Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Smt. Kanta – Appellant
Versus
Santosh – Respondent
R.S.A.No. 320 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2024
Property - Sale Deed - Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 68, 101; Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 54 - The court emphasized the presumption of genuineness of registered sale deeds and clarified that the burden of proof lies on the party denying the execution of such deeds.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two cross-appeals regarding the validity of sale deeds for a property sold by a defendant to two different plaintiffs. The core issue was the legitimacy of a sale deed executed in favor of one plaintiff, which the other plaintiff contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first appellate court erred in its judgment by not recognizing the presumption of genuineness attached to registered sale deeds and failing to properly allocate the burden of proof.
Issues: The main issues were whether the sale deed executed in favor of the appellant was valid and whether the first appellate court correctly assessed the evidence regarding the sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness, and the burden of disproving it lies with the party challenging its validity. The failure of the opposing party to provide sufficient evidence led to the restoration of the trial court's decision.
Result: The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside, and that of the trial court is restored.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1.1 With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two cross regular second appeals shall stand disposed of by a common order.
1.2. Smt. Kanta is the appellant in both the appeals. She was defendant in the first suit i.e. Civil Suit No. RBT/37/2012 (Santosh vs. Brij Mohan and another) filed on 21.01.2012, whereas, she was plaintiff in the second suit i.e. Civil Suit No.RBT/36/2012 (Kanta vs. Brij Mohan and another), filed on 08.02.2012.
1.3. The trial Court while passing two separate judgments of the same day, dismissed the suit filed by Smt. Santosh, whereas decreed the suit filed by Smt. Kanta (appellant). Smt. Santosh filed two appeals which have been accepted by the First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial court.
1.4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in these cases, the relevant facts in chronological order, are required to be noticed, briefly.
1.5. Sh. Brij Mohan, defendant no.1 in both the suits purchased a plot measuring 302 sq. yards vide sale deed dated 02.12.1986. He sold the western part of the plot measuring 150 sq. yards in favour of Smt. Santosh (Respondent no.1) vide registered sale deed dated 07.12.1987. On the remaining plot he constructed his house after getting loan. He sold plot measuring 150 sq. yards in favour of Smt. Kanta vide registered sale deed dated 30.07.1991. Smt. Santosh sold the plot purchased by her from Sh. Brij Mohan in favour of Sh. Charan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 13.01.2005. Sh. Brij Mohan is alleged to have further sold 150 Sq. yards property to Smt. Santosh vide registered sale deed dated 13.10.2011. In substance, the dispute is with regard to the correctness of the sale deed dated 13.10.2011, allegedly executed by Sh. Brij Mohan in favour of Smt. Santosh with respect to 150 square yards plot which was already sold to Smt. Kanta (appellant) on 30.07.1991.
1.6. In both the suits, Sh. Brij Mohan is defendant no.1. He denies the execution of sale deed dated 30.07.1991, in favour of Smt. Kanta, whereas admits two sale deeds executed by him in favour of Smt. Santosh on 02.12.1986 and 13.10.2011.
1.7. The copies of all the sale deeds, namely, 02.12.1986, 07.12.1987, 30.07.1991, 13.01.2005 and 13.10.2011, have been produced.
1.8. Sh. Brij Mohan has not come forward to testify in the court in both the suits. In order to prove the registered sale deed, Smt. Kanta has appeared as PW1, whereas she has examined the officials of Registrar’s office to prove the sale deeds, namely, PW2-Neeraj Kumar and PW3-Om Parkash. She has also examined PW4A-Shamsher Singh Malik, the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, who has submitted report that the signatures of Sh. Brij Mohan have been appended on the various sale deeds as well as receipts. He has also proved the signatures of Sh. Avtar Singh (husband of Smt. Kanta) on the receipts dated 30.07.1991 and 07.04.1992.
2. FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELALTE COURT:-
2.1. The relevant findings of the First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment passed by the trial court are discussed in in paras 20 to 27, which read as under:-
21. It was found that mere certified copy of the sale deed dated 1515 dated 30.07.1991- Ex.P4 was adduced in her evidence by the plaintiff Smt. Kanta, which was d
A registered sale deed is presumed genuine, and the burden of proof lies on the party denying its execution, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act and Transfer of Property Act.
Sale deeds must be proved by the signature of the executant as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be admitted without such proof, under Section 91, rendering erroneous decisions based on ....
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 court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
(1) An agreement without consideration is void but if a document is registered on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other, then such an agreeme....
The burden of proof in civil trials must be borne by the plaintiff, who must substantiate allegations of fraud with appropriate evidence and particulars.
The burden of proof regarding undue influence lies with the defendant when the plaintiff is an illiterate villager, but the defendant successfully discharged this burden, validating the sale deed.
The court established that a transaction could be classified as a mortgage rather than a sale, emphasizing the burden of proof and admissibility of oral evidence.
(1) [By Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah]]Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were....
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
