Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Rambhool – Appellant
Versus
Sheeshpal – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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 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 ....
Sale deed executed under statutory permission remains valid despite allegations of fraud, provided conditions were adequately met per the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
A society does not qualify as a Scheduled Caste entity under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and thus requires prior approval from the Collector for land transfers involving members of Scheduled Caste....
The agreement to sell did not transfer the land, and the deletion of Section 168-A removed any legal impediment to executing the sale deed.
Possession transfer does not equate to ownership without statutory compliance; unregistered deeds for properties over Rs. 100 are invalid.
Possession under an executory contract does not confer rights of adverse possession, as it is considered permissive rather than adverse.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove fraud, and complete particulars of fraud must be stated in the pleadings. A registered deed of sale carries a presumption of genuineness, and the onus....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between executing a sale deed claiming ownership and executing a sale deed fraudulently, and the essential ingredients of the 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
Listen Article