Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1370 (KER)

N. M. Aboobacker v. Sunil

2017-11-02

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. A primary rule of evidence, often elevated to the position of a cardinal rule and granted imprimatur as such by courts, is the Best Evidence Rule which mandates that when the terms of a contract or grant or other disposition of property is reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition except the document itself. We are, in this judgment, called upon to consider the contentions relating to a registered agreement and the principles of this Rule would find great significance. 2. In India, the Best Evidence Rule resides in the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and our examination of the facts of this case and the validity of the contentions raised in this appeal would lead us to a close scrutiny of the impact of these provisions with respect to the proof to be led in a case relating to the covenants and terms of a registered agreement. 3. The defendants in O.S. No.129 of 2011 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor are the appellants in this appeal. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein Shri. Sunil on the allegation that he had entered into the registered agreement of sale with the appellants for purchase of a parcel of land having an area of 8.9 cents (3.61 ares) comprised in Survey nos. 40/4 and 40/3 of the Marambilly Village. The registered agreement has been placed on record as Ext.A1, which bears the date 21.03.2011 and shows that it has been registered at the Sub Registrar's Office, Perumbavoor. 4. As per the terms of this agreement, as is pleaded in the plaint, the sale ought to have been completed within a period of six months from the date of the agreement and towards advance consideration of sale, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid on the same day reserving an amount of only Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid at the time when the sale deed was to be executed. On the allegation that inspite of demand and inspite of the fact that the period prescribed for execution of the sale deed in the agreement had elapsed, the defendants did not execute the deed in terms of Ext.A1, the plaintiff/the respondent herein filed the suit, seeking specific performance of the agreement, on 22.09.2011. The appellants/defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that even though Ext.A1 agreement was executed by them, it was not intended to be acted upon. Their version is that the amount they had received from the plaintiff was only a loan for which Ext.A1 agreement was executed as a security. 5. The court below took the suit to trial and on the side of the plaintiff he himself was examined as PW1 and he produced and marked Ext.A1 to A7 in evidence. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant Shri. Aboobacker was examined as DW1 but no documentary evidence was offered. Since there was an allegation in the plaint that the plaint scheduled property had a tenant in occupation, the court below, on the application of the plaintiff, deputed an advocate commissioner who filed a report, dated 13.10.2011, which was marked in evidence as Ext.C1. On the basis of the evidence and materials on record, the court below found the case of the plaintiff to have been proved and consequently decreed the suit with costs granting a decree of specific performance of Ext.A1 agreement, thus directing the appellants/defendants to execute the sale deed as covenanted in the said agreement. The appellant has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the court below. 6. We have heard Shri. V.M. Ali the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Shri. Rajeshkumar T.K., learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 7. Assailing the judgment and decree of the court below the submission of Shri. Ali, the learned counsel of the appellant, is that Ext.A1 agreement was never intended to be acted upon. According to him, even though the sale agreement was got validly registered by the parties, it was the intention of the parties that it would only operate as a security for a loan allegedly availed of by the appellants from the plaintiff. According to him, even though the sale agreement was got validly registered by the parties, it was the intention of the parties that it would only operate as a security for a loan allegedly availed of by the appellants from the plaintiff. He takes cue from the written statement filed by this clients in the court below and contends that the respondent/plaintiff was, in fact a money lender and that it was his usual scheme of business that he would lend money only against a registered document. Shri. Ali continued to contend that the amount received by his clients were only a loan availed and actually that Ext.A1 agreement was executed only because the plaintiff wanted it as a security. He tries to fortify his contentions by pointing out that the period of six months fixed in the agreement for executing the sale deed is unduly long asserting that a person who has paid virtually the full consideration would not normally wait for such a long period of time to have the deed executed. He further says that once the plaintiff had paid Rs.15,00,000/- against the total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-, there was no requirement for him to wait for such a long period of time when admittedly he had the balance sale consideration with him. Sri.Ali continues that even though Rs.15,00,000/- was paid against the full consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- the fact that the possession of the property was not handed over to the plaintiff would also sufficiently demonstrate that the parties never intended that Ext.A1 will be acted upon. This is basically the manner in which the appellants attempt to assail Ext.A1 and to prove that it is not an agreement of sale though it is written to be so. 8. We have considered the submissions of Shri. Ali with some interest. It is pertinent that the appellants admit Ext.A1 agreement. They do not have a case that Ext. A1 was fabricated or created by the plaintiff, but only that when it was executed, it was intended only as a security for the loan availed of by the appellants. The submission of Shri. Ali, in effect, is that the intentions of the parties while executing Ext.A1 was not to have a sale deed executed but that the defendants will repay the money within time. The submission of Shri. Ali, in effect, is that the intentions of the parties while executing Ext.A1 was not to have a sale deed executed but that the defendants will repay the money within time. He contends that the intention of the parties will have to be gathered from the attendant circumstances and from the evidence let in. 9. We must at once say that these submissions can obtain favour only if it survives a scrutiny under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. This is because Ext.A1 is a registered sale agreement and under the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, where the terms of a contract are reduced into the form of a document, as is required in to the law, no evidence can normally be given in proof of the terms of such contract, except the document itself. As per the express provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, when the terms of a contract are reduced into the form of a document and it has been proved, in the manner provided by Section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. These two provisions assume great significance in the particular facts presented in this case and we therefore reproduce them for ease of reference as under: “91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.-When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. 92. 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.- When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms: Proviso (1).-Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, [want or failure] or consideration, or mistake in fact or law: Proviso (2).-The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document: Proviso (3).-The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved: Proviso (4).-The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents: Proviso (5).-Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract: Proviso (6).-Any fact may proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.” 10. The legal effect of these provisions has been stated in several judgments before. The legal effect of these provisions has been stated in several judgments before. It is irrefragable that if the terms of the document are clear and unambiguous, extrinsic evidence to ascertain the true intension of the parties is inadmissible, because Section 92 explicitly provides that in such a case, the intension must be gathered from the language employed in the document itself. There is, however, an exception to this that if the language employed is ambiguous or concedes varied meanings, the 6th proviso of Section 92 would permit tendering of extrinsic evidence so as to enable the courts to understand the real intension of the parties. Section 92 however cannot be considered in isolation of Section 91. A close study of the two sections would make it clear that Section 91 would fail without the aid of Section 92 and Section 92 would be inoperative without the aid of Section 91. We are of the view, on a reading of these two sections, that the main limb of Section 92 applies when a party seeks to rely upon the document with respect to its terms. In that event, its provisions mandate that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any Parol agreement can be admitted for the purpose of contradicting or modifying these terms. 11. Obviously, therefore, the bar under Section 92 may not be attracted when a transaction recorded in the document is contended to be sham and never intended to be acted upon. Such questions will arise when a party asserts that there was a completely different transaction and that what is recorded in the document is of no consequence (see for support Thyagaraju Mudaliyar and Anr. Vs. V. Vedathanni [ AIR 1936 PC 70 ] and Smt.Gangabai Vs. Smt.Chhabuba [ AIR 1982 SC 20 ]). The applicability of Section 92 would depend on the facts and circumstances proved and no inflexible rule can be laid down as to in which cases it can be said that the document was not intended to be acted upon and therefore, that its prescriptions apply. The conduct of the parties, attendant circumstances and relevant materials would determine these questions but it is certain that if a party pleads that a document was not intended to be acted upon, he has to substantiate the same. 12. The conduct of the parties, attendant circumstances and relevant materials would determine these questions but it is certain that if a party pleads that a document was not intended to be acted upon, he has to substantiate the same. 12. In this case, it is ineluctable that the appellants admit Ext.A1 to be a valid document. Their singular contention is that it was never intended to be acted upon. Shri. Ali's submission is clear that the intention of the parties was that this will be a loan agreement and that the moment the amount is repaid the sale amount would be cancelled. It is pertinent that there is no such averment at all in the written statement and that such allegation is put forth for the first time by the first appellant in his proof affidavit while deposing as DW1. Even though never pleaded before, in the proof affidavit, DW1 avers that the term of the alleged loan was for a period of one month and that the interest payable thereon was Rs.75,000/-. It is, however, greatly pertinent that this was never stated so in the written statement, and we see no reason why he did not have an assertion to that effect in the written statement if this was the truth, forcing a logical inference to the contrary. 13. One further aspect that stares against the case of the appellants is the fact that they did not cause any reply to be sent to the notice issued to them, which is marked as evidence as Ext.A2. DW1, the first appellant concedes, rather expressly in his evidence, that though he had received notice, he had chosen not to make a reply. This is completely baffling because, if the version of the defendants were true, it would have been certainly their first reaction as would have been of any person in such position, to immediately cause a reply saying that the demand contained in the legal notice is without truth. They elected not to do so and chose not even to make that averment in the written statement. These lacunae and lapses, which possibly was occasioned because they were aware of the consequences of their conduct, are then sought to be covered by making averments, hitherto unsaid, in the proof affidavit, filed in lieu of chief examination. They elected not to do so and chose not even to make that averment in the written statement. These lacunae and lapses, which possibly was occasioned because they were aware of the consequences of their conduct, are then sought to be covered by making averments, hitherto unsaid, in the proof affidavit, filed in lieu of chief examination. However, nothing on record, including the evidence given by the parties, would show any contra indication to the intention as is clearly discernible from Ext.A1 agreement, of the parties, that the property was to be sold in the manner covenanted in it. 14. We are aware that Shri. Ali's specific contention is that the intention of the parties will have to be gathered notwithstanding what is expressly stated in Ext.A1. Even if we take that submission to be worthy of examination, it is obvious that the burden to show that the intention of the parties, as is evident from Ext.A1, was not their real intention falls squarely in the appellants, who will require to lead evidence specifically to show that contra intention. Unfortunately in this case, neither the evidence on record nor the various circumstances presented by the appellants would justify an inference or conclusion that the intention of the parties was different from what is recorded in Ext.A1 agreement. The terms of the agreement are unambiguous and the parties have also acted specifically in adherence to those terms. There is thus nothing contra to even show that the parties had an intention different from what is shown in Ext.A1. 15. Coming to the contentions of Shri. Ali, learned counsel for the appellants, that the term of six months shown in the agreement being unusual, the evidence, as we will presently say, would establish otherwise. This because even as per per Ext.A1 agreement, it is certain that the plaint schedule property had a tenant in possession and that the six months period was fixed to provide sufficient time to the appellants to seek and get eviction of the tenant so as to enable the execution of the sale deed of the property with vacant possession. The evidence of DW1 unequivocally concedes to a tenant being in possession of the property and we, therefore, cannot get ourselves to agree that the term of six months is unusual. The evidence of DW1 unequivocally concedes to a tenant being in possession of the property and we, therefore, cannot get ourselves to agree that the term of six months is unusual. This fact becomes luculent from the testimony of DW1 who concedes that the tenant vacated only sometime in the year 2012; whereas Ext.A1 having been executed on 21.03.2011, making it perspicuous that on the date when the agreement was entered into, there was a tenant in the property. Therefore, the submission of Sri. Ali that the term of six months is unusually long does not find favour with us and we reject the same. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant, as we have recorded above, also asserts that the absence of possession in the hands of the plaintiff should be seen to be a circumstance against the validity of Ext.A1. The learned counsel tried to fortify his submissions by citing the judgment of this Court in Thomas Vs. Merlin Construction [ 2016 (3) KLT 84 ]. The proposition that he tries to show us through this judgment is that when a person has paid the lion's share of the sale consideration but has not been given possession, it would an inference that the agreement itself is suspect. We are afraid, we are unable to see how Shri Ali could cite this judgment in support of the facts of this case because, as is evident from the cited judgment, that was a case where the agreement of sale was specifically denied and an express plea was raised that the agreement was fabricated and concocted. Au contraire, the facts of this case would establish without any doubt that the appellants have conceded to the execution of Ext.A1 and have virtually admitted to its terms but raised a defence that it was not intended to be acted upon. Nothing else nothing more. We, therefore, cannot find that Thomas Vs. Merlin Construction (supra) would come to the aid of the appellants at all. 17. Nothing else nothing more. We, therefore, cannot find that Thomas Vs. Merlin Construction (supra) would come to the aid of the appellants at all. 17. In any event of the matter, even assuming that these contentions of Shri. Ali can be even heard, it is certain that this is a case where possession could not have been handed over to the respondent/plaintiff because the plaint schedule property was in the admitted possession of a tenant as on the date of agreement and until somewhere in December 2012 (see the testimony of DW1, which is recorded 08.04.2013, that he got vacant possession on the tenant only 4 or 5 months prior to that). 18. Added to the above circumstances, the fact that the appellants did not even care to cause a reply to be issued to Ext.A2 lawyer's notice sent by the respondent herein, would cut at the roots of their assertions and we cannot find any explanation being offered by them to even mildly support their allegations. There is nothing to show that there was a transaction of money lending between the parties; there is nothing to show that Ext.A1 was executed as a security for such loan; there is nothing to show that the appellant has agreed to repay the amount received by him under Ext.A1 and there is nothing to show that any amount of interest was paid by the appellant for any such alleged loan. The averments regarding the alleged loan and lending by the plaintiff are available only in the proof affidavit of DWI and no were else and therefore, the interested version of the defendant, as deposed by him while he was examined as DWI, without bringing in any corroborative or supporting evidence, would render it unworthy. 19. There is an adscititious reason, which we find from the evidence of DWI, which lead us to believe that he has not come to this Court with clean hands. In the evidence let in by DWI, he admits that he has paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as brokerage to one Muhammed Kutty, however, without citing him as a witness. We fail to understand why the appellants should have paid such a hefty amount as brokerage, when the transaction between them and the plaintiff, as alleged by them, is one of money lending. We fail to understand why the appellants should have paid such a hefty amount as brokerage, when the transaction between them and the plaintiff, as alleged by them, is one of money lending. If it was indeed a case of money lending, it is incomprehensible why anybody should be paid brokerage, that too of such a hefty sum. 20. All these factors can, thus, only persuade us to an impression that the case pleaded by the appellants before the lower court and this Court is only intended as a defence to the execution of sale a deed pursuant to Ext.A1 agreement. In any event, as we have already indicated above, Ext.A1 is a registered document and going by the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act we are proscribed from entering into an enquiry to contradict, vary or add to the terms of such agreement, especially when there are no pleadings at all. Any way, we do not require to strain too much because it is now established law that no evidence can be let in on a plea that is not specifically raised or expressly pleaded by the parties. What is attempted by the appellants in this case, as is evident from the attempt of Shri Ali, their learned counsel, is to raise a claim which is never raised in the pleadings but sought to be projected for the first time in oral evidence. 21. In the above circumstances, and for the reasons afore, we have no reason to intervene in any manner in the judgment and decree assailed in this appeal and we are therefore, compelled to dismiss this appeal, concluding that the defence put up by the appellant against execution right Ext.A1 is completely without any basis. Even though costs should normally follow, in the rather peculiar circumstances that we have seen above, we are of the view that we will be justified in not making any order as to costs and we therefore, leave the parties to suffer the respective costs in this appeal.