Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
V. Mani - Appellant
Versus
Babu & Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 53 of 2007
Decided On : 07-02-2024
REGISTRATION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 35, 54, 60, 87; Indian Evidence Act - Section 114 - The court analyzed the validity of a sale deed executed posthumously, emphasizing the necessity of following mandatory procedures under the Registration Act. It highlighted that the absence of legal heirs at the time of registration does not automatically void the deed, provided the registering officer followed due process. The court upheld the presumption of validity of the registered document under Section 60 of the Registration Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, concluding that procedural irregularities do not invalidate the registration.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff purchased property from Raju Chettiar, who died before the sale deed was registered. The defendant claimed adverse possession and disputed the tenancy relationship, asserting ownership through a will from Lakshmi Ammal, Raju's wife. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, leading to the defendant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was validly registered despite the executant's death, as the registering officer followed the necessary procedures. The defendant's claims of adverse possession and ownership through the will were not substantiated, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff could invoke Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the validity of the sale deed executed posthumously. 2. Whether the defendant's possession was adverse, given the rejection of the permissive possession claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registration of the sale deed was valid as the registering officer complied with the procedural requirements of the Registration Act. The presumption of validity under Section 60 of the Registration Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act favored the plaintiff, and the defendant failed to prove adverse possession or the validity of the will.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
C. Kumarappan, J.
[PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2006 in A.S.No.85 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 06.04.2004 in O.S.No.14 of 2002 dated 24.01.2005 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore.]
This Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff before the trial Court is the 1st respondent herein. The defendants 2 and 3 before the trial Court are the official respondents.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the trial Court.
The brief facts which gives rise to the instant second appeal is that:
3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was originally belonged to one Raju Chettiar. From Raju Chettiar, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under the sale deed, dated 07.10.1991. Since the Raju Chettiar died after execution and prior to registration of the sale deed, after complying due procedures, the sale deed was got registered on 06.01.1993. It is the submission of the plaintiff that even at the time of purchase, the 1st defendant was in occupation of the suit property as tenant under Raju Chettiar. While so, the plaintiff filed RCOP.No.9 of 1999 before the Rent Controller, Cuddalore, wherein, the 1st defendant disputed the tenancy. Eventually, the RCOP was dismissed on 20.12.2001 with a finding that the relationship of the land lord and tenant has not been proved. Since the plaintiff did not want to prolong the litigation, he contemplated the instant suit.
4. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant has committed default in payment of rent since 01.01.1976, however, the suit for recovery of rent has been filed only for the last three years as the claim beyond three years is barred by limitation. Therefore, this plaintiff prayed for the relief of declaration and for directing the 1st defendant to deliver vacant possession.
5. The said suit was resisted by the 1st defendant with the contention that the defendant had constructed the hut in the suit property in the year 1985 and ever since then he has been in continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, this defendant pleads adverse possession against the plaintiff.
6. It is the further submission of the defendant that there was no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant. This defendant also contended that the suit property originally belonged to one Lakshmi Ammal under a sale deed dated 10.01.1963 and she executed the Will in favour of Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the defendant on 25.08.1985 and subsequently died on 12.09.1985. Eversince the date of death of Lakshmi Ammal, the defendant's mother Krishnaveni Ammal, her other sons and this defendant have been living in the suit property in their own title and they have also prescribed title by adverse possession. It is also the contention of the defendant that the brother of Lakshmi Ammal filed the suit in O.S.No.90 of 1989 wherein the plaintiff's predecessor in title Raju Chettiar was allotted only 5/8th share, hence, this defendant submits that the suit is barred by resjudicata and prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. The Official respondents were set ex-parte before the trial Court.
Evidence and documents:-
8. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff Babu examined himself as PW1 and Mr. Kuppusamy was examined as PW2 and Mr. C. Soundararajan was examined as PW3 and Mr. D. Soundararajan was examined as PW4, and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, 1st defendant Mani examined himself as DW1 and Mr. Dhandapani was examined as DW2 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
Finding of the both the Court below:-
9. After having considered the submissions on either side and based upon the material on records, the trial Court found that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration
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....
The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of genuineness attached to a registered document and the burden of proof in challenging its validity.
The claim of title and plea of adverse possession cannot coexist. An unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purposes.
An unregistered sale deed is invalid for specific performance claims, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the validity of the transaction.
The registered document operates from the date of execution, and a party with unclean hands is not entitled to declaratory relief.
Possession alone does not confer property title; it must be open, peaceful, and adverse to true owners for claim of adverse possession to succeed.
The court affirmed that a registered sale deed establishes title, while failure to comply with statutory notice requirements under tenancy law renders claims voidable.
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
