M.N. Prabhakaran Nair v Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 ``` ``` RSA NO. 570 OF 2008 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 35/2002 OF MUNSIFF ``` ``` COURT, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ``` AS 55/2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR ``` ## `APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:` ``` M.N.PRABHAKARAN NAIR S/O SANKARAN NAIR, RETIRED ENGINEER,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,, MUTHEDATH HOUSE,P.O AMBALAMUGAL,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARCHANDRAI HOUSE,81,MAHARSHI KARVE MARG,, MUMBAI-400 002. 2GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD,AMBALAMUGAL,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION) HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD, AMBALAMUGAL,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R2 AND R3 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI SK MADHAVAN ``` ``` THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ..2.. ``` RSA NO. 570 OF 2008 ``` ## JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.35/2002 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor is the appellant. 2. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are as follows:- 2.1 Defendant No.1 is a public limited company owned by the Government of India. The plaint schedule property is 43 cents of land comprised in Survey No.876/06 of Puthencruz Village. On 28.08.1998, the plaintiff executed a sale deed (Ext.A1) in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. 2.2 According to the plaintiff, Ext.A1 sale deed was executed based on an understanding between the defendants and the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s son would be provided with a job in defendant No.1 company. The ..3.. ## **`RSA NO. 570 OF 2008`** plaintiff would further contend that the consideration offered, fixed and received under Ext.A1 sale deed is insufficient compared to the value of the adjacent properties. According to him, he was not interested in assigning the property for the price shown in Ext.A1. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that Ext.A1 sale deed is null and void. The plaintiff has also prayed for the recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs. 3. The defendants resisted the suit denying the pleadings set forth by the plaintiff. According to the defendants, no understanding as pleaded by the plaintiff has taken place at the time of execution of the sale deed. The consideration shown in Ext.A1 is the actual consideration passed between the parties at the time of execution of Ext.A1 sale deed. 4. During the trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined ..4.. ## **`RSA NO. 570 OF 2008`** and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. DW1 was examined and Ext.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendants. 5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the plaint. 6. The plaintiff challenged the decree and judgment of the Trial Court by filing A.S.No.55/2007 before the Additional District Court, N.Paravoor. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. 7. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. After hearing both sides, this Court has reformulated the substantial questions of law as follows:- - 1 Have the courts below acted in accordance with law in the matter of appreciating pleadings and evidence? - 2 Have the courts below drawn the necessary inferences and presumptions that would apply on the facts and ..5.. ## **`RSA NO. 570 OF 2008`** circumstances of this case? 9. Heard Shri. K. Balagopal, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Shri. R. Krishna Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants. 10. The was the absolute owner in plaintiff possession of the plaint schedule property. By way of Ext.A1, on 28.08.1998, the plaintiff executed a sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.1, a public limited company owned by the Government of India. 11. The case of the plaintiff is that Ext.A1 sale deed is liable to be declared as null and void on the ground that the competent authorities of defendant No.1 went back on the agreement stated to have been entered into between the vendor and vendee at the time of execution of Ext.A1. The plaintiff also relies on the shortage of ..6.. ## **`RSA NO. 570 OF 2008`** consideration in the title deed to declare that Ext.A1 is null and void. 12. The case of the defendants is a total denial. The defendants pleaded that no undertaking as pleaded by the plaintiff at any time was made by anybody representing defendant No.1. The plaintiff has no case that the execution, validity and registration of Ext.A1 is shrouded with any vitiating circumstances. Ext.A1 is a concluded sale based on a concluded contract as provided under the Indian Contract Act. Ext.A1 is supported by consideration though the plaintiff has a case that the consideration set forth in the document is low compared to the value of adjacent properties. The parties of Ext.A1 are competent to enter into a valid contract. The plaintiff has no case that his consent has been obtained through any fraud, coercion or undue influence. The plaintiff failed to plead and establish that the object of the ..7.. ## **`RSA NO. 570 OF 2008`** contract under Ext.A1 is unlawful. 13. The case of the plaintiff is fundamentally founded on the contention that at the time of registration of Ext.A1, the competent authority of defendant No.1 had made an undertaking that his son would be given employment. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has canvassed that the plaintiff has adduced oral evidence to substantiate his contentions. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the contents of Ext.A1 registered document cannot be dispelled or eschewed by oral testimony, and hence, the oral evidence adduced with intent to alter the contents of Ext.A1 is not acceptable in evidence. The learned counsel for the defendants stressed on the relevance of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to substantiate his contentions. In **Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana** ..8.. ## **`RSA NO. 570 OF 2008`** [(1974) 4 SCC 285], the Apex Court held that oral evidence would not prevail over the contents of a registered document. The Apex Court in M/s **Raval and Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran** [(1974) 1 SCC 424] held that to vary from the contents of a registered document, another registered document is required. In **Raveendranatha Menon v. Leelamma** [1999 (1) KLJ 352], relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, this Court held that the contents of a registered document could not be dispelled or eschewed by the oral testimony of witnesses. The resultant conclusion is that the oral testimony sought to be adduced in evidence to vary the contents of Ext.A1 registered sale deed would not help the plaintiff to establish a ground for declaring the document as null and vitiated. 15. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have acted in accordance with law in the matter of ..9.. ``` RSA NO. 570 OF 2008 ``` appreciating the pleadings and evidence in this case. The Courts below have drawn necessary inferences and presumptions that would apply to the facts of the case based on the pleadings. The substantial questions of law raised in this case are thus answered against the appellant. The Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Sd/- **K. BABU, JUDGE** kkj