{"id":120536,"date":"2010-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-25T04:48:17","modified_gmt":"2015-04-24T23:18:17","slug":"d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: . B Chauhan<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n\n        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6396 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\nD.R. Rathna Murthy                                               ...\n\nAppellant\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  Versus\n\n\n\n\n\nRamappa                                                     ...Respondent \n\n\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated <\/p>\n
      2nd  April,   2002   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at <\/p>\n
      Bangalore in R.S.A No. 446 of 1996, reversing the judgment of <\/p>\n
      the   First   Appellate   Court   dated   10.3.1999,   passed   in   RFA <\/p>\n
      No.133 of 1995; and restoring the judgment and decree of the <\/p>\n
      trial court dated 15.11.1995 in O.S. No. 122 of 1992. The trial <\/p>\n
                                                                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
      court   had   dismissed   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff\/appellant <\/p>\n
      (hereinafter called the appellant) for specific performance.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Facts and circumstances  giving rise to this appeal are that the <\/p>\n
      appellant,   D.R.   Rathna   Murthy,   had   purchased   the   land   in <\/p>\n
      question vide registered sale deed dated 23rd  April, 1986 from <\/p>\n
      one   A.M.   Venkatachalapathy   Setty   for   a   consideration   of   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
      10,000\/-.  On the very next day, the appellant sold the said land <\/p>\n
      vide   registered   sale   deed   dated   24th  April,   1986,   to   the <\/p>\n
      defendant\/respondent   (hereinafter   called   the   respondent)   for <\/p>\n
      consideration of Rs.10,000\/- only and delivered the possession <\/p>\n
      to   him.       In   pursuance   of   the   said   sale   deed   dated   24th  April, <\/p>\n
      1986,   the   respondent   is   in   possession   of   the   suit   land.     The <\/p>\n
      appellant   subsequently   served   a   legal   notice   upon   the <\/p>\n
      respondent in the year 1991-1992 demanding the reconveyance <\/p>\n
      of   the   suit   property   on   the   ground   that   registered   sale   deed <\/p>\n
      executed in favour of respondent dated 24th  April, 1986 was a <\/p>\n
      conditional sale deed and appellant had a right to repurchase the <\/p>\n
      sale   land   for   the   same   consideration   of   Rs.10,000\/-   within   a <\/p>\n
      period of ten years from the date of execution of the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
3.     The   respondent   did   not   make   any   response   to   the   said   legal <\/p>\n
       notice, thus, the appellant filed Original Suit No. 122 of 1992 <\/p>\n
       before   the   court   of   Munsiff   and   JMFC   Court,   Mulbagal, <\/p>\n
       seeking  the relief of specific performance.    The said  Suit was <\/p>\n
       contested   by   the   respondent   contending   that   there   was   an <\/p>\n
       absolute sale deed in his favour and it was not a conditional sale <\/p>\n
       deed, the term of reconveyance had been fraudulently inserted <\/p>\n
       by   the   appellant   after   the   execution   of   the   document.\n<\/p>\n
       Manipulation  had  been  done at  several  places  in  the said   sale <\/p>\n
       deed after the execution and the appellant had put in the word <\/p>\n
       “Avadhi”,   which     means   tenure,   just   to   make   the   same   a <\/p>\n
       conditional   sale   deed.     The   trial   court   considered   the   case   of <\/p>\n
       both   the   parties   and   dismissed   the   Suit   vide   judgment   and <\/p>\n
       decree dated 15th November, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the First Appellate <\/p>\n
Court by filing RFA No.133\/1995, and the appeal was allowed vide <\/p>\n
judgment   and   decree   dated   10th  March,   1999.   The   First   Appellate <\/p>\n
Court held  that it was a conditional sale deed, thus, the Court directed <\/p>\n
the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. The <\/p>\n
respondent approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second <\/p>\n
                                                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal   i.e.   R.S.A.   No.   446   of   1999   under   Section   100   of   Code   of <\/p>\n
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `C.P.C.’) and the said <\/p>\n
appeal has been allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order <\/p>\n
dated 2nd April, 2002.  Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Shri   Naveen   R.   Nath,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
appellant   has   submitted   that   the   sale   executed   by   the   appellant   in <\/p>\n
favour of the respondent was a conditional sale deed and thus, he had <\/p>\n
a right  to repurchase  the land any time within  a period  of ten years <\/p>\n
from   the   date   of   the   execution   of   the   sale   deed.   The   appellant <\/p>\n
exercised   his   option   within   the   period   prescribed   in   the   conditional <\/p>\n
sale deed. The trial court has erred in dismissing the suit, however, the <\/p>\n
First Appellate Court after proper appreciation of the entire evidence <\/p>\n
on record came to the conclusion   that it was a conditional sale deed <\/p>\n
and  not a  case   of  absolute  sale.     The  High Court  ought not to  have <\/p>\n
reversed the said findings of fact as it is not permissible to appreciate <\/p>\n
the evidence in second appeal, and no substantial question of law was <\/p>\n
involved   in   the   appeal.   The   High   Court   recorded   a   totally   perverse <\/p>\n
finding that it was a case of absolute sale.  Hence, the appeal deserves <\/p>\n
to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
6.      On the contrary, Shri Girish Anantha Murthy, learned counsel <\/p>\n
appearing   for   the   respondent,   has   vehemently   opposed   the   appeal <\/p>\n
contending that the sale deed in favour of respondent was an absolute <\/p>\n
sale deed and it is not a conditional sale deed. The word “Avadhi” was <\/p>\n
inserted   in   the   margin   of   said   deed   at   three   places   and   a   term   of <\/p>\n
reconveyance   within   a   period   of   ten   years   was   added   in   the   same <\/p>\n
after its execution and prior to registration.  Such an insertion of said <\/p>\n
word   “Avadhi”   at   three   places   and   the   addition   of   the   last   clause <\/p>\n
providing for reconveyance  was without  the consent and knowledge <\/p>\n
of the respondent; therefore, he cannot be bound by the said terms. In <\/p>\n
case of contradictions between the oral evidence of the witnesses of <\/p>\n
both   the   sides,   the   First   Appellate   Court   should   not   have   re-\n<\/p>\n
appreciated the entire evidence and thus, there was no occasion for the <\/p>\n
First Appellate Court to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the <\/p>\n
trial   court.     The   judgment   and   order   of   the   High   Court   does   not <\/p>\n
require   any   interference,   the   appeal   lacks   merit   and,   accordingly,   is <\/p>\n
liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.      We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   made   by   learned <\/p>\n
counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
        Undoubtedly, the High Court can interfere with the findings of <\/p>\n
fact even in the Second Appeal, provided the findings recorded by the <\/p>\n
courts   below   are   found   to   be   perverse   i.e.   not   being   based   on   the <\/p>\n
evidence or contrary to the evidence on record or reasoning is based <\/p>\n
on  surmises  and  misreading   of  the evidence  on  record  or where  the <\/p>\n
core   issue   is   not   decided.     There   is   no   absolute   bar   on   the   re-\n<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence in those proceedings, however, such a course <\/p>\n
is   permissible   in   exceptional   circumstances.     (Vide  Rajappa <\/p>\n
Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & Ors., AIR SC<\/a> <\/p>\n
2000   2108;  Hafazat   Hussain   v.   Abdul   Majeed   &   Ors.,<\/a>  (2001)   7 <\/p>\n
SCC 189;  and Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya  Renganathan <\/p>\n
& Ors., JT<\/a> 2010 (5) SC 534)<\/p>\n
8.      The sale deed dated 24th  April, 1986, is a registered document.\n<\/p>\n
The document is admitted by the other side.  Most of the contents are <\/p>\n
also   admitted.     However,   it   is   disputed   that   the   word   “Avadhi”   and <\/p>\n
last   clause   have   been   inserted   subsequent   to   execution   of   the <\/p>\n
document.  In such a fact-situation, the probative value of that part of <\/p>\n
the document is required to be assessed. It becomes a case as if the <\/p>\n
respondent   had   never   intended   to   have   conditional   sale   deed.     He <\/p>\n
never intended to enter into a contract to which certain part was not <\/p>\n
                                                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
even known to him. The part of the contract as had been inserted after <\/p>\n
his signature i.e., after execution of the document cannot be binding <\/p>\n
upon him. If such averments are accepted, it becomes a clear cut case <\/p>\n
of   manipulation\/fraud   by   the   appellant.   (Vide  Dularia   Devi   v.\n<\/p>\n
Janardan Singh & Ors.,  AIR 1990 SC 1173) <\/p>\n
9.     The appellant has examined himself and two other witnesses as <\/p>\n
PW.1 to PW.3.   The other persons had been the scribe and attesting <\/p>\n
witnesses   to   the   document.   Copies   of   the   said   sale   deed   were <\/p>\n
produced   and  marked   as   Ex.   P-1   to  P-4.     The   respondent   examined <\/p>\n
himself as DW-1. Two other witnesses including one attesting witness <\/p>\n
were also examined by him in defence.   The trial court framed four <\/p>\n
issues :\n<\/p>\n
       1)     Whether plaintiff proves that under sale deed dated <\/p>\n
              24.4.86   he   has   got   right   to   purchase   the   suit <\/p>\n
              schedule property?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       2)     Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitled <\/p>\n
              for   the   specific   relief   of   specific   performance   of <\/p>\n
              contract?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       3)     Whether   the   defendant   proves   that   suit   is   not <\/p>\n
              maintainable and not complied with the mandatory <\/p>\n
                                                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
                provisions   required   under   Section   16(3)   of   the <\/p>\n
                Specific Relief Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        4)      To what relief the parties are entitled?<\/p>\n
10.     The trial court appreciated the evidence of the parties and their <\/p>\n
witnesses and came to the conclusion that the word “Avadhi” and the <\/p>\n
last   part   of   the   sale   deed   were   inserted   after   the   execution   of   the <\/p>\n
document making it a conditional sale deed from absolute sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
The   trial   court   while   reaching   this   conclusion   relied   upon   the <\/p>\n
deposition of Gopalakrishna (PW.2), the attesting witness of the sale <\/p>\n
deed, wherein he had admitted in cross-examination that there was no <\/p>\n
clause as to after how many years the suit land has to be repurchased <\/p>\n
and the word “Avadhi” was written in the margin after completion of <\/p>\n
the document.  The last part i.e. Ex. D-2 was added after the execution <\/p>\n
of the sale deed i.e. Ex. P-4, thus, it was evident that the appellant and <\/p>\n
his scribe inserted the word “Avadhi” in Ex.P-4 and also inserted the <\/p>\n
portion Ex.D-2 and it is so evident even to the naked eyes.  In view of <\/p>\n
the   aforesaid   findings,   the   suit   was   dismissed.     The   First   Appellate <\/p>\n
Court   had   unnecessarily   laboured   to   find   fault   with   the   trial   court’s <\/p>\n
judgment and without realising that there was contradiction in the oral <\/p>\n
testimony   of   two   marginal   witnesses,   re-appreciated   the   entire <\/p>\n
                                                                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence   and   reached   the   contrary   conclusion.     The   High   Court <\/p>\n
realising   that   the   findings   of   facts   recorded   by   the   First   Appellate <\/p>\n
Court   were   perverse,   proceeded   with   appreciation   of   evidence   and <\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that the trial court was right in holding that the <\/p>\n
word “Avadhi” had been inserted at three places in the margin and last <\/p>\n
part of the sale deed Ex.D-2 in Ex.P-4 had been added subsequent to <\/p>\n
the execution of the sale deed.  The findings so recorded by the High <\/p>\n
Court are based on a proper appreciation of evidence and the statutory <\/p>\n
provisions   applicable   in   the   case.     Admittedly,   there   had   been <\/p>\n
interlineations in the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
11.     Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
        “Documents   containing   interlineations,   blanks, <\/p>\n
        erasures or alterations.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (1)   The   registering   officer   may   in   his   discretion <\/p>\n
        refuse   to   accept   for   registration   any   document   in <\/p>\n
        which   any   interlineations,   blank,   erasure   or <\/p>\n
        alteration appears, unless the persons executing the <\/p>\n
        document   attest   with   their   signatures   or   initials <\/p>\n
        such interlineations, blank, erasure or alteration.<\/p>\n
        (2)     If   the   registering   officer   registers   any   such <\/p>\n
        document,   he   shall,   at   the   time   of   registering   the <\/p>\n
        same,   make   a   note   in   the   register   of   such <\/p>\n
        interlineations, blank, erasure or alteration.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
       It appears that vide Karnataka Act No. 41 of 1984, Clause 2 of <\/p>\n
Section   20   has   been   deleted,   w.e.f.   7th  November,   1986,   however, <\/p>\n
corresponding   provisions   in   Karnataka   Registration   Rules,   1965 <\/p>\n
(hereinafter called the Rules), providing for similar requirement have <\/p>\n
not been amended.  Rule 41 of the said Rules provided examination of <\/p>\n
a document by the Registering Officer and made an obligation on his <\/p>\n
part that if there are unattested interlineations,  alterations, erasures or <\/p>\n
blanks, which the Registering Officer considers should be attested, by <\/p>\n
the signatures of the executant, he shall not alter the document himself <\/p>\n
in any way.\n<\/p>\n
12.    Rule 42 of Rules reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “Manner   of   noting   interlineations,   etc.-   Each <\/p>\n
       important   interlineations,   erasure   or   alteration <\/p>\n
       occurring in a document shall, whenever possible, <\/p>\n
       be   caused   to   be   noted   or  described   at   the  foot   of <\/p>\n
       the   document   and   to   be   signed   by   the   executant <\/p>\n
       before the document is accepted for registration….<\/p>\n
       “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Therefore,   Rule   42   mandatorily   requires   that   if   there   is   any <\/p>\n
interlineation,   erasure,   alteration   etc.,   it   must   be   mentioned   and <\/p>\n
described at the foot of the document and must be duly signed by the <\/p>\n
executant before the document is accepted for registration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
13.     In the instant case, we have, ourselves examined certified copy <\/p>\n
of the said sale deed, and found that the provisions of Rule 42 have <\/p>\n
not been complied with.  Nothing has been endorsed at the foot of the <\/p>\n
sale   deed,   nor   it   bears   signatures   of   the   executant.     The   word <\/p>\n
“Avadhi” has been inserted at three places in the margin of the sale <\/p>\n
deed.   It has not be attested by the executant.   The part Ex. D-2 had <\/p>\n
been inserted in Ex.P-4 in an unusual manner.   The entire sale deed <\/p>\n
has   been   scribed   in   double   space   while  the   part   Ex.D-2   is   in   single <\/p>\n
space. It was necessary to do so as the parties had already signed the <\/p>\n
document. Had it been written in ordinary course, it could have gone <\/p>\n
below the signatures of the parties in the sale deed.   Therefore, it is <\/p>\n
crystal clear that such insertion had been made to convert the absolute <\/p>\n
sale deed into a conditional sale deed.  Thus,  we are of the view that <\/p>\n
the trial court and the High Court have rightly  believed the testimony <\/p>\n
of   the   respondent   that   there   was   no   mention   of   Ex.D-1   and   D-2   in <\/p>\n
Ex.P-4 and the appellant was not entitled for reconveyance of the suit <\/p>\n
property. The manner in which interlineations have been made in the <\/p>\n
document   itself   reveal   that   addition   was   made   subsequent   to   the <\/p>\n
execution of the document otherwise there was enough space to insert <\/p>\n
such a clause in the same manner in which the   entire sale had been <\/p>\n
                                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
scribed.     This  particular  clause  had  to be  squeezed   in a  small   space <\/p>\n
and   to   adjust   the   same   before   the   signature   already   made   by   the <\/p>\n
appellant.   The   First   Appellate   Court   committed   grave   error   in   not <\/p>\n
properly appreciating the evidence of D.R. Rathna Murthy (PW.1) and <\/p>\n
Gopalakrishna   (PW.2)   in  this   regard,   though   the  Court   took  note   of <\/p>\n
the  admission made by Gopalakrishna (PW.2), the attestator, that no <\/p>\n
time was fixed for reconveyance, thus, the term “Avadhi” was written <\/p>\n
in `margin’ and also Ex.D-2 was written after Ex.P-4 has completely <\/p>\n
been written.\n<\/p>\n
14.    D.R. Rathna Murthy (PW.1) had also admitted that he sold the <\/p>\n
land to the respondent as he was in dire need of money to pay to his <\/p>\n
Vendee. He had himself purchased the property only one day before <\/p>\n
i.e. on 23rd April, 1986. We fail to understand if the appellant was not <\/p>\n
having money, why did he purchase the property from his vendor on <\/p>\n
23rd April, 1986 and in order to pay him the sale consideration sold it <\/p>\n
to the respondent on the very next day i.e. on 24th April, 1986 for the <\/p>\n
same   amount.     There   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   as   under   what <\/p>\n
circumstances   the   sale   deed   had   been   executed   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
appellant  by his vendor without receiving the sale consideration  and <\/p>\n
how could he be put in possession.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
15.    The First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that there was no <\/p>\n
shara  (noting)   in   respect   of   interlineations   in   the   sale   deed.     The <\/p>\n
respondent had deposed as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “At   that   time  there   was   no   mention   in   respect   of <\/p>\n
       conditional   sale   deed.     In   front   of   sub   registrar <\/p>\n
       nothing   was   spoken   about   the   conditional   sale <\/p>\n
       deed.     At   the   time   of   purchase   the   suit   land   was <\/p>\n
       fallen land.   After purchase I formed the land and <\/p>\n
       improved its fertility.  I spent about 10 to 15,000\/- <\/p>\n
       for the improvement of the land.   I grow ragi and <\/p>\n
       ground nut crops.  I dig one Well in the suit land.  I <\/p>\n
       spent Rs.20,000\/- to dug the Well.   Prior to filling <\/p>\n
       of   this   suit   plaintiff   did   not   approach   me   with   a <\/p>\n
       request   to   execute   sale   deed   in   his   favour.     No <\/p>\n
       panchayat   was   held   in   respect   of   the   suit   lands. <\/p>\n
       Neither   witnesses   nor   scribe   intimated   me   about <\/p>\n
       the Avadhi transaction in respect of suit lands.  At <\/p>\n
       the time of change of revenue records the plaintiff <\/p>\n
       did not file any objections contending that the sale <\/p>\n
       is   conditional   one.       I   came   to   know   about   the <\/p>\n
       Avadhi  only  after   filing  of  this  suit.    I  sent   reply <\/p>\n
       notice to the plaintiff’s legal notice.  After sale the <\/p>\n
       plaintiff   is   not   related   to   suit   land.     I   have   not <\/p>\n
       agreed for re sale of suit land”.   <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Had it been a case of conditional sale, the appellant could have <\/p>\n
asked the respondent to wait for mutation or raise the objection before <\/p>\n
the Revenue Authorities in spite of the fact that mutation is a revenue <\/p>\n
entry and does not refer to the title of the land.  Had it been the case of <\/p>\n
conditional sale deed enabling the appellant to repurchase the land any <\/p>\n
time   within   ten   years,   the   respondent   could   not   have   spent   huge <\/p>\n
                                                                                   1<\/span><\/p>\n
amount of his life savings for improving the land, nor would he have <\/p>\n
dug a Well in the suit land spending twenty thousand of rupees.  The <\/p>\n
aforesaid   circumstances   make  it   clear   that   the  respondent   had   never <\/p>\n
agreed for reconveyance.\n<\/p>\n
15.    The   interlineations   had   been   made   at   four   places   in   the   sale <\/p>\n
deed.   Word   “Avadhi”   had   been   mentioned   at   three   places   in   the <\/p>\n
margin of the sale deed.  The appellant did not attest the said word by <\/p>\n
putting   his   signatures   at   the   time   of   registration.   Attestation <\/p>\n
testifies\/certifies   the  genuineness  of  the  document.    Attestation     and <\/p>\n
execution   are   different   acts,   one   following   the   other.   Execution <\/p>\n
includes delivery and signing of the document in the presence of the <\/p>\n
witnesses   and also  the  whole  series  of  acts  or formalities  which  are <\/p>\n
necessary   to   render   the   document  valid.     Attestation   of  sale   deed   is <\/p>\n
imperative. In the instant case, we find that the animus to attestation <\/p>\n
remain totally absent.  It is settled legal proposition that the document <\/p>\n
may be admissible but probative value of the entries contained therein <\/p>\n
may still be required to be examined in the fact and circumstances of a <\/p>\n
particular case.  (Vide State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna <\/p>\n
Singh & Ors.,   AIR<\/a> 1983 SC 1984;   and  Bharatha Matha & Anr.\n<\/p>\n
(Supra).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   1<\/span><\/p>\n
16.     The   case   is  required   to  be  examined  from another  angle  also.\n<\/p>\n
The   appellant   had   purchased   the   land   for   a   consideration   of <\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-.   On   23rd  April,   1986,   he   sold   the   land   on   the   very   next <\/p>\n
date for a sum of Rs.10,000\/- reserving his right to purchase the land <\/p>\n
for   the   same   consideration   within   a   period   of   ten   years.     In   normal <\/p>\n
circumstances,  the vendor would not agree for reconveyance  for the <\/p>\n
same consideration for the reason that the value of the land generally <\/p>\n
goes upwards and within a period of ten years it could have at least <\/p>\n
become double. (See Sardar Jogender Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) <\/p>\n
17 SCC 133; and  Satish & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,<\/a> (2009) 14 <\/p>\n
SCC 758).\n<\/p>\n
17.     The aforesaid  circumstances  make it abundantly clear  that the <\/p>\n
appellant has made inter-lineations after the document stood executed.\n<\/p>\n
The said additions were made without the consent and knowledge of <\/p>\n
the respondent. In fact the mind of the respondent did not actuate with <\/p>\n
his hand while putting his thumb impression on the said sale deed at <\/p>\n
the time of registration. Thus, the additions so made by the appellant <\/p>\n
cannot   be   binding   on   the   respondent.   The   additions   in   question   are <\/p>\n
surrounded   by   the   suspicious   circumstances   of   a   grave   nature   and, <\/p>\n
therefore,   the   same   are   required   to   be   ignored.   The   contract   being <\/p>\n
                                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
severable,   the   terms   of   contract   included   by   these   additions   being <\/p>\n
void, cannot be taken note of.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal and it lacks <\/p>\n
merit   and,   is   accordingly,   dismissed.     There   shall   be   no   order   as   to <\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ……………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          (P. SATHASIVAM)<\/p>\n
                                                          ………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
October 8, 2010<\/p>\n
                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6396 OF 2002 D.R. Rathna Murthy … Appellant Versus Ramappa …Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nD.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-24T23:18:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-24T23:18:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3140,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\",\"name\":\"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-24T23:18:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-24T23:18:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-24T23:18:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010"},"wordCount":3140,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010","name":"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-24T23:18:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-r-rathna-murthy-vs-ramappa-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.R. Rathna Murthy vs Ramappa on 8 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120536","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}