Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Smt. Anjuli Palo, J.
Rameshwar and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Ku. Firoz Khan and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No.1044 of 1997
Decided on 14.9.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. R.P. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents:Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Sana Khan, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Registration of sale-deed – If document was presented before Sub-Registrar within period of limitation, period it remained in Court should be excluded.
Headnote:
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 23 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 67 – Registration of sale-deed – It cannot be said that there is no proof of payment of consideration – On other hand, defendants have not produced any evidence to the contrary of the same – Similarly, from evidence of witnesses and other evidence available on record, it cannot be said that there is violation of provisions of Section 67 of Evidence Act – If document was presented before Sub-Registrar within period of limitation, period it remained in Court should be excluded – It cannot be said that no attempt was made for registration of sale deed – As such, it cannot be said that sale deed has been registered in violation of Section 23 of Registration Act – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
In this second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants/defendants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.11.1997 passed in regular Civil Appeal No.20-A/1996 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, District – Chhindwara arising out of the judgment and decree dated 02.04.1996 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.82A/1991.
2. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 02.09.1998 on the following substantial question of law:—
“Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the sale deed conveyed title to the plaintiff in the absence of proof of payment of consideration money by the plaintiff to the defendants ?”
Thereafter on 01.05.2012, this Court framed following additional substantial questions of law:—
“(1) Whether the sale deed (Exhibit P-4) dated 18.09.1984 is vitiated in law on account of violation of provisions of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?
(2) Whether the sale deed has been registered in violation of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, if so, what is the consequence?”
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, are that the original plaintiff Shakib Ali Khan filed the suit on 07.03.1987 claiming the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Sona Bai was original defendant and thereafter Rameshwar was substituted as defendant No.1. Gajji Bai was defendant No.2. The suit property pertains to khasra number 306/2 situated in village Nonia Karbal, district – Chhindwara admeasuring 3 acres . The defendant No.1 Sona Bai had earlier filed Civil Suit No.10-A/1966 against Gajji Bai (defendant No.2) for declaration of her title over the suit land and the pump installed thereon. The suit was decreed against Gajji Bai (defendant No.2). Gajji Bai preferred first appeal in the High Court which affirmed the decree of the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 09.01.1986. Before the decision of the High Court, Sona Bai (original defendant No.1) entered into a sale agreement dated 01.06.1984 vide Exhibit P-3 in respect of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.500/- was paid on 01.06.1984 itself. Another registered sale agreement was executed on 18.09.1984 vide Exhibit P-5. The sale deed was executed on 09.11.1984 Vide Exhibit P-4. It was presented for registration on 29.12.1984 but it was returned without registration for want of Rin Pustika. On 26.07.1985, the sale deed was again presented for registration but the registering authority refused to register it for want of Rin Pustika. The sale deed was again presented on 17.05.1986 and the same was registered on 19.05.1986. The original plaintiff claimed his title over the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed (Exhibit P-4). The defendant No.2 claimed the suit property by virtue of Will. Both the Courts below dismissed the claim of defendant No.2. Sona Bai died during pendency of litigation, Rameshwar and her mother Gajji Bai filed this appeal.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that executant of the sale deed i.e. original defendant No.1 – Sona Bai was an illiterate woman. This is so evident on perusal of the sale deed (Exhibit P-4) itself upon which she has put her thumb impression. The fact has however, been admitted by the original plaintiff – Shakib Ali (PW-1) himself. It is further submitted that where a person is illiterate and rustic, the document must be read over to the executants of the document. Shakib Ali (PW-1) has no where in his deposition stated that the document was read over to Sona Bai and that after reading over to her, she put her thumb impression on the document. It is contended that no witness has said that the sale deed (Exhibit P-4) was read over to the executant, she understood the contents of the sale deed and then she signed. Hence, the sale deed (Exhibit P-4) cannot be said to have been proved as required by law. In this context, he has referred to the decisio
