D.R. RATHNA MURTHYversusRAMAPPA

                    [2010] 12 S.C.R. 755

                   D.R. RATHNA MURTHY                             A
                              V.
                         RAMAPPA
              (Civil Appeal No. 6396 OF 2002)

                     OCTOBER 8, 2010
                                                                  B
     [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

     Deeds and documents.·

      Document containing interlineations or alterations - Suit   c
 land sold by registered sale deed - After few years, vendor
seeking re-purchase of land by claiming that the sale by him
 was conditional - Jn the sale deed, the word 'avadhi' was
 inserted in three places in the margin and an insertion of a
clause was made in the last part of the sale deed to make it      0
conditional - Held: Rule 42 mandatorily requires that if there
is any interlineations, erasures, alterations etc., it must be
mentioned and described at the foot of the document and
must be duly signed by the executant before the document
is accepted for registration - Nothing was endorsed at the foot   E
of the sale deed, nor did it bear signatures of the executant -
 The word "Avadhi" inserted at three places in the margin of
the sale deed was not attested by the executant - Thus, Rule
42 was not complied with - The manner in which
interlineations were made in the document itself revealed that
the insertions were made subsequent to the execution of the       F
document with a purpose to convert the absolute sale deed
into conditional sale deed - The insertions in question were
surrounded by the suspicious circumstances of a grave nature
and, therefore, the same were required to be ignored -
Registration - Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 - rr. 41, 42.   G

    Admissibility of a document - Held: Document may be
admissible but probative value of the entries contained therein
may still be required to be examined in the facts and
                             755                                  H
    756     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A circumstances of a particular case

        Appeal Second appeal - Scope of interference - Held.
    High Court can interfere with the findings of fact even in the
    second appeal, provided the findings recorded by the courts
    below are found to be perverse i.e. not being based on the
8
    evidence or contrary to the evidence on record or the
    reasoning is based on surmises and misreading of the
    evidence on record or where the core issue is not decided.

       The suit land was purchased by the appellant on
C 23rd April, 1986 by way of a registered sale deed for a
  consideration of Rs.10,000. The next day, the appellant
  sold the said land by way of a registered sale deed (Ex
  P-4) to the respondent for Rs.10,000. In the year 1991-
  1992, the appellant served a notice on the respondent
D demanding the re-conveyance of the suit land on the
  ground that the sale deed dated 24th April, 1986 executed
  in favour of respondent was a conditional sale deed and
  appellant had a right to re-purchase the suit land for
  Rs.10,000/- within a period of ten years from the date of
E execution of the sale deed. The respondent did not
  respond to the notice. The appellant filed a suit for
  specific performance. The said suit was contested by the
  respondent on the ground that there was an absolute
  sale deed in his favour and the terms of re-conveyance
F were fraudulently inserted by the appellant after the
  execution of the document and that the manipulation was
  done at several places in the said sale deed and the word
  'Avadhi' was inserted in three places in the margin and
  the last part i.e. Ex. D-2 was added after the execution of
G the sale deed i.e. Ex. P-4. The trial court dismissed the
  suit. The first appellate court held that it was a
  conditional sale deed and directed the respondent to
  execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant. The High
  Court reversed the judgment of the first appellate court
  and restored that of the trial court. The instant appeal
H
        D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                757


was filed challenging the judgment of the High Court.       A

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the High Court can
interfere with the findings of fact even in the second
appeal, provided the findings recorded by the courts        B
below are found to be perverse i.e. not being based on
the evidence or contrary to the evidence on record or the
reasoning is based on surmises and misreading of the
evidence on record or where the core issue is not
decided. There is no absolute bar on the re-appreciation    C
of evidence in those proceedings, however, such a
course is permissible in exceptional circumstances. [Para
7] [764-F-G]

    Rajappa       Hanamantha     Ranoji    v.   Mahadev     o
Channabasappa & Ors. AIR SC 2000 2108; Hafazat Hussain
v. Abdul Majeed & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 189; Bharatha Matha
& Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. JT 2010 (5) SC 534
- relied on.

     2.1. The sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, was a       E
 registered document. The document was admitted by the
other side. Most of the contents were also admitted.
However, it was disputed that the word "Avadhi" and last
clause were inserted subsequent to execution of the
document. In such a fact-situation, the probative value     F
of that part of the document was required to be
assessed. The appellant had examined himself, the scribe
and one of the attesting witnesses to the document. The
trial court relied upon the deposition of the attesting
witness of the sale deed, wherein he had admitted in
cross-examination that there was no clause as to after
how many years the suit land was to be re-purchased and
the word "Avadhi" was written in the margin after
completion of the document. In view of the said findings,
the suit was dismissed. The first appellate court had
    758     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A unnecessarily laboured to find fault with the trial court's
  judgment and without realising that there was
  contradiction in the oral testimony of two marginal
  witnesses, re-appreciated the entire evidence and
  reached the contrary conclusion. [Paras 8-10] [764-H; A;
B 765-D; 766-8-D]

      2.2. Attestation testifies/certifies the genuineness of
  the document. Attestation and execution are different
  acts, one following the other. Execution includes delivery
  and signing of the document in the presence of the
C witnesses and also the whole series of acts or formalities
  which are necessary to render the document valid.
  Attestation of sale deed is imperative. [Para 15.2] [770-B]

         2.3. Rule 41 of the Karnataka Registration Rules,
D   1965 provides for examination of a document by the
    Registering Officer and made an obligation on his part
    that if there are unattested interlineations, alterations,
    erasures or blanks, which the Registering Officer
    considers should be attested, by the signatures of the
E   executant, he shall not alter the document himself in any
    way. Rule 42 mandatorily requires that if there is any
    interlineations, erasure, alteration etc., it must be
    mentioned and described at the foot of the document and
    must be duly signed by the executant before the
F   document is accepted for registration. In the instant case,
    the provisions of Rule 42 were not complied with.
    Nothing was endorsed at the foot of the sale deed, nor it
    bore signatures of the executant. The word "Avadhi" was
    inserted at three places in the margin of the sale deed. It
G   was not attested by the executant. The part Ex. D-2 was
    inserted in Ex.P-4 in an unusual manner. The entire sale
    deed was scribed in double space while the part Ex.D-2
    was in single space. It was necessary to do so as the
    parties had already signed the document. Had it been
H   written in ordinary course, it could have gone below the
         D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                  759

signatures of the parties in the sale deed. Therefore, it is   A
crystal clear that such insertion were made to convert the
absolute sale deed into a conditional sale deed. Thus, the
trial court and the High Court rightly believed the
testimony of the respondent that there was no mention
of Ex.D-1 and D-2 in Ex.P-4 and the appellant was not          B
entitled for re-conveyance of the suit property. The
manner in which interlineations were made in the
document itself revealed that the addition was made
subsequent to the execution of the document otherwise
there was enough space to insert such a clause in the          c
same manner in which the entire sale had been scribed.
This particular clause had to be squeezed in a small
space and to adjust the same before the signature already
made by the appellant. The first appellate court committed
grave error in not properly appreciating the evidence of       0
PW.1 and PW.2 in this regard, though the Court took
note of the admission made by PW.2, the attestator, that
no time was fixed for re-conveyance, thus, the term
"Avadhi" was written in 'margin' and also Ex.D-2 was
written after Ex.P-4 has completely been written. [Paras
                                                               E
12-13] [765-C-F-H; 768-A-F]

    Du/aria Devi v. Janardan Singh & Ors. AIR 1990 SC
1173 - relied on.

     2.4. It was admitted by the appellant that he sold the    F
land to the respondent as he was in dire need of money
to pay to his vendee. He had himself purchased the
property only one day before i.e. on 23rd April, 1986. It is
not understandable if the appellant was not having
money, why did he purchase the property from his vendor        G
on 23rd April, 1986 and in order to pay him the sale
consideration sold it to the respondent on the very next
day i.e. on 24th April, 1986 for the same amount. There
is nothing on record to show as under what
circumstances the sale deed was executed in favour of
                                                               H
   760     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A the appellant by his vendor without receiving the sale
  consideration and how could he be put in possession.
  The first appellate court failed to appreciate that there
  was no shara (noting) in respect of interlineations in the
  sale deed. Had it been a case of conditional sale, the
B appellant could have asked the respondent to wait for
  mutation or raise the objection before the Revenue
  Authorities in spite of the fact that mutation is a revenue
  entry and does not refer to the title of the land. Had it
  been the case of conditional sale deed enabling the
c appella.1t to repurchase the land any time within ten
  years, the respondent could not have spent huge
  amount of his life savings for improving the land, nor
  would he have dug a Well in the suit land spending
  twenty thousand of rupees. The said circumstances
0 would make it clear that the respondent had never agreed
  for re-conveyance. [Para 14 and 15] [768-G-H; 769-A-B;
   F-H]

       Bharatha Matha & Anr v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.
  JT 2010 (5) SC 534; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Radha
E Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 1984 - relied on.

      3. The case is required to be examined from another
  angle also. The appellant had purchased the land for a
  consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 23rd April, 1986. He sold
F the land on the very next date for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
  reserving his right to purchase the land for the same
  consideration within a period of ten years. In normal
  circumstances, the vendor would not agree for
  reconveyance for the same consideration for the reason
G that the value of the land generally goes upwards and
  within a period of ten years it could have at least become
  double. [Para 16] [770-E-F]

       Sardar Jogender Singh v. State of UP. (2008) 17 SCC
  133; Satish & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 758
H - relied on.
        D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                 761


     4. The circumstances made it abundantly clear that A
the appellant had made interlineations after the document
stood executed. The said additions were made without
the consent and knowledge of the respondent. In fact, the
mind of the respondent did not actuate with his hand
while putting his thumb impression on the said sale deed B
at the time of registration. Thus, the additions so made by
the appellant cannot be binding on the respondent. The
additions in question were surrounded by the suspicious
circumstances of a grave nature and, therefore, the same
were required to be ignored. The contract being              c
severable, the terms of contract included by these
additions being void, cannot be taken note of. [Para 17]
[770-G-H; 771-A]
                    Case Law Reference:
                                                             D
    AIR SC 2000 2108        relied on            Para 7
    (2001) 1 sec 189        relied on            Para 7
    JT 2010 (5) SC 534      relied on            Para 7
    AIR 1983 SC 1984        relied on            Para 15.2   E
    (2008) 11 sec 133       relied on            Para 16
    (2009) 14 sec 758       relied on            Para 16
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
                                                             F
6396 of 2002.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 02.04.2002 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No. 446 of 1999.
    Naveen R. Nath, Amrita Sharma and L. Mohan Bhat for the G
Appellant.
     Girish Ananthamurthy, D.R. Ramesh, Nagaiah and
Vaijayanthi Girish for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                             H
    762     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010) 12 S.C.R.


A      Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
  against the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2002 passed
  by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A No. 446
  of 1996, reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court
  dated 10.3.1999, passed in RFA No.133 of 1995; and restoring
B the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.11.1995 in
  O.S. No. 122of1992. The trial court had dismissed the suit of
  the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) for
  specific performance.

C       2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
  that the appellant, D.R. Rathna Murthy, had purchased the land
  in question vide registered sale deed dated 23rd April, 1986
  from one A.M. Venkatachalapathy Setty for a consideration of
  Rs. 10,000/-. On the very next day, the appellant sold the said
  land vide registered sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, to the
D defendanUrespondent (hereinafter called the respondent) for
  consideration of Rs.10,000/- only and delivered the possession
  to him. In pursuance of the said sale deed dated 24th April,
  1986, the respondent is in possession of the suit land. The
  appellant subsequently served a legal notice upon the
E respondent in the year 1991-1992 demanding the
  reconveyance of the suit property on the ground that registered
  sale deed executed in favour of respondent dated 24th April,
  1986 was a conditional sale deed and appellant had a right to
  repurchase the sale land for the same consideration of
F Rs.10,000/- within a period of ten years from the date of
  execution of the sale deed.

       3. The respondent did not make any response to the said
  legal notice, thus, the appellant filed Original Suit No. 122 of
G 1992 before the court of Munsiff and JMFC Court, Mulbagal,
  seeking the relief of specific performance. The said Suit was
  contested by the respondent contending that there was an
  absolute sale deed in his favour and it was not a conditional
  sale deed, the term of reconveyance had been fraudulently
H inserted by the appellant after the execution of the document.
          D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                       763
                [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Manipulation had been done at several places in the said sale        A
deed after the execution and the appellant had put in the word
"Avadhi", which means tenure, just to make the same a
conditional sale deed. The trial court considered the case of
both the parties and dismissed the Suit vide judgment and
decree dated 15th November, 1995.                                    B

     4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the First
Appellate Court by filing RFA No.133/1995, and the appeal
was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10th March,
1999. The First Appellate Court held that it was a conditional
sale deed, thus, the Court directed the respondent to execute
                                                                     c
the sale deed in favour of the appellant. The respondent
approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second
Appeal i.e. RS.A. No. 446of1999 under Section 100 of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as · C.P .C.')
and the said appeal has been allowed by the High Court vide          D
judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2002. Hence, this appeal.

       5. Shri Naveen R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the
 appellant has submitted that the sale executed by the appellant
 in favour of the respondent was a conditional sale deed and         E
 thus, he had a right to repurchase the land any time within a
 period of ten years from the date of the execution of the sale
 deed. The appellant exercised his option within the period
 prescribed in the conditional sale deed. The trial court has
erred in dismissing the suit, however, the First Appellate Court     F
 after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record came
 to the conclusion that it was a conditional sale deed and not
a case of absolute sale. The High Court ought not to have
 reversed the said findings of fact 'as it is not permissible to
appreciate the evidence in second appeal, and no substantial
                                                                     G
question of law was involved in the appeal. The High Court
recorded a totally perverse finding that it was a case of absolute
sale. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

     6. On the contrary, Shri Girish Anantha Murthy, learned
                                                                     H
    764     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A counsel appearing for the respondent, has vehemently
  opposed the appeal contending that the sale deed in favour of
  respondent was an absolute sale deed and it is not a
  conditional sale deed. The word "Avadhi" was inserted in the
  margin of said deed at three places and a term of
B reconveyance within a period of ten years was added in the
  same after its execution and prior to registration. Such an
  insertion of said word "Avadhi'' at three places and the addition
  of the last clause providing for reconveyance was without the
  consent and knowledge of the respondent; therefore. he cannot
C be bound by the said terms. In case of contradictions between
  the oral evidence of the witnesses of both the sides, the First
  Appellate Court should not have re-appreciated the entire
  evidence and thus, there was no occasion for the First Appellate
  Court to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial court.
  The judgment and order of the High Court does not require any
0
  interference, the appeal lacks merit and, accordingly, is liable
  to be dismissed.

         7. We have considered the rival submissions made by
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
E
       Undoubtedly, the High Court can interfere with the findings
  of fact even in the Second Appeal, provided the findings
  recorded by the courts below are found to be perverse i.e. not
  being based on the evidence or contrary to the evidence on
F record or reasoning is based on surmises and misreading of
  the evidence on record or where the core issue is not decided.
  There is no absolute bar on the re-appreciation of evidence in
  those proceedings, however, such a course is permissible in
  exceptional circumstances. (Vide Rajappa Hanamantha
  Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & Ors., AIR SC 2000
G 2108; Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC
  189; and Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan
  & Ors., JT 2010 (5) SC 534)

      8. The sale deed dated 24th April, 1986, is a registered
H document. The document is admitted by the other side. Most
         D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                           765
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN. J.]
of the contents are also admitted. However, it is disputed that         A
the word "Avadhi" and last ciause have been inserted
subsequent to execution of the document. In such a fact-
situation, the probative value of that part of the document is
required to be assessed. It becomes a case as if the
respondent had never intended to have conditional sale deed.            B
He never intended to enter into a contract to which certain part
was not even known to him. The part of the contract as had been
inserted after his signature i.e., after execution of the document
cannot be binding upon him. If such averments are accepted,
it becomes a clear cut case of manipulation/fraud by the                c
appellant. (Vide Ou/aria Devi v. Janardan Singh & Ors., AIR
1990 SC 1173)

     9. The appellant has examined himself and two other
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3. The other persons had been the
scribe and attesting witnesses to the document. Copies of the           D
said sale deed were produced and marked as Ex. P-1 to P-
4. The respondent examined himself as DW-1. Two other
witnesses including one attesting witness were also examined
by him in defence. The trial court framed four issues :
                                                                        E
     (1) Whether plaintiff proves that under sale deed dated
     24.4.86 he has got right to purchase the suit schedule
     property?

     (2) Whether plaintiff further proves that he is entitled for the
                                                                        F
     specific relief of specific performance of contract?

    (3) Whether the defendant proves that suit is not
    maintainable and not complied with the mandatory
    provisions required under Section 16(3) of the Specific
    Relief Act?                                                         G
    (4) To what relief the parties are entitled?

    10. The trial court appreciated the evidence of the parties
and their witnesses and came to the conclusion that the word
"Avadhi" and the last part of the sale deed were inserted after         H
    766       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A the execution of the document making it a conditional sale deed
  from absolute sale deed. The trial court while reaching this
  conclusion relied upon the deposition of Gopalakrishna (PW.2),
  the attesting witness of the sale deed, wherein he had admitted
  in cross-examination that there was no clause as to after how
B many years the suit land has to be repurchased and the word
  "Avadhi" was written in the margin after completion of the
  document. The last part i.e. Ex. D-2 was added after the
  execution of the sale deed i.e. Ex. P-4, thus, it was evident that
  the appellant and his scribe inserted the word "Avadhi" in Ex.P-
C 4 and also inserted the portion Ex.D-2 and it is so evident even
  to the naked eyes. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit
  was dismissed. The First Appellate Court had unnecessarily
  laboured to find fault with the trial court's judgment and without
  realising that there was contradiction in the oral testimony of
  two marginal witnesses, re-appreciated the entire evidence and
0
  reached the contrary conclusion. The High Court realising that
  the findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court were
  perverse, proceeded with appreciation of evidence and came
  to the conclusion that the trial court was right in holding that the
  word "Avadhi" had been inserted at three places in the margin
E and last part of the sale deed Ex.D-2 in Ex.P-4 had been added
  subsequent to the execution of the sale deed. The findings so
  recorded by the High Court are based on a proper appreciation
  of evidence and the statutory provisions applicable in the case.
  Admittedly, there had been interlineations in the sale deed.
F
          11. Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as
          under:

          "Documents containing interlineations, blanks,
          erasures or alterations.-
G
          (1) The registering officer may in his discretion refuse to
          accept for registration any document in which any
          interlineations, blank, erasure or alteration appears, unless
          the persons executing the document attest with their
H         signatures or initials such interlineations, blank, erasure or
         D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                       767
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    alteration.                                                      A

    (2) If the registering officer registers any such document,
    he shall, at the time of registering the same, make a note
    in the register of such interlineations, blank, erasure or
    alteration."
                                                                     ·B
     It appears that vide Karnataka Act No. 41 of 1984, Clause
2 of Section 20 has been deleted, w.e.f. 7th November, 1986,
however, corresponding provisions in Karnataka Registration
Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the Rules), providing for similar
requirement have not been amended. Rule 41 of the said Rules         C
provided examination of a document by the Registering Officer
and made an obligation on his part that if there are unattested
interlineations, alterations, erasures or blanks, which the
Registering Officer considers should be attested, by the
signatures of the executant, he shall not alter the document         D
himself in any way.

     12. Rule 42 of Rules reads as under:

     "Manner of noting interlineations, etc.- Each important
     interlineations, erasure or alteration occurring in a            E
     document shall, whenever possible, be caused to be noted
     or described at the foot of the document and to be signed
     by the executant before the document is accepted for
     registration .... "
                                                                      F
      Therefore, Rule 42 mandatorily requires that if there is any
interlineation, erasure, alteration etc., it must be mentioned and
described at the foot of the document and must be duly signed
by the executant before the document is accepted for
registration.                                                        G

     13. In the instant case, we have, ourselves examined
certified copy of the said sale deed, and found that the
provisions of Rule 42 have not been complied with. Nothing
has been endorsed at the foot of the sale deed, nor it bears
signatures of the executant. The word "Avadhi" has been               H
    768      SUPf~EME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A inserted at three places in the margin of the sale deed. It has
  not be attested by the executant. The part Ex. D-2 had been
  inserted in Ex.P-4 in an unusual manner. The entire sale deed
  has been scribed in double space while the part Ex.D-2 is in
  single space. It was necessary to do so as the parties had
B already signed the document. Had it been written in ordinary
  course, it could have gone below the signatures of the parties
  in the sale deed. Therefore, it is crystal clear that such insertion
  had been made to convert the absolute sale deed into a
  conditional sale deed. Thus, we are of the view that the trial
C court and the High Court have rightly believed the testimony
  of the respondent that there was no mention of Ex0-1 and D-
  2 in Ex.P-4 and the appellant was not entitled for reconveyance
  of the suit property. The manner in which interlineations have
  been made in the document itself reveal that addition was
  made subsequent to the execution of the document otherwise
0
  there was enough space to insert such a clause in the same
  manner in which the entire sale had been scribed This
  particular clause had to be squeezed in a small space and to
  adjust the same before the signature already made by the
  appellant. The First Appellate Court committed grave error in
E not properly appreciating the evidence of D.R. Rathna Murthy
  (PW.1) and Gopalakrishna (PW.2) in this regard, though the
  Court took note of the admission made by Gopalakrishna
  (PW.2), the attestator, that no time was fixed for reconveyance,
  thus, the term "Avadhi" was written in 'margin' and also Ex.O-
F 2 was written after Ex.P-4 has completely been written.

       14. D.R Rathna Murthy (PW.1) had also admitted that he
  sold the land to the respondent as he was in dire need of money
  to pay to his Vendee. He had himself purchased the property
G only one day before i.e. on 23rd April, 1986. We fail to
  understand if the appellant was not having money, why did he
  purchase thei property from his vendor on 23rd April, 1986 and
  in order to pay him the sale consideration sold it to the
  respondent on the very next day i.e. on 24th April, 1986 for the
H same amount. There is nothing on record to show as under
         D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                           769
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
what circumstances the sale deed had been executed in favour             A
of the appellant by his vendor without receiving the sale
consideration and how could he be put in possession. ·

    15. The First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that there
was no shara (noting) in respect of interlineations in the sale
                                                                         B
deed. The respondent had deposed as under:

    "At that time there was no mention in respect of conditional
    sale deed. In front of sub registrar nothing was spoken
    about the conditional sale deed. At the time of purchase
    the suit land was fallen land. After purchase I formed the           C
    land and improved its fertility. I spent about 10 to 15,000/
    - for the improvement of the land. I grow ragi and ground
    nut crops. I dig one Well in the suit land. I spent Rs.20,000/
    - to dug the Well. Prior to filling of this suit plaintiff did not
    approach me with a request to execute sale deed in his               D
    favour. No panchayat was held in respect of the suit lands.
    Neither witnesses nor scribe intimated me about the
    Avadhi transaction in respect of suit lands. At the time of
    change of revenue records the plaintiff did not file any
    objections contending that the sale is conditional one. I            E
    came to know about the Avadhi only after filing of this suit.
    I sent reply notice to the plaintiff's legal notice. After sale
    the plaintiff is not related to suit land. I have not agreed
    for re sale of suit land''.
                                                                         F
     Had it been a case of conditional sale, the appellant could
have asked the respondent to wait for mutation or raise the
objection before the Revenue Authorities.in spite of the fact that
mutation is a revenue entry and does not refer to the title of the
land. Had it been the case of conditional sale deed enabling
the appellant to repurchase the land any time within ten years,          G
the respondent could not have spent huge amount of his life
savings for improving the land, nor would he have dug a Well
in the suit land spending twenty thousand of rupees. The
aforesaid circumstances make it clear that the respondent had
never agreed for reconveyance.                                           H
    770       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A         15. The interlineations had been made at four places in
    the sale deed. Word "Avadhi" had been mentioned at three
    places in the margin of the sale deed. The appellant did not
    attest the said word by putting his signatures at the time of
    registration. Attestation testifies/certifies the genuineness of the
s   document. Attestation and execution are different acts, one
    following the other. Execution includes delivery and signing of
    the document in the presence of the witnesses and also the
    whole series of acts or formalities which are necessary to
    render the document valid. Attestation of sale deed is
c   imperative. In the instant case, we find that the animus to
    attestation remain totally absent. It is settled legal proposition
    that the document may be admissible but probative value of the
    entries contained therein may still be required to be examined
    in the fact and circumstances of a particular case. (Vide State
    of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh & Ors., AIR 1983
0
    SC 1984; and Bharatha Matha & Anr. (Supra).

        16. The case is required to be examined from another
  angle also. The appellant had purchased the land for a
  consideration of Rs.10,000/-, on 23rd April, 1986. He sold the
E land on the very next date for a sum of Rs.10,000/- reserving
  his right to purchase the land for the same consideration within
  a period of ten years. In normal circumstances, the vendor
  would not agree for reconveyance for the same consideration
  for the reason that the value of the land generally goes upwards
F and within a period of ten years it could have at least become
  double. (See Sardar Jogender Singh v. State of UP., (2008)
  17 SCC 133; and Satish & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors., (2009)
  14 sec 758).

G       17. The aforesaid circumstances make it abundantly clear
  that the appellant has made inter-lineations after the document
  stood executed. The said additions were made without the
  consent and knowledge of the respondent. In fact the mind of
  the respondent did not actuate with his hand while putting his
H thumb impression on the said sale deed at the time of
           D.R. RATHNA MURTHY v. RAMAPPA                     771
                 [OR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
                                           '
registration. Thus, the additions so made by the appellant cannot   A
be binding on the respondent. The additions in question are
surrounded by the suspicious circumstances of a grave nature
and, therefore, the same are required to be ignored. The
contract being severable, the terms of contract included by
these additions being void, cannot be taken note of.                B

     In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal and it
lacks merit and, is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.

D.G.                                        Appeal dismissed.       C