Back
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Baskaran Issac (died) - Appellant
Vs.
Ranganathan – Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.636 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 3 of 2011
Decided on : 14.09.2015
Registration Act - Property Dispute - 28 - The court discussed the validity of the sale deed under Section 28 of the Registration Act and its applicability to the case. The court also considered the issue of misjoinder of party in possession and the bar of limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1953.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and mesne profits, claiming ownership of a property. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and claimed ownership based on a sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to establish the title of the vendor and the sale deed was registered in Kerala, rendering it void. The court also rejected the defendant's contentions regarding misjoinder of party in possession and the bar of limitation.
Issues: Validity of sale deed under Section 28 of the Registration Act, misjoinder of party in possession, and the bar of limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1953.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed was void as it was registered in Kerala and the defendant failed to prove the title of the vendor. The court also rejected the defendant's contentions regarding misjoinder of party in possession and the bar of limitation.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Based on the provided legal document, the main legal point established in the judgment concerns the applicability of Section 28 of the Registration Act in determining the validity of a sale deed. The court clarified that the prohibition on registering documents outside the relevant state, which was initially believed to come into force only after a specific amendment, was actually applicable prior to the amendment, as the main provisions of Section 28 were already in force. Therefore, a sale deed registered in a different state (Kerala) was considered void when the sale related to property in Tamil Nadu, unless strong evidence of fraud or collusion was present (!) .
The judgment also emphasizes that the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the validity of registration. Without evidence of fraud or collusion, a registered sale deed cannot be invalidated solely based on the location of registration (!) .
Furthermore, the court held that the validity of a sale deed is not necessarily affected by the place of registration if no fraudulent intent is demonstrated. The absence of proof of fraud or collusion means that the sale deed remains valid, even if registered outside the state (!) .
Additionally, the court rejected other contentions such as misjoinder of parties and limitations bar, ruling that these issues were not sufficiently established or were not properly raised in the lower courts, and thus could not be considered at this stage (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the judgment underscores that the validity of a registration depends on the absence of fraud or collusion, and that registration in another state does not automatically render a sale deed void unless such fraudulent intent is proven. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings that the sale deed was valid and that the suit was not barred by limitation (!) (!) .
The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.23 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.145 of 2005(O.S.No.4 of 1997, Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi), on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.
2. The first appellant who was the defendant in the suit had died during the pendency of the Second Appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record as the appellants 2 to 10. The respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.4 of 1997 for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits.
3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:
According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Murugesan, who had purchased the property on 24.02.1902. After his demise, his only legal heir, Saminathan, was enjoying the property. The said Saminathan died on 25.12.1992 and after his death, his legal heir Somasundaram succeeded to the property. Since the said Murugesan was staying in Yalpanam, he was called Yalpanam Murugesan. After his death, when Saminathan was enjoying the properties, one Ganapathia Pillai was looking after his properties as his Agent. Even after the death of Saminathan, when his son Somasundaram was enjoying the properties, the said Ganapathia Pillai continued to manage the properties. The said Somasundaram executed a Power of Attorney deed in favour of the plaintiff's father Velu Konar to sell the suit properties.
(ii) Pursuant to the Power of Attorney deed, the said Velu Konar sold the property to the plaintiff on 18.01.1996. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been paying the tax to the Panchayat. There was also mutation of records in the Panchayat records. The plaintiff has been paying the property tax to the Panchayat. When the plaintiff demanded the monthly rent from the defendant in respect of Door No.61, the defendant, not only refused to give the rent, but also disputed the title of the plaintiff. On 25.04.1996, the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant and the tenant in respect of Door NO.62 viz., Shankar to vacate the houses and the said Shankar sent a reply dated 02.05.1996 denying the title of the plaintiff. The agent of the predecessors in title viz., Ganapathia Pillai did not have any independent title or right over the suit properties. The alleged Othi deed alleged to have been executed by the said Ganapathia Pillai is a fraud document. Since the defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits.
4. The brief case of the defendant is as follows:
According to the defendant, the averments stated in the plaint by the plaintiff are false. Further according to the defendant, the suit properties originally belonged to Ganapathia Pillai ancestrally. The patta was issued in favour of Ganapathia Pillai. The said Ganapathia Pillai's ancestor was Murugesan Pillai. The suit properties were called as “Yalpanathu Madam”. The defendant denied the averments that Murugesan, his legal heir Saminathan and his legal heir Somasundaram had right in the suit properties. Further according to the defendant, on 19.08.1977, the said Ganapathia Pillai executed othi deed in favour Manickam Pillai. The water connection and the electricity connection stood in the name of Ganapathiapillai. The tax receipts in respect of Door No.61 stands in the name of madam. On 05.12.1994, the defendant purchased the properties from the said Ganapathia Pillai and since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In these circumstances, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 19 documents Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked and on the side of the defendant, he was examined as D.W.1 and 8 documents Exs.B
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
