1. Suit for possession — Unregistered sale deed of joint family property — Defence of possession under Section 53A, TP Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 949
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ruma Pal : V.N.Khare
Balmik
Versus
Ramnaresh Singh
Case No. : 6100 of 1997
Date of Decision : 7/19/01
To defend possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, a valid agreement must exist. Appellate courts must evaluate critical trial court findings regarding the genuineness of signatures and legal necessity in the sale of joint family property.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A - Possession based on unregistered sale deed - Validity of agreement - Defendants can defend possession under Section 53A only if it is found that there was a valid agreement between the parties - Where the execution of an unregistered sale deed is challenged on the grounds of fraud or forgery, the appellate court is required to consider whether such a deed was actually executed. (Para 3)
(B) Joint Family Property - Sale on behalf of a minor - Legal necessity - Where property is joint family property, it cannot be sold on behalf of a minor unless there is a legal necessity; failure of the appellate courts to consider this aspect warrants a remand of the matter. (Para 3)
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of review - If the trial court records a finding that a signature is fraudulent, the first appellate court must evaluate the genuineness of that signature before setting aside the decree. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The defendants claimed possession of a property based on an unregistered sale deed executed by the owner, acting also on behalf of a minor brother. The owner subsequently transferred the property to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession. The trial court decreed the suit after finding that the signature of the owner on the unregistered sale deed was fraudulent. However, the first appellate court set aside this decree, and the High Court dismissed the second appeal, without neither court considering the genuineness of the signature or the requirement of legal necessity for the sale of joint family property involving a minor.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate court failed in its legal duty to consider whether the unregistered sale deed was genuinely executed by the owner and whether the transfer was performed for the legal necessity of the family, both of which are essential for the defendants to defend their possession.
Issues: Whether the first appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's decree without adjudicating upon the genuineness of the signature on the unregistered sale deed and the existence of legal necessity regarding the sale of joint family property.
Ratio Decidendi: To defend possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, a valid agreement must be proven. When a trial court finds a signature to be fraudulent, the appellate court must specifically address that finding and the issue of legal necessity for family property transfers before deciding the appeal.
Result: Appeal allowed. Judgment of the first appellate court and second appellate court set aside, and matter remanded to the first appellate court to decide the appeal afresh on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
-
contract law
-
specific performance
- limitation (Para 2)
-
specific performance
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued the appellate courts failed to consider whether sale deed signature was fraudulent and whether legal necessity existed. (Para 3 )
3. Courts below did not consider genuineness of signature on unregistered sale deed or question of legal necessity for transfer. (Para 3 )
4. Defence under Section 53A, TP Act requires proof of a valid agreement; appellate court must consider both signature genuineness and legal necessity. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — judgments set aside — matter remanded to first appellate court for fresh decision on merits. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Can possession be defended under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act without a valid agreement?
No, a defendant can defend possession under Section 53A only if there was a valid agreement between the parties, which requires proof of genuine signature and, if relevant, legal necessity. (Para 3 )
7. What must an appellate court consider when an unregistered sale deed is relied upon to defend possession?
The appellate court must consider whether the signature on the unregistered sale deed is genuine and, in case of joint family property, whether the transfer was for legal necessity. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
V.N.Khare, J.
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirming the judgment of the first appellate court whereby the decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit was dismissed.
(2) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are these: It is the case of defendant-respondents 1-6 that Ramadhar-respondent No. 7 executed a usufructuary mortgage in their favour as far back in the year 1957 and in pursuance thereof delivered the possession of the said property to them. It is also alleged that subsequently on 29-5-59, Ramadhar himself as well as on behalf of his brother, who was then a minor, executed sale deed in respect of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 665/-. It is not disputed that the said sale deed was not registered. Subsequently, respondent No. 7 transferred the aforesaid property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant herein by a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 1,200/-. It appears that after the sale deed was executed, there arose a dispute in regard to possession of the property, and proceeding under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure was taken between the parties. Thereafter defendant-respondent 1-6 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29.5.59,which subsequently was registered as suit no. 52A/72. The trial court decided other issues in favour of the plaintiff but dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. No appeal thereafter was preferred against the said decree.After some time, the plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute. In the said suit, defendant-respondents 1-6 filed written statement wherein they defended their possession on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 29-5-59. Respondent No. 7, owner of the property, also filed a separate written statement. Several issues were framed in the said suit and one of the issues was as to whether the sale deed dated 29.5.59 was executed by Ramadhar or not. The trial court was of the view that the signature of Ramadhar on the sale deed is fraudulent. In that view of the matter, the .very basis of the defendant-respondents case was knocked off. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved, defendant-respondents 1-6 preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court, without considering the question as to whether the signature of Ramadhar on the unregistered sale deed dated 29-5-59 was genuine or not, allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the decree of the trial court.The plaintiff thereafter preferred second appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment; the plaintiff-appellant is in appeal before us.
(3) LEARNED counsel took us through the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that the trial court after having recorded finding that signature of Ramadhar, one of the owners of the property, on the sale deed, was fraudulent, decreed the suit but the said aspect of the matter was neither considered by the first appellate court nor by the second appellate court. It was also urged that the property being a joint family property, unless there was a legal necessity, the same could not have been sold on behalf of the minor and this aspect of the matter was also neither considered by the first appellate court nor the second appellate court. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. We have ourselves gone into the judgment of the courts below, but do not find that either the first appellate court or the second appellate court have gone into the question of genuineness of the signature of Ramadhar on the unregistered sale deed dated 29-5-59 and also on the question of legal necessity to sell the property by respondent No. 7. The defendants can defend their possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act only if it is found that there was a v
