IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of a sale deed without the requisite permission under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is void, and the presumption of validity of registered documents requires substantial evidence to be rebutted, particularly in cases involving allegations of fraud.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record.

2. A registered sale deed dated 31.05.2001 was executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favour of the defendant-respondents and the Original Suit No.383 of 2010 was filed after nine years seeking cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the signatures of the plaintiff (vendor) were obtained by fraud and, in fact, the plaintiff-appellant had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/-from the vendee and sale deed was neither intended to be executed nor actually executed. The other plea was that the sale deed was invalid for want of permission from the Competent Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and, therefore, as per Section 157-AA of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act, 1950), unless there was a permission accorded by the Competent Authority, sale deed could not be executed. He further submits that both the courts below have also erred in not correctly examining the plea of fraud and by merely observing that the sale deed being a registered document, there would be a presumption as regards its validity, the suit has been dismissed. He further submits that the plaintiff-appellant was not aware of the execution of sale deed and when proceedings for disbursement of compensation by Avas Vikas Parishad were held and the purchasers/ defendants put their claim for getting the compensation, the plaintiff-appellant came to know about the fraud committed with him and, therefore, the suit was filed. He also submits that as per Section 166 of the Act, 1950, any transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void and, therefore, the sale deed would be void for want of compliance of Section 157-AA.

4. The Court has perused the entire record of proceedings attached to the appeal.

5. As far as the first argument based upon Section 157-AA of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the Court finds that there was no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The plea of permission from the Competent Authority was taken in paragraph no.10 of the plaint but it was not stated that permission, as contemplated under Section 157-AA, was required and even though it was not necessary to plead any section of the Statute, the pleading was to the effect that the property was given on lease by the State Government and, therefore, in absence of permission from the Competent Authority/ District Magistrate, sale could not be effected and the sale deed is void.

6. Sri Tyagi has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no.1 to the affidavit supporting stay application, which is a photostat copy of caste certificate dated 26.03.2021 demonstrating the alleged status of the plaintiff-appellant as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. Admittedly, this document did not form part of the record of the courts below nor has any application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 42 CPC by which the provisions of Order 41 have been made applicable to second appeals, been moved before this Court. Therefore, the photostat copy of the document filed as Annexure no.1 cannot be read in the present proceedings. Therefore, argument on non-compliance of Section 157-AA has no force.

7. In so far as the plea of fraud is concerned, both the courts below have dealt with oral and documentary evidence in this regard and this Court does not find any error or perversity in the view taken to the effect that there was a presumption of validity of the registered document. This Court finds that such a view is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and though the presumption is rebutable, no cogent evidence was led by the plaintiff-appellant to rebut the said presumption.

8. There is