Moideenkutty Vs Abraham George (Supreme Court of India)
Concealment of mortgage vitiates land sale agreement; refund to buyer upheld- SC restores trial court decree
The Supreme Court in set aside the Kerala High Court’s remand order & restored the well-reasoned decree of the trial court directing refund of advance money with interest to the purchaser. The Court held that the High Court committed a serious error in reversing the trial court solely on the basis of a stray sentence in the cross-examination of the plaintiff suggesting prior knowledge of the bank mortgage. The Apex Court found that there was no interaction between the parties before September 2008 and no pleading or evidence from the defendant that the mortgage was disclosed before execution of the agreement. On the contrary, the defendant admitted the correctness of the agreement recitals, failed to reply to the legal notice alleging suppression of mortgage, did not utilise the advance to clear the bank dues, and even agreed to reduce the sale consideration later—conduct which clearly established concealment and deceit. The Court further held that reliance by the buyer on the seller’s assurance that original title deeds were kept in a bank locker was neither unnatural nor imprudent in the facts of the case. Consequently, the alleged loss claimed by the seller on subsequent distress sale could not be set-off, and the trial court was justified in decreeing refund with interest. The High Court’s remand was held to be unjustified, and the trial court decree was fully restored.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
