SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Gejo. (D) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9098 of 2013
Decided On : 02-01-2024
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 47 – Registration of sale-deed – Sale deed executed by vendor becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered – Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with completion of sale when instrument is one of sale – Registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from date of its execution – Sale deed as originally executed will operate – Corrections unilaterally made by first defendant after execution of sale deed without knowledge and consent of purchaser will have to be ignored – Only if such changes would have been made with consent of original plaintiff, same could relate back to date of execution. (Paras 8, 10 and 11)
(B) Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Section 41 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 47 – Second appeal – A decision being contrary to law is a ground for interference – Decision of first Appellate Court was contrary to Section 47 of Registration Act – High Court was justified in interfering with decision of first Appellate Court in a second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Unsuccessful defendants have preferred this Civil Appeal for taking exception to the judgment and order dated 16th March 2010 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Respondents are legal representatives of plaintiff in a suit for declaration.
Findings of Court:
It is not even the first defendant's case that the subsequent correction or interpolation was made before its registration with consent of original plaintiff. Therefore, in this case, what will operate is sale deed as it existed when it was executed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. Unsuccessful defendants have preferred this Civil Appeal for taking exception to the judgment and order dated 16th March 2010 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents are the legal representatives of Smt. Gejo. She was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration. She claimed a declaration of ownership over the land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas (“suit property”) based on the sale deed executed on 6th June 1975 and registered on 23rd July 1975. The first defendant, Kanwar Raj Singh (predecessor of the present appellants), executed the sale deed. Subsequently, the first defendant executed a gift deed regarding a 2/3rd share in respect of the same property in favour of the eighth defendant- Smt. Ravinder Kaur. The eighth defendant is the first defendant’s wife. According to the case of the original plaintiff-Smt. Gejo, before registration of the sale deed, an interpolation was made in the sale deed by the first defendant by adding that only 1/3rd share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was being sold. The suit was contested by the first defendant, contending that what was sold was the area of 23 kanals and 8 marlas, which was his 1/3rd share in the suit property.
2. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that what was sold to the original plaintiff was the entire land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas. The first and eighth defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court. On 23rd August 1984, the Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and held that the correction made in the sale deed was bona fide and was not fraudulently made. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal. Respondent nos. 1(i) and 1(v) are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. By the impugned judgment, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the Trial Court was restored.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the price of the property subject matter of the sale deed was only Rs. 30,000/- it is impossible that a vast area of 71 kanals 8 marlas was sold under the sale deed. The learned counsel submitted that the sale took effect from the date on which the sale deed was registered and not from the date on which it was executed. He submitted that what is conveyed by the sale deed is what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. He submitted that even the agreement for sale executed before the execution of the sale deed refers to the sale of 1/3rd share of the first defendant and not the entire property. He submitted that the entry of the name of the original plaintiff in the revenue records as the owner of the whole area would not confer any title as what is relevant is the description of the property in the registered sale deed. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Ram Saran Lall vs. Domini Kuer, AIR 1961 SC 1747 and submitted that in view of the said decision, the sale would be completed when the sale deed was registered and, therefore, the description of the property recorded in the registered sale deed will prevail. The respondents are not represented.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
4. We have perused the judgments of the Trial Court, District Court and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The first Appellate Court recorded that it is the case of the defendants that before registration of the sale deed, the first defendant incorporated a change in the sale deed stating that it was in respect of 1/3rd share in the area of 71 kanals and 8 marlas. The first Appellate Court noted that the original first defendant's evidence was that the correction was made by him with his own pen in the sale deed before its registration. The appellants are the legal representatives of the first defendant. In this case, it is an admitted position that while executing the sale deed, the area of the land sold was shown as 71 kanal
Sale deed executed by vendor becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered.
The registered document operates from the date of execution, and a party with unclean hands is not entitled to declaratory relief.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof under Section 47 of the Registration Act and the requirement to prove the execution date of a registered document to claim p....
The legal significance of registered documents under the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act, and the inability of an unregistered deed to confer a valid title.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents, even if not covered by specific consequences of non-registration, are inadmissible in ev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a registered document operates from the time of execution, and subsequent transfers are subservient to prior contracts, unless there is a spec....
The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.