Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K.N.Saikia, J.
Huidrom Achou Singh -Appellant
Versus
Thokchom Ningol Ningthemcha Ongbi Ibempishak Devi (Plaintiff) and Others -Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of 1981
Decided On : 23-07-1985
EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 90 - PRESUMPTION AS TO DOCUMENTS THIRTY YEARS OLD - CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT - PROOF - SALE DEED - GENUINENESS - PRESUMPTION - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff purchased the suit land in 1941 in the name of her eldest son, defendant No.4, who was a minor, to save her husband from criticism. The defendant No.4, while suffering from lunacy, sold portions of the suit land to defendants 1, 2 and 3 by sale deeds dated 15.9.76. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deeds were sham and the transfers were null and void against her, and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court found that the plaintiff purchased the suit land with her own funds by the sale deed dated 7.4.41; that she acquired right and title over the suit land by virtue of the purchase; that she had been in possession of the suit land since the date of purchase; that the purchase was benami being in the name of defendant No. 4; that defendant No. 4 did not have the right and title to convey in the impugned sales; that the defendant No. 4 suffered from lunacy/ mental disorder at the time of the sales on 15.9.76; and, therefore, the defendants 1, 2 and 3 did not derive any title by dint of their purchases dated 15.9.76; and that the impugned sale deeds were sham documents and hence null and void.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale transaction by the registered sale deed dated 7.4.41 purchasing the suit land in the name of defendant No. 4 was a beating transaction? 2. Whether the defendant No. 4 was suffering from lunacy/mental disorder at the time of execution of the sale deeds dated 15.9.76 ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to documents thirty years old. Under it where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in case of document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. 2. The presumption under Section 90 can be raised only with reference to original documents and not to copies thereof. 3. The contents of a document has different aspects. So far as handwriting is concerned, under section 90 the presumption is that it was written by its scribe. So far as the truth of its contents is concerned, it is to be proved by evidence.
Final Decision: The second appeals and the cross objection were dismissed.
2. The respondent No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted Original Suit No.2/77 on the footing, inter alia, that she purchased the suit land with her own money in the name of her eldest son Rajakumar Surjamani Singh, defendant No.4, then a minor aged about six years, to save her husband, who was a Government servant from criticism, and got the name of defendant No.4 mutated and had been possessing the suit land enjoying the usufruct thereof as her absolute property; that the land was under two plots, namely, old patta No.87/423 corresponding to new patta No.87/869 I. W., and old patta No.87/283 corresponding to new patta No.87/868 I. W. T. measuring 12.48 acres which constituted the suit land; that the defendant No.4 by three different sale deeds transferred portions of the suit land to defendants 1, 2 and 3, namely, by sale deed dated 15.9.76 he transferred 2.50 acres under new patta No.87/868 IW to defendant No.1 for Rs. 5100/-, by sale deed dated 15.9.76 he transferred another 2.50 acres to defendant No.2 for Rs.5,100/-, and by another sale deed dated 15.9.76 he transferred 2.50 acres to defendant No.3 for Rs.5,500/-; that the defendant No.4 was also trying to sell the remaining 4.98 acres of the suit land; that at the time of the sales the defendant No.4 had been suffering from lunacy/mental disorder; and that the respondent No.4 having been a benamidar he had no right to transfer those lands and that too when he was mentally deranged. The plaintiff prayed a decree declaring the aforesaid sale deeds to be sham and the transfers to be null and void against the plaintiff, and for injunction restraining the defendant 1, 2 and 3 from interfering with her peaceful possession of the suit land for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.4 from transferring the remaining portion of the suit land measuring 4.98 acres.
3. The defendants 1, 2 and jointly resisted the suit denying all the averments of the plaintiff and further stating, inter alia, that the defendants acquired perfect right and title by virtue of the respective sale deeds; they to delivery of possession of their respective lands after purchase and had been in peaceful possession of their respective lands as of right; that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties; and that the plaintiff having not prayed for declaration of her title over the suit land with prayer for consequential relief, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. The trial Court settled eight issues including whether the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land; whether the defendant No.4 was the ostensible owner or absolute owner of the suit land; and whether the defendant No.4 was a lunatic at the time of execution of the sale deeds dated 15.9.76 in favour of the defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of the suit land.
5. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence, held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land while the defendant No.4 was the ostensible owner thereof; that the plaintiff had been able to prove that the defendant No.4 was suffering from lunacy/mental disorder at the time of the sales to the defendants 1, 2 and 3 on 15.9.76; that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land at the time of sale by defendant No.4 on 15.9.76; that she had locus standi to file the suit. The suit was accordingly decreed holding that the plaintiff was the real owner of the suit land and defendant No.4 had no right to sell the same; and that the sale deeds dated 15.9.76 executed by defendant No.4 were null and void.
6. On appeals by defendants 1, 2 and 3 the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur in his common judgment formulated two questions, namely, whether the sale transaction by the registered sale deed dated 7.4. 41 purchasi
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
