Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Prabhash Kumar Shah, S/o Late Radhe Shyam Shah – Appellant
Versus
Anupama Jaiswal, w/o Late Ganga Pd. Bhagat - Respondent
Second Appeal No.231 of 2016
Decided on : 06-12-2023
Void Sale Deeds - Property Dispute - Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 28, Section 30 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Indian Registration Act and the Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1991. The judgment emphasized the application of Article 254 of the Constitution of India in resolving the conflict between the laws enacted by the State Legislature and the Parliament. The court referred to leading judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court to establish the legal framework applied in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the plaintiffs sought relief for the cancellation of two sale deeds executed by the deceased plaintiff in favor of the defendants. The defendants claimed that the property was not part of the gifted property and that the sale deeds were executed with full consideration and in a proper manner.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the sale deeds as void under the Indian Registration Act, while the appellate court upheld the decision. However, the second appeal set aside the concurrent findings and judgments of both courts, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, limitation, principles of estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence, joint family property, validity of the sale deeds, and relief entitled to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1991, in the context of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the sale deeds were not vitiated by any fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion, and declared the approach of the lower courts as not satisfying the constitutional mandate.
Final Decision: The second appeal set aside the concurrent findings and judgments of both courts, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The Original Title Suit No.157 of 1996 was instituted by one Ganga Prasad Bhagat @ Jaiswal(since deceased) along with his three sons namely Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Sameer Kumar Jaiswal and Abhishek Jaiswal seeking following reliefs:-
(b) For a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants or recovery of possession if necessary.
(c) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 & 2 including their men, agents, servants etc. from entering into the lands in suit from raising any construction or further construction in or over the suit lands.
3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint is that one Jageshwar Bhagat of Katras owned and possessed some agricultural land at Mouza Katras including plot Nos.328, 329, 340 and 341, while in peaceful possession thereof the said Jageshwar Bhagat gifted some of the land in the name of Tulsi Bhagatain, Ram Lakhan Bhagat, Ram Chandra Prasad Bhagat and Ganga Prasad Bhagat vide registered Deed of gift No.8164 dated 16.07.1943 and put them in possession thereof. Tulsi Bhagatain was only daughter and legal heir of Jageshwar Bhagat and another donee are the sons of Tulsi Bhagatain. Tulsi Bhagatain died 10 years ago leaving three sons namely Ramlagan Bhagat, Ramchandra Bhagat and Ganga Prasad Bhagat who inherited the property left by their mother. Tulsi Bhagatin while in peaceful possession of the aforesaid land divided the same and the land which was described in scheduled of the plaint fell into the exclusive share of Ganga Prasad Bhagat and his family, who came in possession thereof. Two sons of Ganga Prasad Bhagat namely Ajay Kumar Jaiswal and Samir Kumar Jaiswal have been carrying their business and other son Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal has been studying in Odisha. All the lands and business belong to the family of Ganga Prasad Bhagat which have been blended in joint family property and are being held and possessed by the plaintiffs. Ganga Prasad Bhagat father of Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Samir Kumar Jaiswal and Abhishek Jaiswal did not have any knowledge of English or Bengali and he can write in Hindi only. He is the man of weak intellect and the entire joint family property is managed by Ajay Kumar Jaiswal and Samir Kumar Jaiswal. Defendant No.1 is a rich and influential businessman of Katras, who took Ganga Prasad Bhagat to Kolkata for his treatment and got two sale deeds executed there on payment of consideration amount of Rs.13,20,000/-(Rs. Thirteen Lakhs and twenty thousands) but at the time of execution of alleged deeds, Ganga Prasad Bhagat was not in sound health position and at the same time there was serious family dispute and disturbance in the family. It is alleged that the defendants/appellants taking advantage of vulnerable condition of Ganga Prasad Bhagat and pretending his treatment at Kolkata got executed two sale deeds Nos.6333 and 6334 dated 16.09.1996 registered on 17.09.1996 by Registrar Assurance, Kolkata. The alleged two above sale deeds were not executed voluntarily by Ganga Prasad Bhagat and no consideration amount was ever paid to him. The contents of the sale deeds were also not read over and explained to the vendor in Hindi. The plaintiffs also came to know after obtaining certified copies of two sale deeds that total consideration amount was entered only Rs.1,98,000/-(Rs. One lakh ninety eight thousand). One sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 Prabhash Kumar Saha and another in favour of his wife namely Radha Devi who are appellant Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Both the aforesaid sale
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 254 of the Constitution of India in resolving the conflict between the laws enacted by the State Legislature and the Par....
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
A registered sale deed's validity is contingent on its proper registration; prior executed deeds are void if subsequent registered deeds exist for the same property.
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 ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents, even if not covered by specific consequences of non-registration, are inadmissible in ev....
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did someth....
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
