Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Naval Singh – Appellant
Versus
Radha Dixit – Respondent
Second Appeal No.445 of 2019
Decided on : 29-10-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 and 109 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 60 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Amendment Act, 1973 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101, 102 and 68 - Uttar Pradesh Act 57 of 1976 - Property - Registered Sale Deed in Place of Mortgage Deed - Possession of Property - Whether plaintiff suit is barred by the provisions of sec. 34 of Specific Relief Act when he is owner and in possession of property in suit - Whether learned trial Court erred in deciding issue that plaintiff appellant has no locus for relief of cancellation of sale deed on ground of averments made in suit - Whether lower appellate court erred in not appreciating evidence educated by plaintiff-appellant - Whether judgment and decree passed by trial Court as well as appellate court is vitiated in law as being based on conjectures and surmises - Whether plaintiff’s suit is barred by provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly when plaintiff-appellant is owner and is in possession of suit property.
Finding of the Court :
It is admitted case of parties that sale deed was a registered sale deed was a registered document and thus in view of proviso attached to Section 68 of 1872, it was not necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of an execution of a document, which has been registered in accordance with provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by a person by whom it purports to have been executed specifically denies - Even otherwise, it is/was onus of plaintiff-appellant to have discharged its burden, while proving fact that registered sale deed was a fraudulent transaction - However, as noted earlier, same has not been discharged - Plaintiff-appellant has alleged that he is an illiterate person and he is not in a position to make his signatures - After going through pleadings set forth in present appeal, as well as arguments so advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant, this Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in present appeal purported to be under Section 100 of CPC, 1908.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a second appeal purported to be under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment, order and decree dated 17.1.2019 passed by the Court of IVth Addl. District Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2018, Naval Singh vs. Smt. Radha Dixit, as well as the judgment, order and decree dated 25.2.2017 passed by the Court of Small Causes/Civil Judge, Agra in Original Suit no. 526 of 2010, Naval Singh vs. Smt. Radha Dixit.
2. Briefly stated, facts shorn of unnecessary details are that plaintiff-appellant as per the averments contained in the plaint in Original Suit No. 526 of 2010 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra being Naval Singh Vs. Smt. Radha Dixit had claimed himself to be the absolute owner and in actual physical possession of demised property being Khasra no. 688 and 672, Rakba 0.023 hect, situate at Sikri (2 hissa), Tehsil Kirawali, district Agra.
3. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the defendant respondent being Smt. Radha Dixit wife of Sri Shanti Swaroop is residing just in front of the plaintiff-appellant. As per the case set up in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant has alleged that he was in dire need of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.20,000/-for house and family members, accordingly, the plaintiff-appellant approached the husband of defendant-respondent being Sri Shanti Swaroop and he showed his willingness to grant financial assistance to the plaintiff-appellant, provided that a security/mortgage deed is executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favour of the defendant-respondent. It was, therefore, settled between the plaintiff-appellant on the one hand and defendant-respondent on the other hand that a mortgage/security deed will be executed for grant of financial assistance to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, and thus, the plaintiff-appellant, defendant-respondent and her husband went to Tehsil-Kirawali on 16.8.2008 for the purposes of registration of security/mortgage instrument.
4. Plaintiff-appellant has further alleged that the defendant got prepared some document from the document-writer and the plaintiff-appellant, thereafter, on the belief that mortgage/security deed is being sought to be registered so he effected his thumb impression and accordingly, the instrument in question was registered by the Registrar, so presented therein on 16.8.2008. The plaintiff-appellant has further asserted in its plaint in Original Suit No. 526 of 2010, Sri Naval Singh Vs. Smt. Radha Dixit, which finds place as Annexure-1 at Page-64 of the stay application to the present appeal, that the registration, which was done at 16.6.2008, was a registered sale deed in place of mortgage/security deed and then the defendant-respondent started threatening the plaintiff-appellant since 21.6.2008 for forcible and illegal dispossession, then the plaintiff was constrained to institute Original Suit no. 526 of 2010 before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Agra, Naval Singh Vs. Radha Dixit, verified on 12.7.2010 seeking following reliefs: -
B. That a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants restraining the defendants her agent or associates from causing any sort of interference in peaceful possession over disputed plot either by forcible and illegal dispossession subsequent transfer to any other person or in any other manner whatsoever.
C. The cost of suit be awarded to the plaintiff against defendants.
D. That any other relief which the Hon’ble Court Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.”
5. On being noticed, the defendant-appellant
Point of Law : There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed and a registered document, therefore, prima facie, would be valid in law.
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.
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 in allegations of fraud lies on the party in active confidence, and claims of ignorance are undermined by the execution of prior documents.
The registration of a document executed posthumously is valid if the registering officer follows the prescribed procedures, and procedural irregularities do not invalidate the registration.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership, adhering to limitation periods, and joining necessary parties in civil suits.
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 emphasized the importance of proving ownership and complying with the rules of non-joinder of parties and limitation in civil suits.
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
