Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Tanu Ram Bora – Appellant
Versus
Promod Ch. Das (D) Through Lrs. and Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 2019 (Arising From SLP(C) No. 1135 of 2016)
Decided On : 08-02-2019
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 - Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred If at the time of transfer, vendor/transferor might have a defective title or have no title and/or no right or interest, however subsequently transferor acquires right, title or interest and contract of transfer subsists, in that case at option of transferee, such a transfer is valid In such a situation, transferor cannot be permitted to challenge transfer and/or transferor has no option to raise dispute in making transfer Intention and objects behind Section 43 of T.P. Act seems to be based on principle of estoppel as well as equity Section 43 of T.P. Act gives option to transferee and not transferor Intention of Section 43 of Act seems to be that nobody can be permitted to take benefits of his own wrong. (Paras 7.4 and 7.5)
Facts of Case:
Appellant herein/original plaintiff purchased suit land by a registered sale deed from Late husband of original defendant no. 2 and father of original defendant nos. 3 to 8. Suit land was declared as ceiling surplus land in year 1988 and consequently same was acquired by Government. However, subsequently, suit land was again declared ceiling free land. Thereafter, original plaintiff mutated land in his name and accordingly name of original plaintiff was recorded in Sadar Jamabandi. Original defendant no. 1, an Ex-Police Officer. illegally entered into suit land. Therefore, original plaintiff immediately filed Title Suit praying for giving possession of suit land by evicting defendant no. 1. Original plaintiff also prayed for a decree of declaration, declaring that he has a right, title and interest over suit land. Original plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction.
Findings of Court:
Heirs of original vendor are not contesting proceedings and they have never disputed right, title or interest of original plaintiff, and it is original defendant no.1 and now his heirs who are contesting proceedings. Heirs of original vendor have never initiated any proceedings for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 06.01.1990, and/or they have never claimed any right, title or interest in suit land after registered sale deed dated 06.01.1990.
Result Appeal allowed.
Please provide the legal document content within
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the High Court at Guwahati in R.S.A. No. 173/2003, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein/plaintiff and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit, confirmed by the first appellate Court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nut and shell are as under:
3.1 That the appellant herein/original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'original plaintiff) purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1990 from Late Pranab Kumar Bora, husband of original defendant no. 2 and father of original defendant nos. 3 to 8. It appears that the suit land was declared as ceiling surplus land in the year 1988 and consequently the same was acquired by the Government. However, subsequently on 14.09.1990, the suit land was again declared ceiling free land. That thereafter, the original plaintiff mutated the land in his name vide order dated 18.12.1991 in Mutation Case No. 94/91-92, and accordingly the name of the original plaintiff was recorded in the Sadar Jamabandi. It appears that the original defendant no. 1, an Ex-Police Officer. illegally entered into the suit land on 09.04.1995. Therefore, the original plaintiff immediately filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior division, which was numbered as Title Suit No. 230/1995, praying for giving possession of the suit land by evicting defendant no. 1. The original plaintiff also prayed for a decree of declaration, declaring that he has a right, title and interest over the suit land. The original plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction. That the said suit was filed in the month of July, 1995.
3.2 That the learned trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 28.08.1998 specifically holding that the original plaintiff purchased the suit land by valid document and has got right, title and interest over the suit land.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the original defendant no. 1 filed Title Appeal No. 36/1998 before the first appellate Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as original defendant nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, as such, they did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court holding that the original plaintiff purchased the suit land by valid document. That the first appellate Court, by its judgment and order dated 15.09.1999, allowed the said appeal preferred by original defendant no. 1 and remanded back the matter to the learned trial Court, framing an additional issue to the effect that "Whether the suit land was declared ceiling surplus land and as such it was acquired by the Government in the year 1988 and as such whether the vendor had any saleable right to sell the suit land to the plaintiff on 6.1.1990".
4.1 That thereafter on remand, the learned trial Court considering the additional issue dismissed the suit by holding that disputed land was declared as ceiling surplus land by the Government and therefore as such the vendor had no right to sell the suit land by sale deed dated 06.01.1990, and there being so, the original plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land.
4.2 The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court came to be confirmed by the first appellate Court, by judgment and order dated 04.06.2003. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while dismissing the appeal and concurring with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the vendor of the original plaintiff had no right to sell the suit land after the suit land was declared as ceiling surplus land, the first appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the defendants' rights over the suit land also could not be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
