Kulwantkaur (Smt.) and Another vs Sukhraje and Others

Alok Aradhe, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the defendants who have lost in both the courts. This Court vide order dated 08.8.1995 while admitting the appeal had framed the following substantial question of law:-

Whether in absence of plea that the sale Ex.D.1 dated 25.1.1983 was executed as a collateral security for repayment of loan raised earlier by the plaintiff a decree for cancellation of sale-deed on such a finding could be passed?

The facts, giving rise to filing the appeal, briefly stated, are that the original plaintiff Late Kripal Verma filed the suit on the ground that the original plaintiff was the owner of the suit house. The original plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were neighbours and friends. The original plaintiff used to take loan from defendant No. 2 from time to time. On 25.1.1983 the defendant No. 2 informed the Original Plaintiff that he has to repay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to defendant No. 2 on account of loan taken by him and he should acknowledge the same in writing. The plaintiff agreed to acknowledge the debt. It was further averred that defendant No. 2 got the original plaintiff drunk and obtained his signature on certain stamp papers, in the state of intoxication. However, in pursuance of alleged sale deed possession of the house was never delivered to defendants and the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit house. Later on, original plaintiff learnt that infact by misrepresentation the defendant No. 2 got the sale-deed executed in respect of suit house from him on 25.1.1983 in favour of his wife, namely, defendant No. 1 which does not convey any title. Accordingly, the relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 25.1.1983 as well as permanent injunction was sought restraining defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit house.

The defendants filed the written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that there was no loan transaction between the original plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff after obtaining the sale consideration of Rs. 5,000/ - had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. The defendants are in possession of the suit house. However, the plaintiff was permitted to occupy the suit house as tenant as he had no alternative accommodation. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had paid the rent upto June, 1983. Thereafter he has stopped paying rent. An objection with regard to valuation of the relief claimed in the suit was also taken on behalf of the defendants.

The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties, by judgment and decree dated 07.10.1988 decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff. The trial Court on the basis of the meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, inter alia, held that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties to the suit. It was further held that the sale deed was executed as a security for loan taken by the original plaintiff which was nominal and was not intended to be acted upon. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.1.1995 has affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court.

Mr. Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no plea in the plaint that the sale in question is nominal and the sale deed was executed to secure the loan which was allegedly advanced to the original plaintiff. In the absence of any plea in this regard the courts below have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It was further submitted that the trial Court did not frame any issue with regard to character of the document in question, namely, the sale deed dated 25.1.1983, Exhibit-D-1 being nominal. It was also submitted by learned senior counsel that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are patently erroneous and illegal.

On the other hand, Shri R.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the respondents while drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 3 to 13 of the plaint submitted that if the averments made in the plaint are read as a whole, it is apparent that the plaintiff had taken loan from the defendants from time to time and with a view to secure the loan he had executed the document in question. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had executed the document in question as he wanted to acknowledge the debt in writing however, there was misrepresentation on behalf of the defendants with regard to nature of the document in question. Learned senior counsel for the respondent while referring to finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. In support of his submissions learned senior counsel for respondent has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of AIR 1936 70 (Privy Council) and Bundabai vs. Rama, (1980) 1 MPWN 38.

I have considered the submissions made on both sides. The object of the pleadings is generally to see that each side is made aware to the questions in issue in order to enable them to bring forward their proper defence. The object relating to pleadings in civil cases are intended to give the intimation to each side of the case of other, so that it may meet the case set up by the other side and to enable the Court to determine what is real issue between the parties. See Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram, Virendra Kashinath Ravat and Another Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi and Others, and State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., . The pleadings have to be interpreted not with formalistic rigor but with latitude or awareness of low literacy of poor people. See: Smt. Manjushri Raha and Others Vs. B.L. Gupta and Others, and Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hede and Company, Even if the pleadings are loosely drafted the Court should not scrutinize the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claim being defeated on trivial grounds. See: Madan Gopal Kanodia Vs. Mamraj Maniram and Others, . The Court has to look into the pleadings with a view to do essential justice in the case and to read the pleadings as a whole to ascertain its true import. The substance of the pleadings has to be seen and the intention of the parties is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and the terms of the pleadings taken as a whole. In Syed Dastagir Vs. T.R. Gopalakrishnasetty, it has been held by the Apex Court in construing a plea in any pleading courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of one''s case for a relief. To gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. In Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Others, it has been that whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of pleadings, instead the Court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that inspite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceed to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal. [See also: Ram Bhual Vs. Ambika Singh, and Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another,

In order to answer the substantial question of law framed by this Court, the averments made in the plaint are required to be carefully scrutinized in the context of well settled legal position with regard to pleadings. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he and defendant No. 2 are neighbors and friends. The plaintiff from time to time used to take loan from defendant No. 2. In paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that he is low paid employee and only knows to put his signature. In paragraph 5 of the plaint it is averred that on 25.1.1983 the defendant No. 2 informed him that plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of loan taken by him and, therefore, he should acknowledge the debt in writing. Thereupon, the plaintiff agreed to acknowledge the debt in writing on stamp paper. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is stated that on 25.1.1983 the defendant No. 2 took him to liquor shop and got him drunk. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it is pleaded that defendant No. 2 and another person took the plaintiff to the Court where he was made to sign on certain blank stamp papeRs. It is also averred that contents of the document were not read over to him and the plaintiff was only informed that his signatures have been obtained on the stamp papers with regard to the loan taken by him. In paragraph 8 the plaintiff has stated that he was thereafter taken to the office of Sub Registrar where the query was put to him only about receipt of Rs. 5,000/-. Since the plaintiff was in state of intoxication, therefore, he answered the query in the affirmative. In paragraph 9 the plaintiff has stated that he is in possession of the suit house as the owner. On 18.5.1985 when the plaintiff stored material for construction of the boundary wall, the defendant No. 2 prevented the plaintiff from raising construction and informed the plaintiff that he has already purchased the suit house. In paragraph 12 of the plaint it is stated that thereupon the plaintiff made enquiries and learnt that document No. 2 has got the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1 in lieu of loan taken by the plaintiff by playing fraud. It is further stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint that, in fact, the plaintiff has never sold his house to the defendants and defendant No. 1, in fact, never visited the office of Sub Registrar. In paragraph 14 of the plaint it is pleaded that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit house and the possession of the same was never delivered to the defendants No. 1 & 2. The original sale deed is in possession of the plaintiff and the value of the suit house is more than rupees thirty-thirty five thousand.

If the averments made in paragraphs 3 to 14 of the plaint are read in entirety it is apparent that, as per the case setforth in the plaint, the plaintiff was not only kept under misrepresentation as to character of the document but as well as to its contents. The sum and substance of the pleadings of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has not sold the suit house to defendants. However, by keeping him in dark about the nature of document as well as its contents, the sale-deed was got executed and the plaintiff was made to understand that he is acknowledging his liability to pay the debt. The sale-deed was not acted upon as the plaintiff continued to be in possession. Thus, the sale-deed was nominal and was not intended to be acted upon. The parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial by producing the evidence. It is pertinent to mention that in the first appeal the plea with regard to deficiency in the pleadings was not taken by the defendants. For the aforementioned reasons it is held that it is pleaded by the plaintiff that sale deed was executed by way of security for the loan and was nominal in nature and was not intended to be acted upon. Therefore, the Courts below have not committed any error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.