for his family. It is not in dispute that plaintiff Dulichand was alien to Nagpur. The property in question was plot with a tin shed and there was a tenant in it. Since Dulichand was alien to Nagpur, it was but natural for him to have reposed the confidence in defendants, who were his cousins. They were moneyed and influential. It is in this context that the circumstances need to be interpreted and appreciated. We have seen that the sale-deed is dated 18/4/1971.
The agreement of sale in favour of defendant no.1 is dated 8 th July, 1971. The question would be why would a person purchasing the property to provide accommodation for family, agree to sell it within three months. There is no explanation to this from the defendants. The burden is on defendants to show this, since in First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 17 normal circumstances no person would sell his property within 2 - 3 months after purchase when it was purchased with an intention to provide shelter for the family. It is not shown by the defendant that the plaintiff was in any way in distress. The next circumstance that needs to be taken into consideration is that the agreement shows that it was agreed to be sold at the same price.
This is still more strange. This fact also cannot be lost sight of. No time whatsoever is fixed for the performance of the contract. An inference can be drawn that it was not to be acted upon, otherwise, why would a prospective purchaser pay money and wait for an indefinite time. The third circumstance is that the agreement of sale does no bear signature of any attesting witness though a space is left for signature of the two attesting witnesses. Had this been a genuine agreement of sale, the defendant no.1 would not have failed to have signatures of the two attesting witnesses on the documents. It does not even bear signature of the prospective purchaser though again a specific space is left blank for his signature. There is no explanation to this also. Though the First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 18 agreement is dated 8/7/1971, the sale-deed is executed on 19/1/1982, that is after lapse of eleven years. If defendant wanted to purchase the property, there is no explanation from defendant as to why he waited for so long a time. Had this been a genuine agreement of sale, the defendant would have ensured its performance within a reasonable time. In no case the time of eleven years could be said to be reasonable.
16. These circumstances, to my mind, are completely eloquent to hold that the agreement was certainly nominal. There is every probability of the same having come into existence to facilitate the eviction of the tenant. There is no dispute that Dulichand ordinarily resided in Calcutta. It was not possible for him to ensure eviction of tenant. It is only for this purpose, it seems that, he had executed power of attorney. Without power of attorney it would not have been possible for him to ensure eviction. The plea as raised by the plaintiff in this regard not only appears to be probable but appears to be genuine too.
First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 19
17. The next conduct of the defendant also appears to me to be strange and shows complete betrayal. Both defendants appear to be hand-in-glove though they pretend to be fighting. No doubt, defendant no.1 has testified against defendant no.2. If at all there is any dispute between defendant nos.1 and 2 inter se that must be said to be subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed. The price shown in the sale deed is Rs.40,000/-. Neither of the defendants says that the price is settled in consultation with the plaintiff. If that is so, it is obvious that the defendants were hand-in-glove.
They do not explain why Dulichand himself could not be called for execution of the sale-deed if defendant no.1 himself was to purchase the property. This conduct of not contacting Dulichand and not consulting him after lapse of eleven years, before execution of sale-deed, leaves no manner of doubt that this is an outcome of collusion and taking disadvantage of nominal agreement and power of attorney. They are hand-in-glove is evident from yet another fact.
18. PW 2 Jagannath is defendant no.2 who states in his evidence that defendant no.1 took sale-deeds from him by force. Now, if it was taken by force, where was no difficulty in reporting the matter to the police or at least to the plaintiff immediately. It cannot be said that force was applied on a single day. If force was being applied, the matter could have been immediately reported to the plaintiff by defendant no.2 Jagannath. He does not explain what he means by force. Was he being given threats ? If yes, what kind of threats ?. The witness does not say anything. No power of attorney would fix the price of the property without consulting the real owner and that too after a lapse of eleven years. There is no evidence that Dulichand was made aware of all these transactions beforehand and that price was fixed in his consultation. Further, the term of payment of consideration is also extremely strange. It says that consideration of Rs.30,000/- would be paid by installment of Rs.5000/- per year. Which seller would agree to receive such a paltry sum of Rs.30,000/- by instalment of Rs.5000/- per year ?.
No seller would ordinarily do that. PW 2 Jagannath, who is also defendant no.2, says that he did not receive any consideration from defendant no.1. If he did not question is as to why did he not inform Dulichand immediately after the sale-deed was executed.
All these circumstances certainly leave no manner of doubt to hold that the documents were sham and bogus and were never intended to be acted upon. The point is answered accordingly.
19. Point No.4 :- The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the registration of the sale-deed is void since the power of attorney itself is not registered as contemplated by Section 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Sections read as follows -
'32. Persons to present documents for registration - Except in the cases mentioned in [Section 31, 88 and 89], every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper registration office, -
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 22
(b) by the representative or assign of such person, or
(c) by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of-attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of section 32 - (1) For the purposes of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognized, namely,-
(a) if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of India in which this Act is for the time being in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides;
(b) If the principal at the time aforesaid resides in any part of India in which this Act is not in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by any Magistrate;
(c) If the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India, a power-of-attorney executed before the authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, [India] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government:
Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration office orFirst Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 23 Court for the purpose of executing any such power-of-attorney as is mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this section, namely,-
(i) persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious inconvenience so to attend;
(ii) persons who are in jail under civil or criminal process; and
(iii) persons exempt by law from personal appearance in Court.
[Explanation.- In this sub-section "India" means India, as defined in clause (28) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.] (2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate, as the case may be, if satisfied that the power-of-
attorney has been voluntarily executed by the person purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without requiring his personal attendance of the office or Court aforesaid.
(3) To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution, the Registrar or Sub- Registrar or Magistrate may either himself go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a commission for his examination.
(4) Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be proved by the production of it without further proof when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and authenticated by the person or Court herein before mentioned in that behalf.
Section 32 says that the document must be presented for registration by the agent duly authorised by power of attorney executed and authenticated in the manner as mentioned in Section 33, which section follows after section 32. It mus be registered power of attorney. The present power of attorney is not registered.
20. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the rspondents objects to such a plea being considered on two counts. First; that such a plea is not raised in trial court and second; had such plea been raised in the trial court, the respondent would have shown that his case falls in the proviso to Section 33. Both grounds need to be rejected. The first ground needs to be rejected because this is purely a question of law and can be raised at any time and in any case this is the first appeal only. As far as second ground is concerned, such exemption is granted to a person executing power of attorney and not to the person in whose favour it is executed. The plaintiff never claimed First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 25 such a exemption and was a fit person. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1954 SC 316 (Sri Sri Sri Kishore Chandra Singh Deo ..vs.. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and ors.) observes as follows.
13. In 'Jambu Prasad v. Muhammad Aftab Ali Khan', AIR 1914 PC 16(B), it was observed by the Judicial Committee approving of the decision in ---' Ishri Prasad v. Baijnath', 28 All 707 (C) that, "......... the term of section 32 and 33 of Act III of 1877 are imperative and that a presentation of a document for registration by an agent ....., who has not been duly authorized in accordance with those sections, does not give to the Registering Officer the indispensable foundation of his authority to register the document".
Where, therefore, a document is presented for registration by a person other than a party to it or his legal representative or assign or by a person who is not an agent authorized in the manner prescribed in S.33, such presentation is wholly inoperative, and the registration of such a document is void. In the present case, Exhibit. A was presented for registration by Mr.Tapip as the agent of the defendant under a power-of attorney executed by him. Exhibit B, and the question is whether that power satisfies the requirements of S. 33, Exhibit B was executed by the defendant before the Registrar at the residence of the Chief of Hindol at Cuttack and was authenticated by him.
It was argued for the appellant that the First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 26 authentication was invalid on three grounds : (1) that the defendant was not residing at Cuttack at the time of the execution of Exhibit B, and consequently the Registrar at Cuttack had no jurisdiction to authenticate the deed under S.33 (1)(a);(2) that Exhibit B was presented for registration by one Sundaram who described himself as the Personal Assistant of the defendant, but was, in fact, a person not authorized to present the document as required by S.32, and therefore the authentication of the power based on such presentation was void; and (3) that the authentication of the power under the proviso to S.22(f) at the residence of the defendant was bad, as he was, in fact, not suffering from any bodily infirmity at that time and that in consequence the registration of Exhibit A pursuant thereto was void.
21. It is thus obvious that the person authorised must hold registered Power of attorney and if he does not hold registered power of attorney, the registration at his instance is void. The registration of the sale-deed (Exh.81) is, therefore, void. The point is answered accordingly.
22. Point No.5 : The prayer of the plaintiff in the suit is to the following effect.
First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 27
(a) A decree thereby declaring that the agreement for sale dated July 8, 1971 entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendants for sale of the house no.63, situate in Ward No.14, Circle no.7, Mahal, Nagpur (more fully described in the schedule here to) is illegal, void-ab-initio and not being binding on the plaintiff, inoperative in the eye of the law and vitiated with coercion, undue influence, fraud and collusion practiced by the defendants for obtaining the same from the plaintiff.
(b) A decree thereby declaring that the General Power of Attorney dated July 9, 1971 thereby appointing the defendants no.2 to be the constituted attorney of the plaintiff for taking care and affecting purchase sale of the premises no.63, Ward No.14, Circle no.7, Mahal, Anagpur (more fully described in the Scheduled hereto) did not empower the defendant no.2 to sell the said property to the defendant no.1 and has been obtained by the defendants after exercising coercion and undue influence, and practicing fraud First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 28 on the plaintiff in collusion between them and thus the same is void ab initio inoperative in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff.
(c) A decree for declaration that the deed of sale executed on January 19, 1982 by the defendant no. 2 as constituted Attorney of the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 and registered on September 19, 1982 in the office of the sub-registrar Nagpur and whereby the house no.69 (new) 63, (old), Mahal Nagpur Tahsil and district Nagpur measuring 6058 sq. ft. (more fully described in the scheduled hereto), was sold to the defendant no.1 is nullity being completely illegal, void ab initio inoperative in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff.
(d) A decree of declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner of property described in schedule.
(e) A decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, and their servants, assigns, Associates, sub-ordinates and/or their agents from transferring assigning or in any manner First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 29 dealing with the said property being house no.69 (new), 63 (old) Mahal, Nagpur Tahsil and District Nagpur measuring about 6058 sq. ft. (more fully described in the Schedule hereto).
(f) Temporary injunction and ad interim injunction in terms of prayer (e),
(g) Receiver;
(h) Costs of the suit and Advocate's fee;
(i) Any further or other relief or relief s your honour may deem fit and proper.
23. If the prayer is seen, it is clear that the suit must fall within scope of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff pleads that he came to know of the execution of the sale deed by defendant no.
2 in favour of defendant no.1 in December, 1986 when he came to Nagpur due to death of his uncle. By this pleadings, the plaintiff wants to show that he got the knowledge in December, 1986 and, therefore, wants the court to reckon the period from December, 1986. The period of limitation certainly begins to run from the date of knowledge. However, it appears that the plaintiff amended First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 30 the plaint while representing it at Nagpur court and in the amended plaint he contended that he had come to Nagpur in the month of September, 1986 and at that time he had come to know.
Obviously, there are two inconsistent and contradictory pleas and this show that the plaintiff himself is not aware as to the exact time when he came to know of the execution of the sale-deed in favour of defendant no.1 by defendant no.2. The evidence has to be in accordance with the pleadings. Therefore, the first thing that needs to be determined is what could be treated as date of knowledge. If these contradictory and inconsistent pleadings are seen, it is still more difficult. But then we will have to assume that the plaintiff pleads the date of knowledge as last week of September, 1986.
24. Let's turn to the evidence. If examination-in-chief of PW Ashok is seen, it would be clear that he merely states that his father came to know of the sale-deed and then he filed the suit. At least in examination-in-chief he does not give the date of knowledge at all. In cross examination he states as follows in paragraph no.4.
"I came to know about the transaction in between defendant no.1 and 2 relating to the suit property in 1982. I cannot state when my father came to know about it. It is correct that my father has informed me about the transaction between the defendant no.1 and 2."
This statement is eloquent enough to attribute knowledge to Dulichand as well as this witness in the year 1982 itself. The admission is not a stray admissions since he claims knowledge clearly through his father i.e. the deceased plaintiff. There are three consequences of this statement. The first is; there are inconsistent pleadings as regards the date of knowledge, second;
the evidence is not in accordance with the pleadings, that is at variance with the pleadings and the third is; if the statement on oath is accepted then there is no proof of the alleged date of knowledge as pleaded. Thus, there is a variance between the pleadings and the proof.
First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 32
25. If the plaintiff had come to know about the execution of the sale-deed in 1982 itself, the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation even when it was presented at Calcutta in 1989.
26. Assuming the date of knowledge to be September, 1986, it should be seen if the suit is within limitation. The suit came to be instituted at Calcutta on 3/4/1989. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the period should be reckoned from October, 1986 as pleaded in paragraph 16 (a) of the plaint.
Although it is not necessary to consider such argument, I shall deal with the same. Shri Thakkar submits that the date may be taken as 1st October, 1986. The suit was filed at Calcutta on 3/4/1989. The court at Calcutta had passed an order of return of plaint for want of jurisdiction on 30/9/1993. The plaintiff applied for certified copy of order and perhaps took plaint back on 10/12/1993 and represented it at Nagpur on 9/2/1994. The suit was filed after 36 months and 2 days at Calcutta i.e. 2½ years. The plaint is returned on 10/12/1993 and represented at Nagpur on 9/2/1994 i.e. within First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 33 1½ month. The material question is whether the time spent in prosecuting the suit at Calcutta could be excluded by virtue of provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 reads as follows -
14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. - (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance nor of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 34 such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section, -
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding; (c ) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.
27. Thus, it is clear that the time can be excluded only if the proceedings is prosecuted bona fide in court not having jurisdiction.
Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the present case it should be held that the such presentation was bona fide and prosecution was also bona fide. He submits that the plaintiff was to be benefited by filing suit in wrong court. He relied on a decision in AIR 1985 SC 1669 (Vijay Kumar Rampal and ors. ..vs.. Diwan Devi and ors.). Their Lordships have observed as follows -
3. Mr.Sharma learned counsel for the respondents urged that want of due care and attention coupled with negligence in not properly valuing suits for pecuniary jurisdiction and not paying court-fees as computed under sec.7(v)(b) of the Court Fees Act would clearly show lack of good faith and if that be so, learned judge of the High "Court was right in holding that the suits are barred by limitation. We are at a loss to understand and appreciate the contention of Shri Sharma as well as the approach of the leaned Judge. Section 14 of the First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 36 Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction. In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding against the defendant shall be excluded where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in a good faith in a court which from a defect of jurisdiction is unable to entertain it. The expression good faith qualifies prosecuting the proceeding in the court which ultimately is found to have no jurisdiction. Failure to pay the requisite court-fee found deficient on a condition being raised or the error of judgment in valuing a suit filed before a Court which was ultimately found to have no jurisdiction has absolutely nothing to do with the question of good faith in prosecuting the suit as provided in section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court in our opinion was in error in holding that defective valuation and improper computation of court-fees discloses lack of good faith on the part of the plaintiff.
5. The facts are very simple and call for no discussion.
The order of the learned judge directing that the plaints First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 37 be returned for presentation to proper court was made on May 23, 1968 and on the next day the plaints were returned and the same day were presented in the Court of Sub-Judge at Jammu. There was not the slightest negligence nor any delay in acting upon the order of the learned District Judge. Accordingly, Section 14 of the Limitation Act must come to the rescue of the plaintiffs. The learned judge, in our opinion, was clearly in error in exercising of the revisional jurisdiction in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of S.14 and that both the suits were barred by limitation. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court in both the revision petitions is set aside and the one of learned Sub-judge is restored with no order as to costs.
28. Yet another decision in (2008)7 SCC 169 (Consolidated Engineering Enterprises ..vs.. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Deptt.
And ors.) was also cited to me. In case of of Consolidated engineering, the question was whether Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under Section 32 of the Limitation Act. That decision has no bearing. From the facts it First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 38 appears to me that neither institution nor prosecution of the suit at Calcutta could be said to be bona fide. Bona fide means honestly.
Let us see if such filing was bona fide. A suit can be instituted where cause of action arises or part of cause of action arises or where the defendant resides. Now, these are the basic and elementary things and it is, therefore, difficult to comprehend that the lawyer did not know this. The power of attorney was executed at Nagpur. The agreement of sale was executed at Nagpur. Sale-
deed is executed at Nagpur. The alleged fraud was played, undue influence was exercised by the plaintiff, at Nagpur. The defendant resides at Nagpur. Knowing fully well all these things which constitute the cause of action, the suit was filed and prosecuted at Calcutta. No part of cause of action arose at Calcutta. It is in this background, I say that presentation of such suit and prosecution was not at all bona fide. The time, therefore, cannot be excluded.
29. Further more, the time spent for obtaining certified copy is also sought to be excluded i.e. from 4/10/1993 to 10/12/1993.
First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 39 For that purpose, it would be necessary to read Rule 10 of Order 7.
Sub Rule 2 says that while returning the plaint, the judge is supposed to endorse on it a brief statement of reasons for returning the plaint. If such reasons are to be recorded, there is no need to obtain certified copy. Section 12 of the Limitation does not at all apply in such cases for it is neither an appeal nor the revision or an application. If this period is not excluded, the suit is certainly barred by limitation.
30. Point No.6 :- There was a tenant in the suit property when the plaintiff purchased the same in the year 1971. This tenant had instituted a suit against present plaintiff Dulichand and defendant nos.1 and 2 to inter plead amongst themselves, since defendant no.
1 had started demanding the rent. In the said suit the tenant specifically pleaded that he was tenant of Dulichand (deceased plaintiff) and Jagannath i.e. defendant no.2 in the present suit was collecting the rent and passing receipt. It was further urged that Jethmal - defendant no.1 was now demanding the rent alleging the First Appeal no. 198 of 1999. 40 purchase of the property from Dulichand. Next, it was pleaded that tenant had received a notice from Dulichand that he is the owner and had not authorised Jagannath to sell the house and rent should be paid to Dulichand. He further prayed that defendant on one part and Jethmal and Jagannath on other should interplead. The dispute, therefore, was necessary to be resolved between the defendants in that suit. The question directly and substantially in issue was as to who was the landlord of the suit house. The question could not be who was the owner of the house and who had right to recover the rent. The question of title was not directly and substantially in issue nor the question as to whether defendant Jagannath had an authority to execute the sale deed. The question that was directly and substantially in issue was, who was the landlord. The question which may incidentally arise cannot be said to be question substantially in issue. In the circumstances, I do not find that the decision in the interpleader suit operates as res judicata. The question of title could not be the material issue but the material issue would be one of attornment of tenancy. Theargument of Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the respodents, that since the present plaintiff did not contest the interpleader suit, a constructive res judicata should operate against him. The argument cannot be accepted for the above reason. Point is answered accordingly.
31. Point no.7 : In view of my findings on the point No.5, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is so dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
chute
No comments:
Post a Comment