Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS
Makhan Chandra Hazra – Appellant
Versus
Netai Chand Hazra – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit in part and the concurrent findings are sought to be assailed in the instant appeal raising an issue that those are perverse and mutually destructive.
2. A suit for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit property consisting of 2.92 decimal of land on the basis of a deed of sale being No. 3485/1957 dated 28th April, 1957 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. Admittedly the entire suit property belong to Bholanath Hazra, the predecessor of both the parties. It is a categorical stand of the plaintiffs/respondents that the said original owner during his lifetime executed and registered a deed of sale in favour of one of his son, namely Haripada Hazra, being the predecessor of the plaintiffs/respondents and, therefore, excluded the other heirs to inherit the said property. Since the defendants/appellants were creating a cloud on the title acquired by the plaintiffs/respondents by way of inheritance from his father, namely Haripada Hazra, the suit came to be filed for declaration of title in respect thereof.
3. Basicall
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of consideration in a sale deed and the impact of the entry in the Record of Rights on property title.
The non-delivery of possession does not affect the transfer of title, and lack of mutation in revenue records does not extinguish the title of the lawful purchaser.
A sale deed is void if no consideration was paid; registration does not validate it, and its improper registration does not confer title.
The legal point established is that the findings in a previous suit are binding on the parties, and the conditions for allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 were emphasized.
The burden of proof in civil trials must be borne by the plaintiff, who must substantiate allegations of fraud with appropriate evidence and particulars.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file a suit for declaration of title when ownership is contested, and the burden of proof to establish the legality and valid....
The presumption of due execution of a registered sale deed lies with the plaintiff, and the burden of proof rests on the defendant to rebut this presumption.
A sale deed executed without consideration or under coercion is void under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The High Court reinstated the plaintiff's title and possession, emphasizing that the Appellate Court overstepped by declaring title for the defendant without a formal claim.
Agreement to sell – Normally, on execution and registration of a sale deed containing recitals regarding payment of consideration and delivery of possession, sale is complete even if sale price is no....
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.