2007 JTR(SC) 1125
2007 58 AIC 204 ; 2007 AIR(SC) 2967 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 5408 ; 2007 69 AllLR 506 ; 2007 6 AllMR(SC) 410 ; 2007 4 AWC 3577 ; 2007 3 BLJR 2522 ; 2007 4 CivCC 644 ; 2008 1 CivLJ 466 ; 2008 1 DNJ 80 ; 2007 4 JCR(SC) 90 ; 2007 4 JLJR(SC) 135 ; 2007 10 JT 461 ; 2007 4 KLT 753 ; 2007 6 MhLJ(SC) 594 ; 2007 6 MLJ 657 ; 2008 1 MPLJ 8 ; 2007 4 PLJR(SC) 143 ; 2007 4 RCR(Civ) 178 ; 2008 104 RD 117 ; 2007 10 Scale 444 ; 2007 7 SCC 363 ; 2008 UAD 130 ; 2007 2 WLC 752 ; 2008 1 WLR(SC) 7 ; 2007 5 Supreme 966
2007(5) Supreme 966
Supreme Court of india
(From Kerala High Court)
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Chacko and Another — Petitioner
versus
Mahadevan — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1619-1620 of 2001
Decided on : 29-08-2007
important point
High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court.High court’s jurisdiction is confined only to questions of law.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.96, S.100
(A) The Civil Procedure Code Sections 96 and 100 govern the hierarchy and scope of appeals in civil suits. Section 96 applies to first appeals, allowing the appellate court to re-examine both facts and law, while Section 100 applies to second appeals, restricting the higher court to deciding only questions of law and prohibiting interference with the findings of fact made by the first appellate court. In this matter, the appeals filed traverse these provisions, where the High Court, acting under Section 100, was constrained from overturning the factual findings of the First Appellate Court and could only examine legal errors. The interplay of these procedural provisions dictates the permissible scope of review at each stage, ultimately leading to the restoration of the first appellate judgment on grounds of law.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the presumption of sanity, the unconscionability of a bargain, and the hierarchical limitations imposed by the Civil Procedure Code on appellate courts. An appellate court under a second appeal is confined to questions of law and cannot re-appraise factual determinations made by the first appellate court. A sale may be set aside if it is induced by fraud, undue influence, or if the seller was not of sound mind, rendering the transaction unconscionable.
Facts of the case:
The appellant Chacko sold one cent of his 20-cent land for Rs.18,000 and later sold three cents to the defendant Mahadevan for Rs.1,000 via a sale deed executed under the influence of liquor. The plaintiff sought to set aside the sale deed alleging fraud and lack of sound mind. The trial court held in favor of the defendant, but the First Appellate Court set aside the sale, finding the appellant was not of sound mind and the price was grossly unconscionable. The High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the decree in favor of the defendant.
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the appellant was not of sound mind when executing the sale deed, as evidenced by medical records showing treatment for Alcoholic Psychosis. The court held that the gross disparity in the sale priceRs.18,000 for one cent and Rs.1,000 for three centsdemonstrated an unconscionable transaction, corroborating the finding of lack of sound mind. The High Court was precluded from interfering with these factual findings under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues:
Whether the sale deed dated 11.7.1983 is valid despite the seller being under the influence of liquor and whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the First Appellate Courts decree on facts.
Ratio Decidendi:
A sale deed executed by a person who is not of sound mind is void, and a transaction manifestly unconscionable may be set aside. Under the Civil Procedure Code, a second appeal is limited to questions of law, and a factual finding by the First Appellate Court, supported by medical evidence and circumstantial circumstances, cannot be disturbed.
Result:
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the decree of the First Appellate Court is restored, and the sale deed dated 11.7.83 is quashed.
(A) The Civil Procedure Code Sections 96 and 100 govern the hierarchy and scope of appeals in civil suits. Section 96 applies to first appeals, allowing the appellate court to re-examine both facts and law, while Section 100 applies to second appeals, restricting the higher court to deciding only questions of law and prohibiting interference with the findings of fact made by the first appellate court. In this matter, the appeals filed traverse these provisions, where the High Court, acting under Section 100, was constrained from overturning the factual findings of the First Appellate Court and could only examine legal errors. The interplay of these procedural provisions dictates the permissible scope of review at each stage, ultimately leading to the restoration of the first appellate judgment on grounds of law.
(B) Key legal principles include the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the presumption of sanity, the unconscionability of a bargain, and the hierarchical limitations imposed by the Civil Procedure Code on appellate courts. An appellate court under a second appeal is confined to questions of law and cannot re-appraise factual determinations made by the first appellate court. A sale may be set aside if it is induced by fraud, undue influence, or if the seller was not of sound mind, rendering the transaction unconscionable.
Facts of the case:
The appellant Chacko sold one cent of his 20-cent land for Rs.18,000 and later sold three cents to the defendant Mahadevan for Rs.1,000 via a sale deed executed under the influence of liquor. The plaintiff sought to set aside the sale deed alleging fraud and lack of sound mind. The trial court held in favor of the defendant, but the First Appellate Court set aside the sale, finding the appellant was not of sound mind and the price was grossly unconscionable. The High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the decree in favor of the defendant.
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found that the appellant was not of sound mind when executing the sale deed, as evidenced by medical records showing treatment for Alcoholic Psychosis. The court held that the gross disparity in the sale priceRs.18,000 for one cent and Rs.1,000 for three centsdemonstrated an unconscionable transaction, corroborating the finding of lack of sound mind. The High Court was precluded from interfering with these factual findings under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues:
Whether the sale deed dated 11.7.1983 is valid despite the seller being under the influence of liquor and whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the First Appellate Courts decree on facts.
Ratio Decidendi:
A sale deed executed by a person who is not of sound mind is void, and a transaction manifestly unconscionable may be set aside. Under the Civil Procedure Code, a second appeal is limited to questions of law, and a factual finding by the First Appellate Court, supported by medical evidence and circumstantial circumstances, cannot be disturbed.
Result:
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, the decree of the First Appellate Court is restored, and the sale deed dated 11.7.83 is quashed.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J.—
1.These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 27.5.1999 in Second Appeal No.960 of 1989. That Second Appeal arose out of a suit being O.S. No.431 of 1983 filed by the present appellant Chacko and his wife Annakutty against the defendant Mahadevan. The defendant in that suit Mahadevan in his turn filed suit O.S. 437 of 1983 against Chacko and Annakutty. Both these suits were tried together. The trial court dismissed the suit filed by Chacko and Annakutty and decreed the suit filed by Mahadevan. On appeals being filed, the appellate court reversed the decrees of the trial court and granted Chacko and Annakutty a decree and dismissed the suit filed by Mahadevan. Aggrieved Mahadevan filed the second appeal before the High Court, which was allowed and hence this appeal.
2.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3.The facts of the case are that Chacko had land of an extent of 20 cents (100 cents being equal to 1 acre). By sale deed dated 4.9.1982, Ext.A2, Chacko sold one cent out of this land for Rs.18000. Thereafter Chacko sold another three cents of this land to Mahadevan for Rs.1000 vide sale deed dated 11.7.1983 Ext.A3. The suit O.S.431 of 1983 was filed by Chacko and Annakutty seeking to set aside that sale deed dated 11.7.1983, Ext.A3, on the ground that it was vitiated by fraud and was hence null and void and for a prohibitory injunction restraining Mahadevan from entering into that property. The averment in the plaint was that Chacko was given liquor by Mahadevan and others and under that influence the sale deed was got executed. Hence it was void. The defendant Mahadevan denied the plaint’s allegations.
4.The trial court held that Chacko and Annakutty had not proved any vitiating circumstances to invalidate the said sale deed Ext.A3 dated 11.7.1983 and consequently title to the said land passed to Mahadevan.
5.Chacko and Annakutty filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court held that the fact that one cent land was sold for Rs.18000 vide Ext.A2 (sale deed dated 4.9.1982) and three cent land was sold vide Ext.A3 (sale deed dated 11.7.1983) for a sum of Rs.1000, showed that this was an unconscionable transaction and hence the sale deed dated 11.7.1983 was liable to be set aside. Aggrieved Mahadevan filed a Second Appeal, which was allowed by the impugned judgment.
6.It may be mentioned that in a First Appeal filed under Section 96 CPC, the appellate court can go into questions of fact, whereas in a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court, and it is confined only to questions of law. Hence we have to see the judgment of the First Appellate Court and its findings of fact.
7.A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 29.6.1988, copy of which is Annexure-P2 to this appeal, shows that it has been recorded therein that Chacko was not having sound mind when he executed Ext. A3, which is established from Ext.A4 which is the medical certificate. He was treated from 11.8.1983 to 14.8.1983 in Mental Hospital, Trichur for Alcoholic Psychosis. This is a finding of fact which could not have been interfered with by the High Court in Second Appeal. Moreover, it is established from the facts that one cent of land was sold for Rs.18000 on 4.9.1982 vide Ext.A2, while 10 months thereafter three cents of land was sold for only Rs.1000. This corroborates the finding of the First Appellate Court that Chacko was not of sound mind at least at the time when he executed the sale deed dated 11.7.1983. If one cent of land costs Rs.18000 then three cents of land should ordinarily cost Rs. 54000. No one in his senses would sell property worth Rs.54000 for Rs.1000. According to the well known Latin maxim ‘res ipsa loquitur’ i.e. the matter speaks for itself. Hence it is obvious that Chacko sold the land by sale deed dated 11.7.1983 when he was not of sound mind and some fraud was played on him at that time.
8.In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 29.6.1988 and we quash the sale deed dated 11.7.1983.
9.The Appeals are allowed. There is no order as to costs.
***********