2009 Supreme(SC) 528

2009(3) Supreme 460
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Ramakant Eknath Jajoo — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12154 of 2007)
Decided on : 23-03-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
A registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness of the transaction.
For a document to qualify as a sale deed must satisfy the requirements of a conveyance of sale as envisaged u/s 54, T.P. Act.
If the vendor does not transfer possession of the property to the vendee after registration of the sale deed, he makes himself liable for damages.

Headnote:(a) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 50 – A registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness of the transaction. (Para 13)

        (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – First Appellate Court has a duty to properly appreciate the evidence in the light of the pleadings of the parties – Respondent not examining himself despite being an attesting witness of the sale deed in question – An adverse inference, therefore, should have been drawn against him by the learned Trial Court. (Para 15)

        AIR 2007 SC 2191 – Relied upon.

        (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, rule 17 – An amended pleading is subject to just exceptions, and takes effect from the date when original one is filed. (Para 16)

        (d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII, rule 17 r/w section 18, Evidence Act, 1872 – Defendants though entitled to raise alternative and inconsistent plea, should not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of each other – Well settled that an admission made by a party in his pleadings is admissible against him proprio vigore. (Para 16)

        2008 (9) SCALE 144 – Relied upon.

        (e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 27 – The appellate court may allow the parties to adduce additional evidence following amendment. (Para 16)

        (f) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – For a document to qualify as a sale deed must satisfy the requirements of a conveyance of sale as envisaged u/s 54. (Para19)

        (2006) 4 SCC 432; (2000) 1 SCC 434; (2003) 6 SCC 595 – Relied upon.

        (g) Construction of document – When a true character of a document is questioned, extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is admissible. (Para 20)

        (2006) 1 SCC 697; (2003) 6 SCC 595; (2006) 6 SCC 293 – Relied upon.

        (h) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – The respondent being an income tax payee not adducing any evidence to account for the sum of 50000 paid to the appellant – Enough to draw adverse inference. (Para 21)

        (i) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 55 – If the vendor does not transfer possession of the property to the vendee after registration of the sale deed, he makes himself liable for damages. (Para 21)

        (j) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – First appellate court failing to take into consideration relevant facts and basing its decision on wholly irrelevant considerations – Not sustainable. (Para 21)

        (k) Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 136 and 226 – An equitable relief can be prayed for by a party who approaches the court with clean hands. (Para 25)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Father of the respondent was owner of four godowns and the land surrounding them admeasuring 1 acre and 4 guntas.

        2. Indisputably, a deed of sale was executed by the father of the respondent in favour of Vimal Chand Ghevar Chand Jain & Co., a partnership firm, on or about 29.6.1974. The said deed of sale was registered at Mumbai. Respondent himself was a witness to the said deed of sale.

        3. On or about 1.7.1978, the possession of the said property was allegedly handed over to the father of the respondent as a licensee at an agreed licence fee of Rs.1,257.50 per month. The said partnership firm was dissolved pursuant whereto the appellant became the owner of the said property. Appellants contend that the respondent had made payments towards licence fee by a cheque but when deposited, the same was dishonoured.

        4. On the said contention, appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession.

        5. The learned Trial Court held that Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act has no application. It was held that the appellants have failed to prove that the suit property was purchased by them by reason of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.6.1978. On the said findings, the suit was dismissed.

        6. The First Appellate Court, however, did not believe that part of the case of the appellant that the amount of loan had been repaid and partly allowed the appeal with cost.

        7. The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal preferred thereagainst,

       Finding of the Court :

        The plaintiff’s suit should have been decreed.

       Result : Appeal allowed with costs.