Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the suit property from the defendant by a registered sale deed dated 13.10.1986 for Rs.14,000/-, and the defendant remained in possession as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. The defendant paid rent till 01.10.2002 but failed to vacate despite notice. The defendant denied the sale and tenancy, claiming that the property belonged to his paternal uncle Ethiraj Mudaliar and that he was in possession with his permission. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff proved title and tenancy. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the rental agreement. The plaintiff filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the First Appellate Court's finding was perverse. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court's finding was perverse because it ignored the registered sale deed which established the plaintiff's title, and the defendant's own admission of possession and payment of rent. The court noted that the defendant did not produce any evidence to rebut the sale deed or prove Ethiraj Mudaliar's title. The court also held that the defendant, having attorned to the plaintiff by paying rent, was estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court can interfere with findings of fact if they are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the First Appellate Court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the rental agreement was perverse as it ignored the registered sale deed and the defendant's admission of possession (Paras 10-15). B) Property Law - Title - Registered Sale Deed - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 - A registered sale deed is conclusive proof of transfer of title unless rebutted - Held that the plaintiff's title was established by the registered sale deed dated 13.10.1986 and the defendant failed to rebut it (Paras 7-9). C) Evidence Act - Estoppel - Section 116 - A tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title - Held that the defendant, having attorned to the plaintiff by paying rent, cannot deny the plaintiff's title (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's decree on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the rental agreement, despite the plaintiff having established title through a registered sale deed and the defendant's possession being permissive?
Final Decision
Second Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 22.11.2010 in A.S.No.17 of 2010 are set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 20.01.2010 in O.S.No.1 of 2003 are restored. The respondent is directed to pay costs.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- second appeal only on substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- registered sale deed confers title
- burden of proof on defendant to disprove sale
- tenancy can be inferred from conduct
