Ramaswamy (dead) by LRs. Vs. M. Lobo (dead) by LRs.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1989
Petitioner: Ramaswamy (dead) by LRs.
Respondent: M. Lobo (dead) by LRs.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1989
Judges: V.N. KHARE & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 10, 2001
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Recovery suit for rent – Concurrent findings by First Appellate Court and High Court that what was sold was houses and not land and houses subjected to house tax. Held that such finding of fact cannot be challenged before Supreme Court. (Para 3)
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 91, 92 – Sale of land/houses by registered sale deed – Contention that sale deed was as security for loan advanced and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. Held that sale deed being registered document, no oral evidence can be adduced to show that no title passed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. It is a defendant’s appeal.
2. The defendant-appellant herein was the owner of the property in dispute. It is not disputed that on 13th December, 1965 the appellant transferred the said property in favour of the plain-tiff-respondent by means of a registered sale deed dated 13th December, 1965. The respondent, after having become the owner of the property, leased out the said premises on rent to the appell-ant on the same date, i.e., 13th December, 1965. It appears that the defendant-appellant committed default in payment of rent, and, therefore, respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent from the appellant. In the said suit the appellant, inter alia, took plea that since the land was an agricultural land, the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable in the civil court and that the registered sale deed was in fact a security for the loan advanced by the respondent to him. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit land was an agricultural land and further that the sale deed executed by the appellant was in the nature of security for the loan transaction. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the First Appellate Court and the suit was decreed. The second appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Heard Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the land being an agricultural land, the suit filed by the respondent in the civil court was not maintain-able. The First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have recorded concurrent finding of fact that what was sold to the respondent was houses and not the land and further the houses were assessed to the House Tax. This, being the finding of fact, it is not open to challenge in this Court. Learned Counsel then urged that the sale deed was in fact a security for the loan advanced by the respondent to the defendant-appellant and, there-fore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This argument is noticed only to be rejected. It is not disputed that the sale deed is a registered document and there-fore, no oral evidence could be adduced to show that no title passed on to the respondent under the sale deed.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find merit in this ap-peal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. It is a defendant’s appeal.
2. The defendant-appellant herein was the owner of the property in dispute. It is not disputed that on 13th December, 1965 the appellant transferred the said property in favour of the plain-tiff-respondent by means of a registered sale deed dated 13th December, 1965. The respondent, after having become the owner of the property, leased out the said premises on rent to the appell-ant on the same date, i.e., 13th December, 1965. It appears that the defendant-appellant committed default in payment of rent, and, therefore, respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent from the appellant. In the said suit the appellant, inter alia, took plea that since the land was an agricultural land, the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable in the civil court and that the registered sale deed was in fact a security for the loan advanced by the respondent to him. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit land was an agricultural land and further that the sale deed executed by the appellant was in the nature of security for the loan transaction. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the First Appellate Court and the suit was decreed. The second appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. Heard Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the land being an agricultural land, the suit filed by the respondent in the civil court was not maintain-able. The First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have recorded concurrent finding of fact that what was sold to the respondent was houses and not the land and further the houses were assessed to the House Tax. This, being the finding of fact, it is not open to challenge in this Court. Learned Counsel then urged that the sale deed was in fact a security for the loan advanced by the respondent to the defendant-appellant and, there-fore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This argument is noticed only to be rejected. It is not disputed that the sale deed is a registered document and there-fore, no oral evidence could be adduced to show that no title passed on to the respondent under the sale deed.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find merit in this ap-peal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
