A registered sale deed, while presumptive, does not confer title over property without substantiated evidence of prior ownership and possession.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned District Judge VII, Hazaribagh whereby Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2011 has been dismissed. The trial court judgment was passed in Title Suit No. 88 of 2008 by learned Munsiff, Hazaribagh whereby the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed no. 5740 dated 14.05.1987 and also sale-deed no. 16122 dated 12.04.2003 declaring them as null and void and also for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession in connection with the property covered by the said sale-deeds. The appellant had also prayed that in case the plaintiff is found dispossessed from the property, appropriate relief be granted for recovery of possession.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the plaintiff was claiming title over the property by virtue of the registered sale-deed dated 11.09.1975 (Exhibit-1) executed by one Karamchand Ram. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit proceeded ex-parte. He submits that the cause of action arose when the defendants claimed title over the property and a proceeding under section 144 of Code of Criminal Proceeding was also initiated in the year 2008.

4. The learned counsel submits that the sale-deed of the plaintiff was of the year 1975 which was a 30 years old document and therefore, the recital of the document was required to be presumed to be correct. He has referred to section 48 of the REGISTRATION ACT . Learned counsel has submitted that the entire fact regarding partition amongst the family of the vendor of the plaintiff way back in the year 1959 was narrated in the sale-deed (Exhibit-1) but in spite of such presumption, the learned Court has refused to decree the suit primarily on the ground that neither the property was mutated in the name of the vendor of the plaintiff nor the same was mutated in favour of the plaintiff and the learned Court has held that amicable partition itself was not proved. The learned counsel further submits that once the sale-deed was registered and the document was 30 years old and the suit proceeded ex-parte, the learned trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. He has also submitted that the learned appellate Court has also not considered this aspect of the matter and therefore, though there are concurrent findings by both the learned Courts, but this appeal is fit to be heard by framing a substantial question of law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to Section 74 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT and submits that the registered sale-deed is a public document and neither its execution nor its content is required to be formally proved. The learned counsel submits that the learned Courts have not considered Section 48 of the REGISTRATION ACT which gives credence to a registered document and have also not considered Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act which defines ‘sale’ and further not considered Section 90 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT which deals with presumption regarding 30 years old document.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the substantial question of law as proposed i.e., substantial question of law nos. B, C and F.

7. This Court finds that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and if dispossessed during pendency, he put to be in possession after evicting the defendant. The plaintiff also prayed for a declaration that r