1994 Supreme(SC) 1301

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Sahai and N.P. Singh, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 9227 of 1994
Decided On: 14.12.1994
Ishwari Devi (Smt) Appellants
Vs.
Sarla Devi (Smt) and Ors. Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Dhurv Mehta, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Ashok Kumar, Gargi Khanna and Madhu Moolchandani, Advs.

Headnote:

Suit for land possession - Sale deed - Possession of property and land sold has been handed over to vendee today - Possession of one set is with husband of vendee and possession of rest of property is given through tenants - Tenants living in above property are - Prior to construing sale deed and finding out whether what was transferred was entire owned by or only Biswas of Khasra it is necessary to mention few facts not with a view to decide title of appellant but to emphasis that things were not as they have been made out by District Judge which has resulted in not only in grave error of law but even gross miscarriage of Justice - Appellant is wife of who was tenant of one sets and was mentioned in sale deed at - Respondent is daughter-in-law of who was also tenant of one set and was mentioned as - In appellant filed a petition for eviction of - It was contested by him - He denied ownership of appellant - On this entry claimed that area of was biswas out of which biswas was transferred in favour of appellant - Rent Control Officer that claim was based on misapprehension as details of biswas mentioned in Khasra was added up to submit that total area was biswas - What is necessary to be mentioned that never claimed that only a part of was sold and portion in his occupation continued to be with or his successor - In application for eviction was allowed only to extent that was found in arrears from at rate of - But was probably aware that total area over which building was standing was biswas - Rent Control Officer allowed application and commended adversely against - Then respondent filed present suit for declaration that two orders passed by Rent Control Officer were null and void and sought an injunction restraining appellant from interfering in her possession - Suit was dismissed by Trial Court - It was that sale deed in favour of respondent was invalid - Oral and documentary evidence was rejected and recitals in sale deed of were to be conclusive - Trial Court further noticed that when eviction proceedings were started by appellant against another tenant he went to length of denying title of appellant and claimed that entire right and title of vested in respondent - In appeal District Judge relying on evidence of Kanungo who had gone to demarcate area on spot tax receipts and report of Commissioner allowed appeal - It was that since sold only four biswas of Khasra and no corrigendum was issued sale of remaining area of three biswas of which had separate Khasra by his sons in favour of respondent was valid - Order was maintained by High Court - Held, Where property has been specifically identified in a deed any ambiguity or inconsistency arising out of it has to be disregarded - As explained earlier recital in sale deed is clear and unequivocal - Vendor who was owner of intended without any reservations to transfer two storeyed building called in favour of appellant - This could not be diluted merely because area was mentioned as four biswas - Appellant became owner of entire and entire area stood vested in her - Erroneous recital in sale deed that was situated in biswas would not in any manner affect title of appellant - Counsel for respondent attempted to support order by placing reliance on report of Commissioner and undertaking given by appellant before District Judge that if building was found situated in any other Khasra than Khasra then she would not claim any right over it - But what was lost sight of was that appellant was so sure due to description of area in Jamabandi that it must not have crossed her mind that there was a mistake or error in it - Nor she could have been aware of planning of who after advancing a preposterous argument on description of property in jamabandi of in column proceeded to give it shape by getting biswas entered in name of same year and then got an ex-parte report from Kanungo that was situated in two plots - Appellant was not aware of all this and therefore she appears to have agreed for appointment of a commissioner who when went to spot and having found that area being biswas and being entered in Khasra and in Khasra had no option except to submit report in favour of respondent - But it was duty of court to have attempted to find out truth by sending for original revenue records and find out if actually there was any Khasra before - Same was with ex-parte report of Kanungo - Tax receipts too mentioned appellant as owner of entire - In any case even assuming that biswas of fall in Khasra who undisputedly was owner of entire having transferred entire property in favour of appellant title passed to her over entire area whether it fell under Khasra - Submission of respondent therefore is liable to be rejected - Appeal Allowed