Property Law

CIA-3

“Venigalla Koteswaramma vs Malempati Suryamba”

Name- Dhanush M N
Register Number- 2150113
Class & Section - 4 BA LLB A
Name of the Faculty- Diya C R
Name of the Case - Venigalla Koteswaramma vs Malempati Suryamba
Citation - 2021 SCC Online SC 26; Appeal (Civil), 9546 of 2013
Date of the Case - 19 January 2021
Appellant - Venigalla Koteswaramma
Respondent - Malampati Suryamba & Ors.
Bench/Judges - Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy
Statutes/Constitution Involved - Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Important Sections/Articles - S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act

Introduction
Venigalla Koteswaramma and Malempati Suryamba is a case that revolves around a land
dispute involving the counterfeiting of a will and the sale agreement. The surviving family
members lost their property ownership due to the incident. The will was made by the brother
of the stepmother, who used his position to benefit from the property.
Following the death of their stepmother at the age of 45, four siblings of the family lost their
property rights. Their maternal uncle of the siblings made up a fake will and a sale
agreement, which transferred a key property to their mother, who at the time was in her 80s.
They also transferred most of the family's assets to other people such as labourers and
workers. The trial court ruled in favour of the appellant but later reversed some of its
findings. This appeal was then sent to the Supreme Court to have the documents related to the
will and the sale agreement of the property validated i.e., the will and the sale agreement of
the deceased stepmother were executed by her mother.
Background
The Appellant claimed that the family property was divided evenly among her and her three
siblings. The dispute revolved around their maternal uncle, who passed away on June 17,
1978, and had incorrectly transferred a portion of the property to his mother. A will was then
forged to distribute the leftover property to the servants and workers of the deceased
stepmother.
In 1988, the Trial Court ruled that the will and sale contract was fabricated and false.
According to her brother, the late stepmother could not have transferred the property to her
mother as she was already 80 years old.
Two appeals were submitted to the high court of Andhra Pradesh to challenge the trial court's
ruling. They sought the validity of the will and the sale contract. The court overturned the
trial court's ruling on the sale contract and also stated the will was invalid. It noted that the
will was made just two days before the death of the woman, which means that it was not
prepared properly. Also, the thumb impression and the contents of the will had a lot of space
left between them.
Facts of the Case
According to the allegations, the brother of the stepmother made up her will and
counterfeited a sale agreement, which would have led to the property being sold to her
mother.
The documents that were used in the will and sale agreement were declared invalid by the
court. The sale agreement was supposedly part of the same will.
Following an appeal, the high court reversed the trial court's verdict and found that the sale
agreement and the will were unenforceable.
The purpose of this appeal is to determine the validity of the documents and to distribute the
property to the surviving family members following the partition.
Issues Raised
1. Whether the Will, mentioned here true, valid, and binding on the siblings?
2. Whether the agreement of sale is true, valid, and binding which was executed by the
deceased stepmother?
Arguments of the Plaintiff and Defendant

Plaintiff; -
The learned counsel contended that the High Court had made a mistake in law when it
reversed the verdict of the trial court concerning the sale agreement. The Court did not
consider that the trial court's conclusions were neither erroneous nor lacked any merit.
The buyer, who was not able to explain why he didn't take the necessary steps after the
purchase consideration was paid, said he didn't want to wait for the regular sale deed to be
issued.
The council observed that in all the other transactions concerning the properties purchased by
the supposed purchaser, the sales were shown through the sale deeds of the deceased
stepmother of the seller. There was no cause for the vendee not to have the sale deed in his
favour.
The documents in query comprised the beneficiaries who were the close relatives of
defendant 4, the maternal uncle/brother of the stepmother. The trial court had rejected the
assertions about the will made by the defendant's uncle. The High Court agreed with those
conclusions.
The counsel also noted that the validity of the Will and the alleged sale agreement were
interrelated.
Respondent; -
The partition suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable. This was because
the plaintiff-appellant did not ask for the declaration of an agreement in dispute.
The plaintiff-appellant asked the court to determine that the sale of the property was not
lawful. He should have also requested that the agreement between defendant 15 and the buyer
be declared invalid and subject to partition.
Without seeking such a declaration, the suit for partition was not maintainable. This appeal
should therefore be dismissed.
The sale of the property was carried out before the Will was made. The finding that the Will
was invalid does not affect the agreement.
This agreement was executed based on which the sale was carried out on stamp paper. The
statement of witnesses who were involved in the sale and payment of a sum of Rs. 40,000/-
against sale consideration clearly showed that the sale was carried out according to the terms
of the agreement.
Legal Provisions; -
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The concept of a "Sale" is defined as the transfer of ownership, in exchange for a certain
price or promise or part-promised or promised price. This type of transfer can be made
through a registered instrument. In the case of a tangible property, the value of which is one
hundred, or in the case of a certain intangible asset, the transfer can only be made through a
registered instrument.
In the case of properties worth less than one hundred thousand rupees, the transfer can be
made through the use of a registered instrument or the delivery of the property. The seller
then places the buyer, who is the person he has instructed to take possession of the property,
in possession of it.
Contract for Sale - A contract for the sale of immovable property is a type of contract that
specifies the terms of the sale. It does not create any interest in the property or its value.
Observations and Considerations of the Court; -
The Court has formed three points of reference in the instant appeal. The facts surrounding
the case have created the basis for its determination.
Is it not maintainable for relief sought by the partition suit to seek a declaration against the
sale deed?
The Court explained that the declaration made under the partition suit is the initial step in the
process of establishing the ownership of the properties. It was also observed that the appellant
did not show any awareness of the terms of the sale agreement.
According to Section 54 of the 1882 Act, any interest is not created in an agreement for the
sale of immovable property. A person who got into an agreement for the sale of a property in
his favour did not get any right to the property. Even if he had the right to acquire the sale
deed, he did not have the right to invest the money in the property. The properties left by the
deceased mother of the applicant were not subject to the agreement.
Judgement; -
The documents related to the dispute, including the will and the sale agreement, were
rejected.
The sale agreement, which was a part of the will, was forged and fabricated. This was
confirmed by both the high court and the trial court. The purchase agreement's location gave
rise to a suspicion that defendant 15 was trying to buy the land outside of his settlement.
The trial court's original decree was reinstated. Apart from the trial court's costs, the plaintiff-
appellant was also awarded the expenditures of the litigation in the High Court and the
Supreme Court.
Analysis
The rules and regulations related to the transfer of immovable property in India are laid down
in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The act specifies the different ways in which a property
can be transferred, the legal requirements for such transfers, and the rights and obligations of
the parties involved.
In this case, the main issue was whether the transfer of the property by Koteswaramma to
Suryamba was valid. Koteswaramma argued that the transfer was made under coercion and
that she did not receive full consideration for the property. Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines
Coercion, it refers to the use of force or threat to obtain the consent of a person to enter a
contract. The contract is voidable if coercion is used, at the option of the party whose consent
was obtained through coercion.
However, in this case, the court found that there was no evidence of coercion. The transfer
was made voluntarily, and Koteswaramma had received full consideration for the property.
Therefore, the court held that the transfer was valid and that Suryamba was the rightful owner
of the property.
With regards to this case, we analyse Section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and
see that for a sale to take place, there must be a transfer of ownership of the property in
exchange for a price or other valuable consideration. The court also held that the sale must be
made through a registered instrument, as required by Section 54.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the appellant after decades of the legal battle. The
appellant sought to partition and distribute the property equally among the siblings. Although
the property was sold and distributed through various means, such as fake wills, the court
ruled that the distribution and partition were fair. The Supreme Court ruled that the sale
agreement and the will in question were null and void. The property was returned to the
surviving siblings. The case also shows that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming
that the transfer was invalid and that they must provide sufficient evidence to support their
claim.
The court also emphasized the importance of the S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which
provides a list of characteristics that are required for the sale to be concluded.