Registered sale deeds carry a presumption of validity, placing the onus on challengers to prove otherwise, alongside procedural compliance regarding property descriptions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-VII, Deoghar dismissing Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2019 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) -I, Deoghar decreeing Title (D) Suit No. 16 of 2004.

3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 06.11.2023 on the following substantial questions of law: -

(i) Whether the learned trial court has recorded findings on vital issues ignoring the settled principles of law of this bench and arrived at wrong conclusion?

(ii) Whether the appellate Court has also failed to follow the prescribed procedure under order 41 rule 31 of C.PC and without framing any specific points of this view and appreciation of order in accordance with law as committed by perversity?

4. However, vide order dated 27.02.2025, the following further substantial questions of law have also been framed: -

(i) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the document of title i.e. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.02.1994 no. 3034, which is a registered document and has a presumption that it is validly executed document, and as such the onus is on the person who alleges the contrary?

(ii) Whether the entire plaint itself is hit by the provision of order VII rule 3 of the C.P.C. as the particulars of the schedule-B does not correspondents to the sale deed dated 15/12/1994 no. 3034 i.e. Ext. B executed in favour of the appellants?

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as substantial question of law as framed vide order dated 06.11.2023 is concerned, the substantial question of law mentioned in paragraph 4(i) of the order dated 27.02.2025 be decided and the first substantial question of law as framed vide order dated 06.11.2023 need not be separately answered. He has further submitted that so far as the second substantial question of law framed vide order dated 06.11.2023 is concerned, upon reading of the appellate court’s judgment, the point of determination was framed by the learned appellate court vide paragraph 8 and the same was answered and therefore he does not want to harp upon the substantial question of law No. (ii) of the order dated 06.11.2023. He submits that essentially this appeal be decided on the substantial question of law framed vide paragraph 4(i) and 4(ii) vide order dated 27.02.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the submissions made the learned counsel for the appellants.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and upon going through the impugned judgements and with the consent of the parties, this appeal involves the substantial questions of law No. 4(i) and 4(ii) as framed vide order dated 27.02.2025.

Arguments of the appellants on substantial question of law No. 4(ii) of order dated 27.02.2025

8. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the plaint has submitted that the plaint had two schedules i.e. Schedule-A and Schedule-B and the suit was filed for a declaration that the sale-deed No. 3043 dated 15.12.1952 is void and be cancelled and the sale-deed was said to be in connection with Schedule-B property. However, the boundary of the property in the sale-deed did not match. The learned counsel has also submitted that in Schedule-B of the property, the municipal ward No. 15 and part of plot No. 1074 as mentioned in the map to the sale-deed is not mentioned. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the Schedule-A, the plot number has been menti