Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. Rathi, J.
BALWANT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RAJ SINGH - Respondents
Second Appeal 1435 Of 1987
Decided On : 04/24/2003
Cancellation of Sale Deed - Fraud - Specific Relief Act, Section 34 - U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, Section 331
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed alleging it was without consideration and obtained by fraud. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first appellate court erred in refusing the relief of cancellation based on possession and mutation. It also held that the sale deed was without consideration and obtained by fraud.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale deed could be cancelled due to lack of consideration and fraud. The court also addressed the applicability of specific provisions of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that possession and mutation did not preclude the relief of cancellation, and the sale deed was without consideration and obtained by fraud.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were quashed, and that of the trial court was restored.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The central issue in the case was whether a sale deed obtained by fraud and without consideration could be canceled, even if possession and mutation had been transferred to the respondent (!) .
The court found that possession and mutation do not bar the relief of cancellation of a sale deed, especially when the sale was executed through fraud and without consideration (!) .
The appellant had filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, alleging it was obtained by fraud and without consideration. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, citing possession and mutation as grounds for non-maintainability (!) .
The appellate court's reasoning was flawed, as it erred in considering mutation and possession as bar to cancellation. The court emphasized that mutation is a summary proceeding for revenue purposes and does not create substantive rights or operate as res judicata (!) .
The court noted that the appellant was an elderly man, and there was no evidence of actual payment of consideration for the sale deed. The endorsement by the Sub-Registrar regarding receipt of advance money was insufficient to prove consideration, especially since the appellant did not produce supporting documents (!) .
The respondent's claim that the sale was in consideration of a loan was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The absence of such evidence, along with the non-examination of the respondent's father, who was alleged to have provided the money, led the court to conclude that the sale was without consideration and obtained by fraud (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the sale deed could be canceled on the grounds of fraud and lack of consideration, regardless of possession or mutation, and restored the judgment of the trial court, quashing the appellate court's decision (!) .
The decision underscores that the primary legal principles involve the ability to seek cancellation of a sale deed based on fraud and absence of consideration, independent of possession and mutation status (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
( 1 ) THE suit was filed by the appellant for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15. 2. 1982 alleged to have been executed by the appellant in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The sole ground taken for the cancellation is that the sale deed is without consideration and obtained by fraud.
( 2 ) THE respondents contested the suit and alleged payment of consideration and that no fraud was committed. They also raised other pleas and also pleaded that the suit is barred by Section 34 of specific Relief Act and is not maintainable in the civil court and barred by Section 331 of u. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The trial court framed necessary issues and recorded finding in favour of the appellant on all the issues and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree the respondents preferred appeal. In the appeal they further pleaded that their names have been mutated and possession have been delivered and, therefore, the suit for cancellation of the sale deed is not maintainable. The appellate court held that the relief for taking possession has not been sought, that the names of the respondents have been mutated and they are in possession of the land and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The appellate court also recorded the finding regarding the payment of consideration. The appellate court, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by it this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : "whether the plaintiff could be refused the relief of cancellation as he was (not) in possession over the disputed land?"
( 4 ) I have heard Shri Dhan Prakash, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant and Shri H. N. Sharma for the respondents. However, I have carefully gone through the record of the case.
( 5 ) AFTER considering the arguments of the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the first appellate court has committed a gross error of law in recording a finding that the suit is not maintainable as the relief of possession has not been sought and that names of the defendant respondents have been mutated over the disputed land. The mutation is a summary proceeding and does not create any right of the parties in the land in dispute. It is mainly for collection of the land revenue. The order of mutation does not operate as res Judicata between the parties. Therefore, the relief of cancellation could not be refused as the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed land.
( 6 ) REGARDING possession, the property included in the sale deed is an agricultural land. There is no evidence to show that amicable possession was given by the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant alleged that the respondents cut the standing crop and on his objection, disclosed that this land has been purchased by him. Therefore, the possession of the disputed land included in the sale deed does not preclude the Court from granting the relief of cancellation of the sale deed. The first appellate court has also grossly erred in recording a finding that the relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be given as the relief of recovery of possession has not been claimed. The finding that the relief of recovery of possession should also have been sought cannot be accepted and it can be sought afterwards.
( 7 ) THE result, therefore, is that the findings of the appellate court are against law and perverse and the appellate court has erred in refusing the relief of cancellation of sale deed to the appellant for the reason that he was not in possession over the disputed land.
( 8 ) THE appellate court has also expressed the view that the sale deed is not without consideration. This view has been expressed in consonance with other findings recorded by the appellate court as he made up his mind to allow the appeal. After considering the reasons recorded by the appellate court and the trial court, I am of the view that this finding of the appellate
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
