Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by Lrs. & Anr. vs Jose Francisco Pinto & Anr.

HELD: 1.1 The sale deed (Ex.P/1) had a recital that the suit property was sold for a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Section 25 of the Contract Act is to the effect that an agreement without consideration is void but if a document is registered on account of natural love and affection between the parties standing in a near relation to each other, then such an agreement is not void. The parties are in near relations, the appellant No.1 being the elder brother and the sale was executed to help his younger brother who was facing auction of the property gifted by the parents of the parties. Even the defendants’ witnesses have admitted that there was a notice of Court auction of the property in question by beat of drum. Therefore, if elder brother had come to the help of the younger brother, discharging his debtors and executing a sale deed mentioning a nominal sale consideration, it cannot be said to be a sale without consideration. It is admitted by respondent No.1 that a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid by the appellant No. 1 to discharge his debts. Once there is an admission of the respondent No. 1 of discharge of his debts by appellant No.1, the sale deed registered in normal course of official duties carries the presumption of correctness which cannot be said to be illegal only on the basis of feigned ignorance that his signatures were obtained on papers which respondent No. 1 and his wife did not know. [Paras 20, 21][686E, F-G; 687-C-E]

Bellachi (Dead) by LRs v. Pakeeran (2009) 12 SCC 95 : [2009] 4 SCR 823 – relied on.

1.2 The only stand of respondent No.1 is ignorance of the nature of the document on which his signatures were obtained. Such ignorance is not an instance of misrepresentation or a fraud in the facts of the present case which would vitiate a sale deed executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar. It has been admitted by respondent No. 1 that he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office with his wife, signed once outside the Municipal Building and once before the Officers, shows that tactically he has admitted execution of the sale deed without expressly stating so. The findings of the Courts below that the document is without consideration or the consideration having not pleaded in the plaint or the fact that appellant No. 1 has discharged the debtors of respondent No. 1 will not render the document of sale deed as void. Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the effect that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies upon for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are supposed to be proved. Appellant No.1 has relied upon the sale deed which contains the recital of payment of Rs.3,000/- as the sale consideration. The evidence in support of such sale deed was not required to be pleaded in the plaint filed by the appellant. Still further, in terms of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code, in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, or undue influence shall state in the pleadings the particulars with dates and items in the pleadings. The extract from the written statement or the plaint does not show that there is any pleading of misrepresentation or fraud. The evidence led by the respondents is not indicative of any instance of fraud or misrepresentation as well. The findings recorded by the Courts below that the sale deed was result of fraud or misrepresentation are clearly not sustainable. [Paras 22, 23][687-F-H; 688-A-E]

1.3 The oral evidence of a written agreement is excluded except when it is sought to be alleged the document as a sham transaction. A sale deed is required to be registered i.e. a document required by law to be reduced to the form of a document. Therefore, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms. The proviso (1) of Section 92 of the Evidence Act is a proof of such fact which would invalidate any document such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. The respondents were free to prove fraud in execution of the sale deed. However, factually, the respondents have not alleged any fraud in their suit or in the written statement in the suit filed by appellant No. 1. The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent No.1 is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Special Civil Suit No. 55/77/I is restored. Special Civil Suit No. 71/80/I is dismissed. [Paras 27-30][691-E-H; 692-C-D, F]

Smt. Gangabai w/o Rambilas Gilda v. Smt. Chhabubai w/o Pukharajji Gandhi (1982) 1 SCC 4 : [1982] 1 SCR 1176; Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedan (2003) 6 SCC

595 : [2003] 3 SCR 292 – distinguished.