Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. SARADA AND ORS. versus MANIKKOTH KOMBRA RAJENDRAN

Decided
22 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 624 · 1996 INSC 564
Also cited as
  • (1996) 8 SCC 345 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Though the respondent has been served, he is not appearing either in person of through counsel.

p. 624, margin F

Leave granted.

p. 624, margin F

The admitted position is that one T. Sekharan was the owner of the property. He sold 17 cents of land under Ex. A-2, dated 14.7.1982. He was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit laid for recovery of the possession on the ground that after the sale there was an contemporaneous agreement to permit the respondent to remain in possession for a period of four months and on expiry thereof, he was to surr ~nder his possession. Since he had not surrendered the possession, notice Ex. A/4, was issued on December 10, 1982 and on his failure to vacate the same, suit was laid for recovery of possession. Since the first defendant died, the appellants were brought on record as party defendants to the suit. It is their case that the respondent is a money-lender and the property sold was to obtain a loan and he had obtained the sale deed as a collateral security for repayment of the loan of a sum of Rs. 20,000. After the dispute had arisen, there was an agreement entered by the first defendant and the respondent in the presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police which formed part of the agreement, which reads as under :

pp. 624–625, margin G

"Agreement executed BETWEEN 'A' PARTY, Rajendran, 42 years, son of Manikooth Kombra Chalil Damudaran. Kacheri Amson, AND 'B' Party, Sekharan, aged 60 years, son of Thaikandy Gopalaln, Amarasseri Amson Desom.

p. 625, margin C

Whereas A party had given a complaint before the Kakkur Police Station upon the B Party not acting in accordance with the agreement whereby the Parammel property owned by B party had bee_n sold to A party, and whereas both parties spoke under the · mediation of the station Sub-Inspector; and . Whereas the parties have jointly agreed to the terms stated · bel.ow and have accordingly executed this agreement in the . presence of the witnesses who have signed below this the 4th day 'ofJan:uary, 1983 and retained one copy each of this agreement.

p. 625, margin C

: It is agreed - · . That B party shall-pay A party Rs. 35,000 (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) on or before and that the Parammal property in the possession of .A party shall then he given to B party at his expense .. if the B party acts contrary thereto, he should vacate and ·hand ~ver the ab0ve said Pararnmel property to A party. Further, ·A Party will have the right against B party to take steps in

p. 625, margin E

accordance .with ·law."

p. 625, margin G

The trial Court decr~ed the suit accepting that Ex. A-2 is a sale and the appellants are liable to surrender possession as sub-lessees. In the ap_peal, the appellants raised the i_ssue regarding the agreement referred to hcrcinbefl1r~ and ~ought to pl:.tce this document as an additional evidence under Order ~l, Ruic 27 CPC etc. The appellate Court rejected the same. In the s~cun<l appeal, the 1-Egh Court has dbn1i.'-.sed the appeal conrinning the decree fur possession. Thu\ this appeal by special leave.

pp. 625–626, margin G

Since it is the case of the appellants that T. Sckharan h;id sold the property as a collateral security and \Vhcn the agrl'e111ent subsequently entered intn clearly mentioned receipt of Rs. 3.'1))00 as consideration of the property, it Wlllll<l indicate that the parties had the sale Ex. A-l is only a> ''collateral security. Under these circun1stanccs, hc appellate l'ourt ought to have received the agrccn1cnt datl'.d Januur; .+. 1983 as additional t:vi<le-ncc a11d \.·1lnsidcrcd the effect thereof by either recording the cvi<lencl' ,1f the part iv, :f calling_ finding: in this bt.:half fro1n the trial l~ourt. Without

p. 626, margin A

u...:ipt nl th.· and the ~\.i<lcncc in cun.'>i<ll,_'.ration Lhcrcof, it Id n,il he pt~\:-iihk· render fair ju:.tice hct\.vcen the partit:s.

p. 626, margin C

~fl _ :1ppcal i:. aCl\)rdingly allo\\'L'!.l ·rT~c judgmenl and decree of the appellate t·ourt \Vcll as the ~·Iigh ('nun,;... aside and the <1ppcal i~

p. 626, margin C

tn the appcllatt: ('ourt fn!lu\\' tht: prl1ccdure indic~ltl'.d ·,·cir~Jbn\'~ and <li.<..pusc nf the <tPf'l';tl dCcording lo hnv. No custs.

p. 626, margin D

Appeal allllwcu.

p. 626, margin D