Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. DUBEY
RAMJAN KHAN - Appellant
Versus
BABA RAGHUNATH DASS - Respondents
S. A. 160 Of 1980
Decided On : 12/05/1990
SALE DEED - MORTGAGE BY CONDITIONAL SALE - EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 16 (C) - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM CONTRACT - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs executed two registered sale deeds in favor of Baba Lakhan Dass, transferring agricultural suit-lands after obtaining previous sanction from the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 70 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1948. The plaintiffs alleged that the Baba subsequently entered into agreements to sell the suit lands on payment of Rs. 2500/- each, as the Baba was usufructing the land. The plaintiffs filed two suits for reconveyance of agricultural suit-lands after executing sale-deeds in relation to the same. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suits, holding that no agreement to sell was executed by the Baba, the document was a forged document, and that the sale deed by the plaintiffs in favor of the Baba was an out and out sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sale deeds were not void due to lack of permission to sell the disputed lands under Section 79 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1948, as the Sub-Divisional Officer had the authority to grant such permission under the relevant provisions of the Act. The court also held that the execution of the agreement to sell (Ext. P-1) was not proved, as the evidence did not establish that the Baba had consciously subscribed to the document and that it was properly explained to him. The court further held that the plaintiffs' application for amendment of pleadings to take up the plea under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the fact that the two sale deeds were not loan transactions and were executed for a collateral security for obtaining loan, could not be allowed at this late stage, as a valuable right had accrued to the defendant.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deeds were void due to lack of permission to sell the disputed lands under Section 79 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1948? 2. Whether the execution of the agreement to sell (Ext. P-1) was proved? 3. Whether the plaintiffs' application for amendment of pleadings to take up the plea under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the fact that the two sale deeds were not loan transactions and were executed for a collateral security for obtaining loan, could be allowed at this late stage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sale deeds were not void due to lack of permission to sell the disputed lands under Section 79 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1948, as the Sub-Divisional Officer had the authority to grant such permission under the relevant provisions of the Act. 2. The court held that the execution of the agreement to sell (Ext. P-1) was not proved, as the evidence did not establish that the Baba had consciously subscribed to the document and that it was properly explained to him. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs' application for amendment of pleadings to take up the plea under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the fact that the two sale deeds were not loan transactions and were executed for a collateral security for obtaining loan, could not be allowed at this late stage, as a valuable right had accrued to the defendant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the sale deeds were not void, the execution of the agreement to sell was not proved, and the plaintiffs' application for amendment of pleadings could not be allowed at this late stage.
( 1 ) THE aforesaid two second appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs have preferred these two appeals aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the two Courts below, whereby two separate suits of the plaintiffs for reconveyance of agricultural suit-lands after executing sale-deeds in relation to the same have been dismissed.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to these two peoples are that the plaintiffs executed two registered sale-deeds on 10-10-1956 before Sub-Registrar, Morena, one of which is typed on a stamp paper and the other is handwritten for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- each and transferred the suit-lands in favour of Baba Lakhan Dass (for short, the 'baba'), resident of Inderkhi Galarkhoh, Tahsil and District Morena, after obtaining previous sanction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Morena, after obtaining previous sanction of Sub-Divisional Officer, Morena, under S. 70 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act; Samvat 2007 (for short, the 'act') in file Rs. 22/56x 6/ lx7 possession of the lands under the two saledeeds was delivered to the Baba through Baba Ratan Dass Vairagi. In these two sale-deeds at the place above two sentences from the bottom the following words are written with pen "yah Bhoomi Dev Sthan Shri Ram Janki Ke Upbhog Main Rahegi. Deegar Ko Antarit Na Kar Sakenge. " The addition of these words in the two sale-deeds does not bear the signatures or the thumb ingression of the Baba or Baba Ratan Dass. It is alleged that the Baba subsequently on the same day entered into agreements to sell the suit lands on payment of an amount of Rs. 2500/- each without interest, as the alienee, the Baba, was usufructing the land. It may be mentioned here only that the Baba was an illiterate person and used to put his thumb impression on the document, which was written by R. R. Patankar (PW 1), a resident of Gwalior and an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. There was no term of covenant in the two sale-deeds; about the transaction being in the relationship of debtor and creditor and the transfer being a collateral security for loan. The sale deeds and the agreements were not executed contemporaneously, nor they, were executed at the same place; the sale deeds were executed before Sub-Registrar, Morena, and the agreements were said to have been executed at a temple near Banmore, which is 75 Km. away from Morena. The plaintiffs averred that when they arranged Rs. 5000/- after pledging their utensils and taking loans approached the Baba in the month of December 1963 for reconveying or re-purchasing the suit lands in accordance with the agreements to sell (Ext. P-1), the Baba was not well and asked the plaintiffs to come after 2-3 months, but because of the ill-health the sale-deeds could not be executed. On 11-8-1964 the Baba died; thereafter the plaintiffs approached the defendant on several occasions but he avoided to execute the sale-deeds on one pretext or the other, and on 21-l-1971 refused to reconvey the suit-lands and to execute the sale-deeds. Notice (Ext. P-1 ) dt. 15-3-1971 was issued by the plaintiffs through their advocate Shri Nizamuddin Khan. In this notice there was no mention of the agreement (Exi. P-1) but the plaintiffs challenged the right of the Baba to transfer the suit-lands to the Baba challenged (sic) The allegations in the notice were denied by the defendant vide Ext. P-3. Then another notice (Ext. P-2) dt. 4-6-1971 was issued by the plaintiffs through the same Advocate wherein a demand was made to execute the sale-deeds and to deliver possession of the suit-lands on the basis of Ext. P-1. ( 4 ) THE defendant denied the claim and contested the suit; the sale in favour of the Baba was an out and out sale and the document (Ext. P-1) is a forged document which was never executed by the Baba nor it bears his thumb impression.
( 5 ) THE trial Court framed issues on which the parties were at contest and after recording of evidence dismissed the suits hold
AI
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
