Supreme Court sets aside "self-contradictory" Madras High Court order in property case

The Supreme Court recently set aside a Madras High Court order passed in a property case on noting that it was based on presumptions and was self-contradictory. [R Krishna Kumar and anr vs R Vatsal thr lrs and ors].A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah made it clear that a suit cannot be decreed on such presumptions..The top court noted that the High Court had repeatedly said it was "hard to believe" that the plaintiffs had given up some property at a "meagre price", although it also acknowledged that there was a valid instrument supporting the transfer. ."We find from a perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench that the same is entirely based upon presumptions and the phrase “hard to believe” has been repeatedly used in order to hold that the plaintiffs have been apparently misled into signing the documents on blank papers," the Supreme Court remarked. .The top court made the observation while allowing an appeal against a 2017 Madras High Court order that overturned a trial court judgment in a civil suit. The civil suit in question was filed by a mother and her daughters (plaintiffs) against her son (defendant) over certain immovable property left behind by her deceased husband. The Court was told that there were two partition deeds. One partition deed was signed by all the parties in 1995 and was unregistered. Later, another partition deed was registered and executed by the parties in 2000. Both deeds indicated that the immovable property was given to the son (defendant). The plaintiffs had effectively questioned these deeds in their civil suit, staking a claim on the immovable property.While a trial court initially dismissed the civil suit. The trial court found that a valid partition deed had been duly signed by the parties. The same was signed in the Registrar's office and all the parties knew English, being well educated, the lower court had noted..However, a division bench of the High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. Notably, the High Court did not dispute that the partition deed was validly executed. However, it doubted the genuineness of the transaction because the property value was high. Therefore, the property could not have been given up by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants at a meagre price, the High Court had reasoned. .The Supreme Court has now set aside this High Court ruling, considering the self-contradictory nature of its findings. "The Division Bench, although, records findings that the registered partition deed had been duly signed by all the plaintiffs; that all the plaintiffs were well educated and could understand, read and write English, but found it hard to believe that such valuable property could have been given up so easily and for such a meagre amount by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 ... The findings ... can be safely said to be self contradictory and it also failed to consider the relevant material on record ... The suit could not have been, thus, decreed on the basis of presumptions," the top court said. .The appeal was, thus, allowed. The order of the trial court was restored and the High Court's ruling set aside..Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar with advocates S Hari Haran, Rajarajeshwaram, and Vairawan AS appeared for the appellants (original defendant and his son).Advocates K Ramesh, Sriram Parakkat, Gaurav, and Robin Khokhar represented the respondents (original plaintiffs)..[Read order]