Point of Law: Sale Deed – Execution of - Consolidation Officer had accepted that petitioner was major at time of execution of sale deed but rejected application merely on ground that total sale consideration has not been paid whereas Settlement Officer Consolidation, without dealing issue of age of petitioner at time of execution of sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 is the court concerned.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.1993 passed by the opposite party no.1 by means of which the revision filed by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Sirdar of the land in dispute i.e. Gata No.25 having area of 70 Biswa. The petitioner applied for Bhumidari rights. On the basis of bhumidhari rights, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the opposite party no.2 on 21.04.1976. On the basis of the said sale deed the opposite party no.2 applied for mutation before the Consolidation Officer. The objection on behalf of the petitioner was filed by his mother Smt. Indra Devi on the ground that her son i.e. the petitioner was minor at the time of execution of sale deed and the sale deed was got executed by fraud and no consideration was paid. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 29.01.1978 / 30.01.1978. The opposite party no.2 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which too was rejected vide order dated 17.02.1979. Thereafter the revision was preferred by the opposite party no.2 which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. opposite party no.1 on 19.10.1993, hence the present writ petition.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was minor at the time of execution of sale deed and it should have been recorded by the Sub-Registrar but it was not recorded. He further submitted that the petitioner has been shown as minor and Sirdar in 1376 Fasli but the revisional court has failed to consider it. He had also submitted that the evidence of the mother of the petitioner is of great evidentiary value, who had stated that the petitioner was minor at the time of execution of sale deed but it has not been considered. It is a settled proposition of law that the sale deed executed by a minor is void-ab-initio. The concurrent finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Appellate Authority could not have been interfered by the Revisional Authority. Accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Mohori Bibee and Another vs. Dharmodas Ghose; (1903) ILR 30 P.C. 539, Vishwambhar and Others Vs. Laxminarayan (Dead); Appeal (Civil) 554 of 1998 (judgment and order dated 20.07.2001) and Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and Another; Civil Appeal No.562 of 2003 ( judgment and order dated 13.05.2019).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 had submitted that the new number of plot in question is plot no.80 / 0-17-0. The petitioner was major and he was twenty years of age on 21.04.1976 i.e. the date of execution of sale deed. There is no provision for recording minority or majority of the executant by the Sub-Registrar. The Revisional Court has rightly considered the case on the basis of material available on record and the evidence. He had also submitted that there was no concurrent finding by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Consolidation Officer had also found that the petitioner was eighteen years of age at the time of execution of sale deed but the application was rejected on the ground that the application for mutation can not be allowed unless the total amount of consideration is paid and Rs.2,000/-is remained to be paid, whereas non-payment of total sale consideration, though it was paid, cannot be a ground for rejection of mutation application. This point was also neither specifically raised before the Consolidation Officer nor argued but the learned Consolida