Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Joshi, J.
Shivaji - Appellant
Versus
Satish - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 358 of 2020
Decided On : 25-04-2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE - PROPERTY DISPUTE - CPC Sec. 100, Sec. 96, Order XLI - The court discussed the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Sections 100 and 96, and Order XLI, which govern appeals and the reappraisal of evidence. The court emphasized the presumption of validity of registered sale deeds and the rights of co-owners to alienate their undivided shares. The interpretations of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court's findings regarding ownership and possession of the suit land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction against the defendants regarding a specific land parcel, claiming it was his share from a partition with his brother, the second defendant. The second defendant had executed a sale deed in favor of the first defendant, who claimed ownership based on this deed. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Appellate Court correctly interpreted the evidence and legal principles regarding the sale deed and the rights of co-owners. It noted that the trial court erred in its conclusions about the partition and the rights of the second defendant to sell the property, affirming the validity of the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favor of the first defendant.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed executed by the second defendant, the rights of the plaintiff as a co-owner, and whether the trial court's injunction against the defendants was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity and that a co-owner can alienate their undivided share in jointly held property. The effectiveness of a sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit does not become invalid solely due to the ongoing litigation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the First Appellate Court's decision that the first defendant was the rightful owner and in possession of the suit land, with costs awarded to the defendants.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') by original plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 425/2012 and being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Latur in R.C.A. No. 87/2017 has preferred this Appeal. Parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the original proceedings.
2. In short the case of the plaintiff and defendant, which has led to this appeal, can be summarized as follows: Plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he is the owner and in possession of land admeasuring 1H 68R land towards west side in Block no. 512 admeasuring
3. H 36R and has sought injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit land. Plaintiff and Defendant no. 2 are brothers. It is claimed by Plaintiff that there was a partition between brothers in respect of land block no. 512 and land admeasuring 1H 68R land towards western side of the said block came to his share. He further stated that defendant no. 2 executed agreement to sell with plaintiff on 19/7/2003 in respect of 1H 68R land towards east side of the said land. Defendant no. 2 thereafter executed nominal sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1. With these averments, suit is filed by plaintiff on 30/1/2014. 3. Defendant no. 1 by filing written sttement denied the claim of the plaintiff about the ownership and possession of the suit land. He claimed that by virtue of registered sale deed dtd. 24/11/2003 executed by Defendant no. 3 in his favour he became owner and he is in possession of the suit land. It is also claimed that his name is also mutated in the revenue record in respect of the said land. It is alleged by these defendants that by agreement to sell between defendant no. 2 and plaintiff is false and nominal document.
4. Defendant no. 2 by filing written statement admitted the claim of the Plaintiff. It is further reiterated that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiff is nominal sale deed. Defendant No. 3, who is the purchaser of the suit land from defendant no. 1, during the pendency of the suit claim that by registered sale deed dtd. 29/4/2013 he has became owner and he is in possession of the suit land.
5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, issues were framed and parties led their respective evidence. Learned trial Court by passing judgment and decree dtd. 4/5/2017 restrained defendants from obstructing possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant no. 3 preferred appeal against the said judgment in R.C.A. No. 87/2017, which came to be allowed and suit was dismissed.
6. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the First Appellate Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record correctly. It is stated that the Appellate Court was confused with regard to the fact that the issue involved herein pertain to the side for which the plaintiff is claiming his possession in respect of the block no. 512. It is stated that admittedly plaintiff has share in the suit land and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed order of injunction in view of the obstruction caused by the defendants to his possession over the same. In support of his submissions, he relied on following judgments: Baji Nath Vs. Vishwanath Pandey and Others, 2000 (3) AWC 2213, T. Lakshmipathi and Others Vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy and Others, 2003 AIR SCW 2436, Tanushree Basu and Ors Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu and Ors, AIR 2008 SC 1909 & Prabhakar Gones Parbhuu Navelkar (Dead) through Lrs and Ors Vs. Saradchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar (Dead) through Lrs and Ors, AIR Online 2019 SC 958.
7. Learned Counsel for the Original Defendants, purchaser of the suit land, opposed the said contention by stating that these defendants having acquired title and possession over the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed and mutation entry and in ignorance of the said evidence Trial Court has issued injunction against
A registered sale deed is presumed valid, and a co-owner has the right to sell their undivided share in jointly held property, regardless of ongoing litigation regarding the property.
The court upheld the validity of an oral partition, affirming the plaintiff's rightful ownership of jointly purchased property and invalidating a sale-deed executed without her knowledge.
The right to sue for partition is a recurring right, and the cause of action arises on a day-to-day basis. The purchasers from defendant No.1 were not necessary parties to the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of satisfactory evidence to support adverse possession claims and the necessity of locus standi to challenge a registered sale deed....
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
The registration of sale deeds and delivery of possession create a prima facie right in favor of the purchaser, which is crucial in determining the right to the property.
To protect possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee must prove that they have performed or are willing to perform their part of the contract.
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
