The court ruled that registered sale deeds carry a presumption of validity, and subsequent deeds executed on the same property are void unless specific contractual links exist.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 29.11.2016 (Decree signed on 13.12.2016) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Jamtara in Title Appeal No. 20 of 2015 whereby the learned Court has confirmed the Judgment dated 26.03.2015 (Decree dated 13.04.2015) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 71 of 2002 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-principal defendant. The defendant no. 1, who has lost in both the courts is the appellant before this Court.

2. The original plaintiff (Anandi Devi) and the defendant no.1 (Shobha Devi), both claimed title over the suit property by virtue of registered sale deeds said to have been executed by the original defendant no.2 (Rajamoni Mondal). There is no dispute that the suit property belonged to the original defendant no.2. The suit was filed seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Sale Deed No. 1137 of 2001 is void and also for declaration that Sale Deed No.388 of 2001 is lawful.

3. This Second Appeal was Admitted for hearing on 04.12.2018, on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the learned trial court as well as learned lower Appellate Court had committed gross error while deciding the main issue “whether the sale deed no. 388 of 2001 executed by defendant no. 2, the vendor Rajamani Mandal in favour of plaintiff is lawful and valid” whereas the vendor Rajamani Mandal denied the execution of Sale Deed No. 388 of 2001 in favour of plaintiff Anandi Devi nor the vendor Rajamani Mandal have examined to prove the said sale deed?

(ii) Whether the learned trial court as well as learned lower Appellate court had committed gross error while deciding another issue “whether the Sale Deed No. 1137 of 2001 executed by the defendant no. 2, the vendor Rajamani Mandal in favour of defendant no. 1 is void, illegal and inoperative in law” whereas the vendor Rajamani Mandal himself admitted the execution of Sale Deed No. 1137 of 2001 in favour of defendant No. 1 Shova Devi in his written statement?

(iii) Whether the learned trial court as well as learned lower Appellate Court had committed gross error and not considered the agreement executed by the vendor Rajamani Mandal in favour of defendant No. 1 Shova Devi on 30.10.2000 with regard to the sale of the land in question?

(iv) Whether the learned trial court as well as learned lower Appellate Court had committed gross error and not verified the signature of the vendor Rajamani Mandal by a handwriting expert or by an F.S.L. laboratory?

4. Title Suit No.71 of 2002 was filed seeking a declaration that the sale deed bearing no.1137 of 2001 executed by the original defendant no.2 in favour of the defendant no.1 is void, illegal, inoperative in law and not binding on the plaintiff and for a further declaration that registered sale deed no.388 of 2001 executed by original defendant no.2 in favour of the original plaintiff is valid and lawful. A prayer was also made seeking cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed no.1137 of 2001 and a relief was prayed seeking injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff.

5. After giving the details regarding the title with respect to the suit property, it was the case of the plaintiff that the owner of the property, namely, Hara Gopal Nandi Choudhary sold 4 decimals of land of plot no.3233 to Mohanlal Burman by a registered sale deed and the said suit plot was mark