Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Dharampal Sinha, J.
Most Suthara
Versus
Bibi Samsunisha
Appellate Decree No. 128 of 1983 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 3, 1997
SALE DEED - TITLE TRANSFER - MORTGAGE - LIMITATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Where a sale deed is executed and registered, the title to the property passes to the purchaser, and any subsequent actions or omissions of the vendor cannot affect the purchaser's rights. A subsequent sale deed executed by the vendor in favor of a third party is ineffective if the vendor had already transferred the title to the property. The execution of a Ladavi deed by the purchaser, acknowledging the cancellation of the sale deed and the execution of a new sale deed in favor of the third party, does not extinguish the purchaser's title if the new sale deed is ineffective. The suit for redemption of a mortgage is governed by Article 61 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a limitation period of 30 years, not Article 65, which prescribes a limitation period of 12 years. Adverse possession cannot be claimed by a mortgagee who continues to possess the mortgaged property after the mortgage is redeemed or the title to the property is transferred to a third party.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, the heirs of Bipati, filed a suit seeking a declaration of title over 1 Bigha 9 kathas and 9 dhurs land, redemption of a mortgage, and possession of the land after tendering the mortgage money. The land was previously owned by Janki Devi, who had executed a usufructuary mortgage in favor of Shamshunnisha in 1954. Janki Devi executed a sale deed in favor of Bipati in 1957, but later executed a deed of cancellation and a new sale deed in favor of Shamshunnisha in 1957. The plaintiffs claimed title through the sale deed executed in their favor, while the defendants claimed title through the subsequent sale deed executed in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the title to the land had passed to Bipati under the sale deed executed in her favor in 1957 and that the subsequent actions of Janki Devi could not affect the plaintiffs' rights. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the title did not pass under the sale deed executed in favor of Bipati, that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the title to the land passed to Bipati under the sale deed executed in her favor in 1957? 2. Whether the subsequent actions of Janki Devi could affect the plaintiffs' rights? 3. Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act? 4. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the title to the land passed to Bipati under the sale deed executed in her favor in 1957. The court reasoned that the contents of the sale deed clearly indicated that the title had been transferred to the purchaser upon execution and registration of the deed, and that any subsequent actions or omissions of the vendor could not affect the purchaser's rights. 2. The court held that the subsequent actions of Janki Devi, including the execution of a deed of cancellation and a new sale deed in favor of the defendants, could not affect the plaintiffs' rights. The court reasoned that Janki Devi had already transferred the title to the land to Bipati, and therefore had no right, title, or interest in the land that she could transfer to the defendants. 3. The court held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act. The court reasoned that the Act was not applicable to the instant case because the suit had been instituted before the provision for termination of usufructuary mortgage after completion of 7 years was introduced in the Act. 4. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court reasoned that the suit was governed by Article 61 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a limitation period of 30 years for suits for redemption of mortgages, and that the suit had been instituted within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
Dharmpal Sinha, J.
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.1983 and the decree based thereon passed by Sri Aditya Saran, 2nd additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra in Title Appeal No.26/47 of 1977/1981, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree dated 29.11.1976 passed in Title Suit No.81 of 1970 by Sri Brij Nandan Prasad Singh, munsif IVth Court, Chapra, who had decreed the suit.
2. The appellants herein and respondents second set, who are the descendants of Bipati, whose son had instituted the suit seeking the reliefs (with regard to 1 Bigha 9 kathas and 9 dhurs land appertaining to plot No.127 and 153 of khata No.48 of village narayan Palia), namely, that it be declared that they had got title over the land and the defendants (respondents here in) had no right in that land and that a sale deed, which had been executed by one Janki Devi (originally respondent No.12 in this appeal but now dead) in favour of defendant No.1 bibi Shamshun Nisha, whose heirs are respondents herein, was illegal and void conferring no title to the purchaser and that the defendants be directed to hand over the original mortgage deed, which had been executed on 7.8.1954 by Janki in favour of Shamshunnisha and hand over possession of the land in question after accepting the mortgage money.
3. It is not disputed that the land previously belonged to Janki Devi (defendant No.3 in the suit, who did not contest) and she had executed, on7.8.1954, a mortgage deed in favour of Bibi Shamshunnisha (Respondent no.1) and on the basis of the mortgage, which was a usufructuary mortgage, the contesting respondents had come in possession of the land in question. It seems that Most. Janki also executed a sale deed in favour of Bipati,mother of the plaintiffs, on 23.8.1957 marked as ext. A/1 and in that sale-deed it was stated that the consideration money of rupees two thousand (Rs.2,000/-) was kept in deposit by the purchaser for payment to the mortgagee. Subsequently, janki Devi executed a deed of cancellation (Ext. D) on 20.12.1957 and thereafter executed a sale-deed in favour of shamshunnisha. The case of the appellants in brief was that by virtue of the sale-deed (Ext. A/1) executed on 23.8.1957 by Most. Janki, they acquired title over the land and right to equity of redemption and they had right to obtain possession of the land after tendering the mortgage money, which had been kept in deposit by them when the sale deed had been executed by Janki, and were entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them (already noticed above ).
4. On the other hand the stand of the respondents, who contested the suit was that the sale deed in favour of the appellants never became operative because the consideration money of the sale-deed was not paid and even the registration receipt was not handed over to them, nor did they get the original sale-deed. Janki Devi cancelled the sale deed because some terms which had been agreed upon between them had not been fulfilled and she, after cancelling the sale deed, executed another sale deed dated 23.12.1957 in favour of the mortgagee, Bibi Shamshunnisha, and the mortgagee thus became full owner of the land in question. After the sale deed executed on 23.12.1957 the possession over the land, which previously was in the capacity of mortgagee, became possession as owner.
5. It appears that the contesting respondents had further taken stand that Janki had executed a mahadnama (deed of agreement) in respect of the disputed land on 15.4.1957 in favour of defendants No.1 and had taken rupees 50/- as advance and thereafter the sale deed in favour of Shashunnisha was executed. Both the Courts below, however, came to the finding that no mahadnama had been executed on 15.4.1957. The respondents (plaintiffs)further placed reliance on a Ladavi deed executed by Bipati, mother of the plaintiff and this was executed on 17.1.1958. Both the learned Courts below came to the finding that this Ladavi deed, whic
AI
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
