1978 Supreme(All) 13

Allahbad High Court
M.P.MEHROTRA
Safi Devi - Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 01/04/1978

The interpretation of a sale deed must be based on the language of the document and the surrounding circumstances, and the cessation of rights and interests of the vendors must be construed in reference to the recital of their respective shares in the property.

Headnote:

SALE DEED - INTERPRETATION - HALF SHARE TRANSFER - OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - SECTION 47, REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 19 (B), SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - FACTUAL FINDINGS - BINDING ON SECOND APPEAL - GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENT - BURDEN OF PROOF - SALE CONSIDERATION - TIMING OF PAYMENT - NOTICE OF PRIOR AGREEMENT - CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE - COUNTERCLAIM - MAINTAINABILITY - CROSS SUIT - SECTION 52, EVIDENCE ACT - CONVICTION OF WITNESS - RELEVANCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - WILL - EXECUTION AND GENUINENESS - SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES - NATURAL COURSE OF THINGS - DISINHERITANCE OF CHILD AND GRANDCHILD - MYSTERIOUS ROLE OF THIRD PARTY - ENLARGEMENT OF TRANSFERRED ESTATE - CESSATION OF RIGHTS AND INTERESTS - CONSTRUCTION - JOINT POSSESSION - MESNE PROFITS AND RENTS - EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT IN SEPARATE ACTION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff Mahadeo Prasad filed a suit for recovery of possession of house No. 77, Muthiganj, Allahabad, along with mesne profits and rent. The sale deed for the house was executed on June 10, 1968, by Kartik Prasad (defendant No. 1) and Atul Roy (defendant No. 3) in favor of the plaintiff. However, on June 18, 1968, Kartik Prasad executed another sale deed for the same house in favor of Smt. Safi Devi (defendant No. 5). The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 5 appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

1. The sale deed dated June 10, 1968, was duly executed in favor of the plaintiff for consideration and without undue influence, coercion, or fraud. 2. The sale deed was presented for registration on June 17, 1968, and on June 25, 1968, Kartik Prasad appeared before the Sub-Registrar and admitted the due execution and receipt of the proportionate sale consideration. 3. The sale deed dated June 18, 1968, was executed by Kartik Prasad in favor of defendant No. 5 on the same date and presented for registration. 4. Defendant No. 5 and her husband had notice of the earlier sale deed dated June 10, 1968, on June 18, 1968. 5. The alleged agreement to sell dated February 10, 1967, between Kartik Prasad and defendant No. 5 was not genuine and was antedated after the sale deed was executed in favor of the plaintiff. 6. There was no evidence to prove that Atul Roy had half share in the house by virtue of an alleged will executed by Dr. Mahadeo Prasad, Kartik Prasad's father. 7. The plaintiff paid the sale consideration to Kartik Prasad on June 25, 1968, after the sale deed dated June 18, 1968, was presented for registration and contained a reference to the earlier agreement of sale dated February 10, 1967. 8. The plaintiff was aware or should have been constructively aware of the sale deed dated June 18, 1968, and the agreement dated February 10, 1967, on June 25, 1968. 9. The counterclaim made by defendant No. 5 was not maintainable, but it could be treated as the plaint in a cross suit.

Issues: 1. Whether the sale deed dated June 10, 1968, was valid and enforceable. 2. Whether the sale deed dated June 18, 1968, was valid and enforceable. 3. Whether the alleged agreement to sell dated February 10, 1967, was genuine and enforceable. 4. Whether the plaintiff had notice of the agreement dated February 10, 1967, before paying the sale consideration. 5. Whether the counterclaim made by defendant No. 5 was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court are binding on the second appeal, and the court cannot interfere unless there is a legal error. 2. The burden of proof lies on the party relying on a document to prove its genuineness. 3. The timing of payment of sale consideration is relevant in determining whether the transferee had notice of a prior agreement. 4. Constructive notice of a prior agreement can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. 5. A counterclaim can be treated as the plaint in a cross suit if it is not maintainable as a counterclaim. 6. The conviction of a witness does not render their testimony inadmissible, but it can be considered in assessing their credibility. 7. The execution and genuineness of a will must be considered in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the natural course of things and the relationship between the parties. 8. The interpretation of a sale deed must be based on the language of the document and the surrounding circumstances. 9. The cessation of rights and interests of the vendors in a sale deed must be construed in reference to the recital of their respective shares in the property.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to half the property on the basis of the sale deed dated June 10, 1968, and the defendant No. 5 was entitled to the remaining half on the basis of the sale deed dated June 18, 1968. Both parties were entitled to joint possession of the house. The court declined to award mesne profits or rents to the plaintiff, as the equities between the parties could be better adjusted in a separate action.