Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Nira Devi @ Nirash Devi – Appellant
Versus
Pramod Kumar Bhagat – Respondent
S.A. No. 102 of 1992
Decided On : 21-09-2022
Fraud - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, Indian Registration Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, Section 123 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the presumption in favor of a registered instrument, burden of proof, and the requirement of specific pleading of fraud. The court emphasized the need for full particulars and precise details of fraud in cases of fraud, undue influence, and coercion. The judgment also highlighted the presumption of fact under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that official acts have been duly performed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to declare a deed of gift and a sale deed as void and not binding, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The defendants contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiff's suit was time-barred and lacked sufficient evidence of fraud. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The appeal was admitted to be heard on substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's suit was time-barred, lacked consistent and sufficient particulars of fraud, and failed to rebut the presumption of due execution of the registered deeds. The court also emphasized the need for full particulars and precise details of fraud in cases of fraud, undue influence, and coercion. The judgment highlighted the presumption in favor of a registered instrument, burden of proof, and the requirement of specific pleading of fraud.
Issues: The issues included the cause of action for the suit, maintainability of the suit, valuation of the suit, limitation, adverse possession, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, and the validity of the deeds of gift and sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for full particulars and precise details of fraud in cases of fraud, undue influence, and coercion. It also discussed the presumption in favor of a registered instrument, burden of proof, and the requirement of specific pleading of fraud. The judgment highlighted the presumption of fact under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that official acts have been duly performed.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the courts below were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The court found the plaintiff's suit to be time-barred, lacking consistent and sufficient particulars of fraud, and failing to rebut the presumption of due execution of the registered deeds.
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Appellants are the defendants. Instant appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 61 of 1990 passed by 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 11 of 1988, has been affirmed.
2. The parties shall be referred by their placement in the suit and shall include their legal representative substituted from time to time.
3. The plaintiff-Most. Domani widow of Late Balram Bhagat filed declaratory suit for declaring the deed of gift dated 11.04.1970 of Schedule A property and sale deed dated 16.07.1974 Schedule B property, executed by plaintiff-respondent in favour of Balbhadra Bhagat and her sister Ashu Devi (D1) to be void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 1 Ashu Devi is the sister of the plaintiff and Balbhadra Bhagat is the son of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 is the widow of Balbhadra Bhagat. The plaintiff’s suit has been decreed in the suit and affirmed in appeal.
4. Schedule A property is land measuring an area of 7.56 acres at Mouza Jamudag, P.S Sonahatu, District Ranchi, and Schedule B is 0.72 acres land including Dharamshala at Mouza and PS Bundu, District Ranchi.
5. Immediately after death of husband of Domni, her sister, Ashu Devi (D-1) and Balbhadra Bhagat, came to the house of Most. Domni and started living with her. Balbhadra, son of defendant no. 1 got a deed of gift dated 11.04.1970 (Exhibit A) in respect of land in village Jamudag which is described in Schedule A of the plaint from the Plaintiff-Domni. It is alleged that this gift of deed was executed by fraud and misrepresentation of general power of attorney to enable him to manage her property. Further this deed of gift was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation even otherwise it did not take effect on account of non-fulfillment of certain commitment to Domni as Balbhadra Bhagat immediately after execution of gift started neglecting her. The possession is still with the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1-Ashu Devi being the plaintiff’s own sister was dependent on her, got her document purported to be sale deed executed by Domni on 16.07.1974 in her favour with respect to Schedule B land by representing that same was “Karpardajnama” and acting on the representation made, the plaintiff inter-alia in good faith executed the sale deed. No consideration money was paid by defendant no. 1. As a matter of fact, she had no means to pay the consideration amount as she was fully dependent on the plaintiff. Both the deeds were fraudulent illegal and void transactions. The cause of action arose when she came to know about the sale deed when one Kisto Koeri challenged the said transaction in Title Suit No. 306/1986. She has been all along in possession of land.
6. Joint written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The suit has been contested inter-alia on the ground that simple declaratory suit without consequential relief is not maintainable. It is specific case of the defendants that Balbhadra Bhagat always served plaintiff during her life time sincerely and honestly. Deed of gift came into operation after registration. The gift of the suit land was accepted by the donee and the defendants are in possession and paying rent to the state of Bihar. It is not true that the deed of gift was not explained to the plaintiff before filing for registration. It is also pleaded that the sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no. 1 after payment of consideration amount. It is false averment made on behalf of the plaintiff that she came to know about the sale deed only when the summon of T.S. Case No. 306 of 1986 was received.
7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:
(II) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(III) Is the suit properly valued?
(IV) Is the suit bar
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper execution and attestation of gift deeds, the reversal of onus in cases of undue influence, and the need to consider the....
Section 111 of Evidence Act States as proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.
The validity of a registered sale deed is presumed and the burden of proving its invalidity due to fraud lies on the challengers.
The court affirmed that a sale deed executed with authority is valid unless fraud or coercion is proven, and claims must be filed within a statute of limitations.
The main legal point established is that Section 47 of the Registration Act applies to a registrable document, such as a deed of gift, and the effect of such document relates back to the date of its ....
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
