Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 2048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Anuja Prabhu Dessai, J.
Kanji Ravaria – Appellant
Versus
Anis Ismail Khoja – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 649 of 2019, Application No. 766 of 2019
Decided On : 09-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Sandesh D.Patil, Advocate, Sanjiv Sawant, Advocate, Abhishek Matkar, Advocate, Abhishek P.Deshmukh, Advocate

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 registration process.

Headnote:
Sale Deed - Property Dispute - Sec. 54, Sec. 17, Sec. 23, Sec. 25, Sec. 28, Sec. 32, Sec. 34, Sec. 35, Sec. 36, Sec. 37, Sec. 47, Sec. 51, Sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act - The court held that the sale deed at Exhibit-54 was not signed by the purchasers, who were minors at the time of execution, but the deed was signed only by the vendor. The court also found that the sale deed was registered 25 years after its execution, and the Plaintiffs failed to prove execution of the sale deed and payment of sale consideration. The court emphasized that registration does not confer or validate the title, and the burden of proof lies on the person claiming the title. The court further highlighted the necessity of strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the duty of the Registering Officer to conduct an inquiry to satisfy himself about the identity of the persons executing the document. The court concluded that the findings of the lower court were not based on evidence and were perverse, and therefore, the suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved a sale deed dtd. 2/12/1985 for a portion of land, which was registered 25 years after its execution. The Plaintiffs, who claimed to have purchased the property, failed to prove execution of the sale deed and payment of sale consideration. The Defendants denied having executed the sale deed and raised questions about its validity and registration.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove execution of the sale deed and payment of sale consideration, and the findings of the lower court were not based on evidence and were perverse.
Issues: The issues involved the validity and execution of the sale deed, the registration process, and the burden of proof in a property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the duty of the Registering Officer to conduct an inquiry to satisfy himself about the identity of the persons executing the document. The court also highlighted the burden of proof in a property dispute, placing the onus on the person claiming the title.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, quashed the impugned judgment, and set aside the findings of the lower court, concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove execution of the sale deed and payment of sale consideration.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. The Appellant herein has challenged the Judgment dtd. 17/3/2019 in Civil Appeal No.28 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge, Palghar allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 24/2/2016 in Special Civil Suit. No.46 of 2011 and consequently decreed the Suit and declared that the Deed of Conveyance dtd. 3/12/2010 between the Appellant and Respondent No.1void ab initio and not binding on the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned Judge also restrained the Appellant and Respondent No.1 from obstructing possession of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and creating third party interest in respect of the suit property.

3. The Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 shall be hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, whereas the Respondent No.1 and the Appellant shall be referred to as Defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

4. The dispute is in respect of portion of land admeasuring 1.70 hectors of property under Survey No.13/1 of village-Shelavli, Palghar. The said property shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'.

5. The Defendant No.1 was the owner of the property under Survey No.13/1 of village Shelvali with total area of 3 hectors 40 Ares. The case of the Plaintiffs as set out in the plaint was that Plaintiff No.1 and his brother-Amrish had purchased the suit property from Defendant No.1 by deed of sale dtd. 2/12/1985 pursuant to which they were put in possession of the suit property. The remaining portion of survey No.13/1 was purchased by one Param Umakant Mishra and Sohardha Mishra. Amrish expired on 8/10/1999 and that his widow has remarried. The Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, the parents of Amrish are stated to be his successors. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were in a state of shock due to untimely death of Amrish and hence, they did not get their names recorded in the survey records.

6. It was further averred that on 8/6/2011 they saw the Defendants inspecting the suit property. The Defendant No.2 told the Plaintiffs that he had purchased the suit property and threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property. The Plaintiffs lodged a police complaint and later obtained a copy of sale deed dtd. 14/6/2011 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was already sold to Plaintiff No.1 and his brother - Amrish and the subsequent sale deed in favour of Defendant No.2 is null and void. Based on these pleadings the Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dtd. 3/12/2010 as null and void and sought cancellation of the said sale deed. The Plaintiffs also sought to restrain the Defendants from disturbing their possession and creating third party rights in respect of the suit property.

7. The Defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. Defendant No.1 denied having executed sale deed dtd. 2/12/1985 in favour of Plaintiff No.1 and his brother and or having put them in possession of the suit property. It was further stated that the Plaintiff No.1 and his brother were minors on the date of execution of the said agreement dtd. 2/12/1985 and hence the said agreement is itself void. The Defendant No.1 averred that he has transferred his right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Defendant No.2 vide sale deed dtd. 8/6/2011.

8. The Defendant No.2 also challenged the validity of the sale deed dtd. 2/12/1985 on the ground that the sale deed was not signed by the guardian of the Plaintiff No.1 and his brother - Amrish, who were minors at the relevant time. The Defendant No.2 questioned the validity of the sale deed on the ground that the same has been registered after a period of 25 years without complying with the procedure contemplated under Ss. 36 and 37 of the Registration Act, 1908. Defendant No.2 claimed that since the title of the Plaintiffs was in dispute, the Plaintiffs were required to sue for declaration of title an