Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 20

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Manik Majumder and Others - Appellants
Versus
Dipak Kumar Saha (Dead) through Lrs. & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2965 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, Adv. Mrs. Kakali Roy, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bhati, Adv. Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) [By Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah]]Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were not required to challenge sale deeds in suit filed by plaintiffs who prayed for a decree for a declaration of title in their favour.
(2) [By Hon'ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna] Title Declaratory Suit – Registered document carries with it, by virtue of it being registered, presumption as to authority of person executing it.

Headnote:
Per Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, J.
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32, 33(1)(c) and 60 – Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were not required to challenge sale deeds in suit filed by plaintiffs who prayed for a decree for a declaration of title in their favour – There were concurrent findings recorded by both courts below on non-compliance and/or non-fulfilling conditions mentioned in Section 33(1)(c) of Registration Act – By drawing statutory presumption and without properly appreciating and/or considering fact that there is a non-compliance of Section 33(1)(c) of Registration Act there cannot be any statutory presumption, High Court has set aside concurrent findings recorded by both courts below, in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC – Section 32 of Act is to be read along with Section 33(1)(c) of Registration Act – Only in a case where execution of the PoA is as per Section 32 read with Section 33(1)(c) of Act, there shall be statutory presumption under Section 60 and/or under provisions of Registration Act – High Court has committed a grave error in drawing statutory presumption in favour of the plaintiffs and more particularly with respect to alleged PoA alleged to have been executed by original owner in favour of plaintiff No.2 – Conduct on part of plaintiffs submitting application to amend plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC submitted before first appellate Court also creates doubts about genuinity of PoA – There may be statutory presumption as per Section 60 of Registration Act where all other requirements of execution of sale deed, required to be complied with under Registration Act are complied with and genuineness of PoA on the basis of which sale deed was executed is not doubted. (Paras 6, 7, 9 , 10 and 11)
Per Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, J.(Dissenting View)
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32, 33(1)(c) and 60 – Evidence Act, 1872--Section 67--Title Declaratory Suit – Registered document carries with it, by virtue of it being registered, presumption as to authority of person executing it – In present case, Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to treat endorsement made by District Sub-Registrar on body of sale deed, as evidence in respect of authority of Plaintiff No. 2 to execute sale deed – This is to be considered in light of fact that at no point of time did original owner dispute execution of power of attorney in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 – Prima-facie, endorsement made on sale deed could be considered as determinative evidence of conveyance of title to suit property by its original owner, especially where defendants have not set up a case to establish any independent title over suit property – When such a presumption arises, onus would be on a person who challenges such presumption, to successfully rebut it – High Court was right in holding that when a document has been duly registered, there is presumption of correctness and it can be rebutted only by strong evidence to the contrary – But defendants have not led any evidence in order to rebut presumption as might be drawn on the basis of said endorsement on body of sale deed accepting original plaintiff no.2 as attorney of original owner – Same is a vital piece of evidence which has been ignored by Trial Court as well as first Appellate Court – Impugned judgment of High Court affirmed. (Paras 28, 29 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by High Court of Tripura in Regular Second Appeal No. 01/2005, by which High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs and has decreed the suit by quashing and setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by both courts below, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment of the High Court of Tripura in Regular Second Appeal No. 01 of 2005, by which judgment and decree dated 26th August, 2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 02 of 1996 by First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 02 of 1996 affirming dismissal of Title Suit No. 201 of 1985 by Asst. District Judge No.1, Tripura has been set-aside, is affirmed.
Result : Appeal allowed by Justice M.R. Shah but dismissed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

A declaratory suit requires the plaintiffs to prove their title through the execution of sale deeds, including the actual execution of the sale deeds themselves. The defendants are not obligated to challenge the sale deeds in such suits, which are primarily aimed at establishing the plaintiffs' title (!) .
A registered document is presumed to carry authority, including the authority of the person executing it, by virtue of its registration. This presumption, however, can be rebutted by strong evidence demonstrating non-compliance with statutory requirements or forgery (!) .
In cases involving sale deeds executed through power of attorney, the execution must comply with specific statutory provisions, particularly those outlined in the Registration Act. If the power of attorney was executed outside India and not authenticated according to the prescribed procedures, the statutory presumption of validity does not automatically arise (!) (!) .
The burden of proving the genuineness and proper execution of the sale deed and the power of attorney rests on the plaintiffs. Failure to produce the original power of attorney or evidence of its proper execution weakens the case for the plaintiffs (!) (!) .
The statutory provisions require that, when a power of attorney is executed outside India, it must be authenticated by a notary public, court, or relevant authority, as specified in the Registration Act. Non-compliance with these provisions invalidates the presumption of proper execution (!) (!) .
The endorsement made by the registering authority on a sale deed serves as prima facie evidence of the authority of the person executing the deed. This endorsement, when properly made, creates a presumption of validity, which can only be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary (!) (!) .
Conduct of the parties, such as executing subsequent sale deeds in their own names or seeking amendments to pleadings based on new facts, can cast doubts on the genuineness of the original documents and the authority of the parties involved (!) (!) .
The courts below had concurrently found that the sale deeds lacked proper proof of execution, especially the absence of the power of attorney, which is essential for establishing the plaintiffs’ title. The higher courts erred in setting aside these findings based solely on the presumption of registration (!) (!) (!) .
The original owner’s non-dispute of the execution of the power of attorney and the endorsement by the registering authority serve as significant indicators of the validity of the sale deeds. The failure of the defendants to rebut this presumption was a critical factor (!) (!) .
The legal framework and principles establish that the registration process, including endorsements and the presumption of correctness, are strong indicators of the validity of the documents, provided the statutory requirements are met. Non-compliance or lack of evidence to support proper execution undermines the validity of such documents (!) (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the courts' findings that the sale deeds were not properly proved due to non-production of the power of attorney and non-compliance with statutory procedures were justified. The higher courts' reversal based on presumptions was found to be legally erroneous (!) (!) (!) .
The appeal by the defendants was allowed, the impugned judgment of the higher court was quashed, and the earlier decrees confirming the defendants' title were restored, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with statutory procedures for executing and registering powers of attorney and sale deeds (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala in Regular Second Appeal No. 01/2005, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs and has decreed the suit by quashing and setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That one Braja Mohan Dey was the owner and in possession of ‘Schedule A’ property. He was alleged to have taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/-from his tenant, namely, Dhirendra Chandra Saha, original plaintiff No.2. The original owner, Braja Mohan Dey went to East Pakistan. It was alleged that he had executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in East Pakistan, ostensibly in favour of original plaintiff No.2 to enable repayment of the alleged loan amount by sale of the subject land to himself (original plaintiff No.2) as his PoA holder. That original plaintiff No.2, on the basis of the alleged loan amount and PoA alleged to have been executed by the original owner, executed in his favour sale deed dated 3.9.1968 as PoA holder of the original owner. Thereafter original plaintiff No.2, by virtue of the said PoA, transferred ‘Schedule A’ property to his wife Gita Rani Saha (original plaintiff No.1) (now deceased) vide sale deed dated 29.09.1968, allegedly for repayment of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-taken by him from his wife, out of which a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was alleged to have been handed over to the original owner Braja Mohan Dey.

2.1 That original plaintiff No.2 allegedly constructed a godown at the rear end of the grocery shop in another part of ‘Schedule A’ property (‘Schedule C’ property). It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that one Sarat Chandra Majumdar (original defendant No.1) tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the said ‘Schedule C’ property. However, on the other hand, it was the case on behalf of the defendants that their predecessor-in-interest held out that Sarat Chandra Majumdar was in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years and was running a business from the said property, while denying that the plaintiffs had acquired any right, title or interest as claimed over the suit land. The original defendants also claimed to be in peaceful possession of the property for over forty years and it was their case that they were paying the municipal taxes and land revenue and other statutory dues. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had started a pucca construction on ‘Schedule C’ property and forcibly dispossessed them from the said property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit being T.S. No. 201/1985 before the learned trial Court for a declaration of title over the suit land and recovery of khas possession from the defendants (appellants herein).

2.2 The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement denying all the allegations as well as their right of possession in respect of the disputed suit property. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the original plaintiff No.2 claimed the ownership on the basis of the sale deed dated 3.9.1968 executed by plaintiff No.1 in his own favour on the basis of the alleged PoA executed by the original owner, however, the same was not produced before the learned trial Court and in the suit.

2.3 The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.09.1995 dismissed the suit and held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief sought as no right, title or interest was established in favour of plaintiff No.2, inter alia, for want of PoA for proper execution of the sale deed in his favour. At this stage, it is required to be noted that issue No.6 was, “have the plaintiffs proved their alleged right, title and interest in the suit land?”. The learned trial Court also held that the sale deeds in favour