Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA
Dinabandhu Behera – Appellant
Versus
Binod Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's ownership and prior litigation context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about the sale deed and agreements. (Para 4 , 12) |
| 3. issues framed regarding property rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. substantial questions of law raised. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. transfer of title and possession issues discussed. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of lower court's decisions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.
The predecessor of the respondents of this 2nd Appeal i.e. Ramswarup Ram was the sole plaintiff in the suit vide Title Suit No.14 of 1985-I. When that plaintiff Ramswarup Ram expired, after the Judgment of Title Suit No.14 of 1985-I and during the pendency of the 1st Appeal vide Title Appeal No.4 of 1987, the respondents of this 2nd Appeal were substituted in his place as respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(f) in that 1st Appeal.
The suit of the plaintiff vide Title Suit No.14 of 1985-I was a suit for declaration of title over the suit properties and recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendant along with mesne profits.
It was agreed between them that, if the defendant will pay Rs.5
Registered sale deed conveys title to the vendee even if possession is retained by the vendor, and non-delivery of possession does not invalidate transfer.
Non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a sale deed, and a third party cannot contest its validity; possession by trespassers benefits the true owner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a registered document operates from the time of execution, and subsequent transfers are subservient to prior contracts, unless there is a spec....
The non-delivery of possession does not affect the transfer of title, and lack of mutation in revenue records does not extinguish the title of the lawful purchaser.
The court held that the plaintiffs proved ownership through valid Sale Deed; defendants failed to substantiate adverse possession claims due to contradictions in evidence.
The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.
A co-owner can validly sell their share in joint properties, and the sale deed cannot be declared void if it is within the extent of the seller's interest.
A sale deed is void if no consideration was paid; registration does not validate it, and its improper registration does not confer title.
The registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness, and the burden of proof lies on the defendants to establish it as a sham, which they failed to do.
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
