Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 930 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10747 of 2016
Decided On : 04-05-2023
(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by special leave – Scope and ambit – If a relevant material legally brought on record and question of law arising out of its existence were not considered by High Court, despite its due consideration by First Appellate Court, while reversing judgment founded on such consideration Supreme Court has necessarily to consider the same in invocation of power under Article 136. (Para 10)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 read with Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 67 – Agreement to Sell – Where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain suit for possession of property sold – Very object of mandate for registration of transfer of an immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with Section 17 of Registration Act, is primarily to give certainty to title – When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of Evidence Act is necessary – There can be no reason to disbelieve a recital contained in a registered sale deed regarding payment of consideration, executed by vendor. (Para 32)
(C) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Possession of Property – High Court restored decree of dismissal of suit by trial Court – Though in a suit defendant is entitled to raise alternative inconsistent plea he could not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of each other and raising such pleas would only work out to his detriment – No case for attracting provisions of Fragmentation Act was made out by second defendant – One could be permitted to let in evidence only in tune with his pleadings – A party is not allowed to succeed where he has not set up case which he wants to substantiate – Judgment of High Court set aside and that of lower Appellate Court restored. [Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 2017 – Section 31](Paras 19, 24, 27, 28, 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against judgment and final order dated 30.10.2015 in Second Appeal No.435 of 1995 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby and whereunder High Court reversed judgment and decree of Court of Additional District Judge, Buldana, in Regular Civil Appeal No.98 of 1987. As per impugned judgment, High Court restored decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court. Stated Regular Civil Suit is one for possession of suit land on strength of title.
Findings of Court:
Need to take into consideration surrounding circumstances and the conduct of parties in deciding passing of title would arise only if the recitals in document are indecisive and ambiguous. The oral evidence of the second defendant could not override the registered Ext. 128 sale deed, as held by First Appellate Court in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record in this case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Here is a summary of the key points from the provided legal document:
When challenging the execution of a transaction, registration alone does not constitute proof of execution; it is necessary to prove compliance with the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, specifically Section 67 (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of a court must be determined based on the allegations in the plaint, and cannot be solely based on uncorroborated averments in the written statement (!) .
A registered sale deed, which has been duly executed and endorsed with consideration and possession, generally amounts to a full transfer of ownership, creating a presumption of validity and genuineness of the transaction (!) (!) .
The burden of proof to establish that a sale deed does not reflect the true nature of the transaction, especially when it is registered and its execution is admitted, lies with the party asserting that the transaction was sham or collateral security (!) (!) .
The legal effect and impact of a registered sale deed cannot be disregarded solely based on oral assertions or alleged collateral purposes, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary (!) (!) .
Pleadings must accurately reflect the case and issues; raising mutually destructive or inconsistent pleas without proper pleadings can undermine a party’s position and the court’s jurisdiction (!) (!) .
Statutory provisions, such as those under the relevant land transfer and fragmentation laws, restrict the court’s jurisdiction to decide certain issues, which must be determined based on the allegations in the plaint and the pleadings (!) (!) .
The court’s jurisdiction to entertain claims involving specific legal statutes is limited, and issues requiring specialized authority must be referred accordingly; failure to do so can result in jurisdictional errors (!) (!) .
The legal presumption in favor of the validity of a registered sale deed can be rebutted only through specific evidence demonstrating the transaction was not genuine or was executed for collateral purposes (!) (!) .
The appellate court has the authority to overturn concurrent findings of fact if there is a significant legal or evidentiary error, particularly when the lower courts’ appreciation of evidence is perverse or based on jurisdictional errors (!) (!) .
In cases involving land transactions, the object of registration is primarily to provide certainty of title, and proof of consideration and execution are critical in establishing the validity of the transfer (!) (!) .
The court must consider the nature of the transaction, the conduct of the parties, and the surrounding circumstances only if the document’s recitals are ambiguous or indecisive (!) .
Disputes over the validity of sale deeds, especially those executed years prior, cannot be adjudicated in a suit where such issues are not expressly pleaded or proved, particularly when they involve co-defendants and collateral security claims (!) (!) .
The provisions of specific land laws aim to prevent fragmentation and ensure proper consolidation, but their applicability depends on the facts and the pleadings, and they do not automatically invalidate all transactions (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the involvement of issues requiring specialized statutory authority must be established through clear pleadings and evidence, and the absence of such involvement limits the court’s jurisdiction (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis of any specific aspect?
JUDGMENT :
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
1. This appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and final order dated 30.10.2015 in Second Appeal No. 435 of 1995 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby and whereunder the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of Additional District Judge, Buldana, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1987, reversing the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhli in Regular Civil Suit No. 257 of 1985 (originally numbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 104 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, before its transfer). In short, as per the impugned judgment, the High Court restored the decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court. The stated Regular Civil Suit is one for possession of suit land on the strength of title.
2. Shorn of details, the plaint averments for seeking possession of the suit land, which is a field comprised in Khasra No. 20/2, having an extent of 3 Acres and 20 guntas in village Gangalgaon, Taluk Chikhli, District Buldana, are as under:
Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 viz., Ramakrishna Ganpat Mhaske and Tejra Bajirao Mhaske, have sold the above-described suit field in favour of the plaintiff as per registered sale deed dated 21.04.1979 (Exhibit-128). Soon on its execution the plaintiff was put in possession. On 25.04.1979, the second defendant started disturbing his possession. Suit was then filed on 21.05.1979. In view of the registered sale deed (Exhibit 128) he obtained absolute title over the suit land and in such circumstances, the second defendant who sold the same for discharging debts and family needs got no right or reason to disturb his peaceful possession. The total sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- was given to defendants for the aforesaid entire extent of 3 acres and 20 guntas as the first defendant obtained title over 2 acres and 20 guntas out of the aforesaid total extent from the second defendant as per registered sale deed dated 04.07.1978 and the second defendant remained as the owner in possession of the balance one acre. It is his case that the second defendant had utilised the sale consideration passed on to him for different purposes, including to pay his debts. It is also relevant to note that the original petitioner in the SLP, from which this appeal arises, viz., the plaintiff, died during pendency of this proceeding and subsequently, his legal representatives got substituted as petitioners. Ergo, they are jointly described hereafter as ‘appellants’, wherever, such reference is required. On the death of the first defendant/the original second respondent during the pendency of the Second Appeal, his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents and they are respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein. For the non-compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Chamber Judge, the SLP stood dismissed qua respondent No. 6, as per order dated 22.11.2017. At the stage of second appeal the legal heirs of the deceased son of the second defendant viz., the first respondent herein, were impleaded as respondents therein and they are respondents 7 to 9 herein.
3. The first defendant filed a written statement endorsing the claim and contentions of the plaintiff and he would also state therein that after executing the sale deed, himself and the second defendant (the first respondent herein) parted with the possession of the suit land and then, the second defendant (the first respondent herein) turned dishonest and started disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. However, the second defendant (the first respondent herein) resisted the suit by filing written statement and denying the claims and contentions of the plaintiff. His pleadings revealed from the written statement, in nutshell, read thus:
SupremeToday
(1) When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of Evidence Act is necessary.(2) Jurisdiction of Court has to be determined ba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bar under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply in a suit between a party to the document and a stranger, allowing t....
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
The main legal point established is that the sale of joint family property must be for legal necessity, and the burden of proof lies with the alienee to establish legal necessity or a bonafide inquir....
The main legal point established is that in a dispute over a sale deed, the plaintiff must establish a clear and specific identity of the land to prove a better title than the defendant.
An agreement for the sale of land that contravenes the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1966, is void ab initio and unenforceable.
An agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on the property, and sale is a transfer of ownership.
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
