Basavarajappa vs Shivalingamma

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Decree of declaration and injunction granted in favour of the respondent and dismissal of his appeal by the first appellate Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The appellant herein is the defendant, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff, who instituted the suit for declaration that the Settlement Deed dated 29.11.1985 is null and void and injunction to restrain the defendant from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties which are two items of land and a house described in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff purchased the suit properties i.e., agricultural lands by registered Sale Deed on 02.06.1980 and 20.04.1981. The house property is ancestral property and inherited by the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff died 45 years earlier to institution of the suit. The plaintiff is a widow having no children or members in her family. The defendant is said to be the plaintiff''s mother''s sister''s son. In view of this relationship, he used to visit the house of the plaintiff and with an assurance to provide her the widow''s pension from the State Government, said to have obtained her thumb impression on some stamp papers and got created a Settlement Deed dated 29.11.1985, settling all these properties in his name and also got the said document registered. The plaintiff was unaware of the act of the defendant in getting Settlement Deed. Later, the defendant is said to have got his name entered in the records of the property under MR No. 20/2000-01. During the year 2003. When the plaintiff found the name of the defendant in the records, she was shocked of misrepresentation and fraud played by the defendant and therefore, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the MR No. 20/2000-01. As the Assistant Commissioner has directed the parties to approach the Civil Court, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and injunction for the said relief.

The defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed a written statement denying the averments made and contended that the plaintiff on her own executed the Settlement Deed dated 29.11.1985 and in pursuance of the said Deed, he got entered his name in the records. He has denied the misrepresentation and also the fraud as alleged by the plaintiff. It is his contention that he has been in possession of the suit properties and as he was intending to sell some portion of the suit properties for payment of the loan which he had raised due to deficiency of fund, the plaintiff quarreled with him and filed the false suit for the aforesaid relief. On these grounds, he has sought for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as 11 issues and permitted the parties to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W. 1 and two witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 and in their evidence, documents Exs. P1 to 11 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and three witnesses D.Ws. 2 to 4 and in their evidence, documents Exs. D1 to 6 were marked.

The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit declaring that the Settlement Deed dated 29.11.1985 is null and void document and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the defendant preferred R.A. No. 11/2008 and the said appeal came to be dismissed, affirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that no stamp paper is necessary to obtain a widow pension and even registration is also not necessary and in the circumstances, the contention of the plaintiff that there was misrepresentation with an assurance to get the widow''s pension and obtaining the thumb impression on the stamp paper cannot be accepted. Therefore, he submits that the Courts below committed an error in accepting the version of the plaintiff as regards the misrepresentation and fraud. He also submits that a person who does not have a property is entitled to the pension and as the plaintiff is in possession of the agricultural lands and also the house property, the question of getting pension to any widow does not arise. Therefore, the facts alleged by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. On these grounds, he submits that there is a substantial question of law for consideration. The Courts below misread the evidence adduced by the parties.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below and contends that there is no substantial question of law for consideration.

As could be seen from the records and the evidence adduced by the parties, admittedly the plaintiff is a widow, a village rustic woman and an illiterate. Apart from herself, there were no members in her family. The defendant is said to be a distant relative and his mother is the plaintiff''s mother''s sister. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that with an assurance to get the widow''s pension from the State Government, the plaintiff approached her and obtained her thumb impression on some stamp papers, got a fictitious and fraudulent document is a Settlement Deed. Therefore, it is her grievance that there is misrepresentation and fraud committed by the defendant. In support of this version as alleged by her in the plaint, she has deposed to the fact in addition to her oral evidence. The plaintiff was also examined as P.W. 1 and another two witnesses to support her oral version. Admittedly, the plaintiff has no other close relative, she is a widow and has no children. She has lost her husband about 45 years. She is illiterate and she may not be aware of as to whether any stamp paper is necessary for obtaining the widow pension or not. She may not be even aware of the office of the Sub-Registrar for registration of the document. Therefore the fact that the widow having no property would get pension may not be within her knowledge. It is under these circumstances, the defendant is said to be approached her with an assurance of getting a widow pension and said to have got the thumb impression on the documents. The perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 and that of P.W. 2 in the context of the aforesaid circumstances that the plaintiff is a village rustic woman and illiterate, the Courts below have concurrently held that the misrepresentation and the fraud having been proved and this much of evidence has been held sufficient by both the Courts below. There was no reason for the plaintiff to execute a Settlement Deed. It is in this context of the aforesaid facts that the Courts below have rejected the oral evidence of the defendant. Except the suit properties, the plaintiff does not own any other property and with an intention to grab the said properties from her, it appears that the defendant got created a fraudulent and fictitious Settlement Deed misusing her innocence and ignorance and on the basis of the said document got entered his name in the revenue records. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter in the context of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, the Courts below have arrived at a just and a reasonable conclusion with regard to obtaining the Deed by fraud and misrepresentation. No substantial question of law for consideration is made out in this appeal. Hence, I do not find any grounds to admit this appeal. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.