Back
Allahbad High Court
S.N.SINGH
Mania - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08/05/1970
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - SALE DEED - CONSIDERATION - DURESS - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - VALIDITY OF SALE DEED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 25 OF THE CONTRACT ACT, 1872.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose over the ownership of three plots of land in village Makhena, Bulandshahr district. The petitioner, Mania, claimed ownership of the plots through a sale deed executed in her favor by her mother, Smt. Namania. The contesting opposite parties, Smt. Bhuria and her husband, claimed ownership based on a subsequent sale deed executed in their favor by Smt. Namania. The petitioner alleged that the sale deed in favor of the opposite parties was executed under duress and coercion and was without consideration, while the opposite parties denied these allegations and claimed that the sale deed was executed voluntarily and for valid consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after considering the evidence and circumstances of the case, found that the sale deed in favor of the opposite parties was not executed under duress or coercion and that there was consideration for the sale, although he did not specify the exact amount of consideration paid. He concluded that the sale deed was valid and upheld the transfer of ownership to the opposite parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deed in favor of the opposite parties was executed under duress or coercion. 2. Whether there was consideration for the sale. 3. Whether the sale deed was valid and enforceable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the finding of the Deputy Director that the sale deed was not executed under duress or coercion was supported by the evidence and circumstances of the case. 2. The court held that the onus was on the petitioner to prove that there was no consideration for the sale, and that she had failed to discharge this onus. 3. The court held that the sale deed was valid and enforceable, even if the consideration paid was not in cash, as it was executed voluntarily and for a valid purpose, namely, to resolve a family dispute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, upholding the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and confirming the transfer of ownership of the disputed plots to the opposite parties.
2. After the execution of this sale deed parties again fell out and a civil suit was instituted for the cancellation of the sale deed and criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were started in respect of the plots in dispute. Proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. terminated in favour of the petitioner. The Civil suit which was instituted by the petitioner in the court of Munsif was dismissed by the Munsif who although held that no cash consideration passed in respect of the sale sent (sic) came to the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed on account of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties after the Marpit between them and it was in response to the compromise to patch up the differences between them that the sale deed had been executed. Since the Munsif was of the opinion that the sale deed was in consideration of the rapprochement between the parties the sale deed was held to be valid. He rejected the case of the petitioner about duress and coercion.
3. An appeal was preferred against this decision of the Munsif before the Civil Judge. During the pendency of this appeal consolidation proceeding started and the hearing of the appeal was stayed. In the basic year the names of Smt. Namania and Mania found recorded over the plots in dispute.
4. Before the Consolidation Officer opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 claimed tenure-holder's right in respect of the three disputed plots on the basis of the sale deed dated 8th June 1962. On the other hand the petitioner asserted that the sale deed executed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was the result of duress and coercion and the same being without consideration was void. The Consolidation Officer placed onus on the transferee to prove the payment of consideration and having arrived at the conclusion that there was no corroborative evidence in support of the payment held that the sale deed was without consideration and he further held that possession of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was not proved. In the result he rejected the objection of Smt. Bhuria and directed the expunction of the name of Smt. Namania who had not objected to the expunction of her name from the consolidation records. The Consolidation Officer gave no finding on the question of duress and coercion raised by the petitioner.
5. An appeal was preferred against the above decision which was heard by an Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who by his judgment dated 9th July, 1964 affirmed the decision of the Consolidation Officer. He also placed the onus on the vendee to prove the payment of consideration and came to the conclusion that consideration was not proved to have been paid. He was of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case the sale deed had been executed as alleged by the petitioner. He refused to raise presumption about the payment of consideration because of the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar on the admission of
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
