SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1254

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA 
Moushumi Bhattacharya, M.G.Priyadarsini, JJ.
Amjed Mohiuddin – Appellant 
Versus 
 Mohammed Habib Ahmed Khan and others – Respondent 
I.A.No.1 of 2024 In /and City Civil Court Appeal No.157 OF 2015 And City Civil Court Appeal No.26 OF 2015
Decided On : 06-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ch. Janardhan Reddy; H. Sudhakara Rao
For the Respondent: A. Venkatesh rep. Mohammed Nawaz Hyder Ali

Immovable property cannot be transferred without a registered deed; unregistered sale deeds are void and do not confer title.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 14 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 17 - Dispute over title and possession of immovable property - Plaintiff sought declaration of title and recovery of possession, claiming unregistered sale deed as forged - Defendants claimed ownership through subsequent transactions based on the unregistered deed - Court found unregistered sale deed void, emphasizing that immovable property cannot be transferred without registration - Appeals dismissed as defendants failed to prove their title. (Paras 10, 12, 19, 26, 36)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The burden lies on the party asserting the validity of a document to prove its authenticity, especially when allegations of forgery are made. (Paras 13, 26)

(C) Collusion - Mere familial relationship does not imply collusion in legal disputes; evidence must substantiate claims of collusion. (Paras 34, 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, claimed ownership of land based on a registered sale deed from 1989, while defendants claimed title through an unregistered sale deed dated 1998, which the plaintiff denied executing. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants forged documents to claim ownership.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the plaintiff's ownership, declaring the unregistered sale deed void and the subsequent transactions invalid.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the unregistered sale deed and the authenticity of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the unregistered sale deed could not convey title, and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants in C.C.C.A. No.157 of 2015, Sri H. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants in C.C.C.A.No.26 of 2015 and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd. Nawaz Hyder Ali, leaned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff in both the Appeals.

2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.464 of 2009 on the file of learned XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, the defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed the present Appeals respectively.

3. It is to be noted that the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.464 of 2009 filed the said suit against defendant Nos.1 to 4 for declaration of title, recovery of possession with mesne profits and declaration of unregistered sale deed dated 16.02.1998 as null and void. On the other hand, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in O.S.No.464 of 2009 filed O.S.No.54 of 2011 against the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 1 in O.S.No.464 of 2009 and another for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of same suit schedule property in O.S.No.464 of 2009. Since the suit schedule property and the dispute between the parties are one and the same, the Trial Court has passed Common Judgment dated 04.12.2014 in O.S.No.464 of 2009 and O.S.No.54 of 2011. However, the present Appeals are filed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.No.464 of 2009 only to the extent of setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 04.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.464 of 2009. Thus, we are concerned only with the pleadings and issues in respect of O.S. No.464 of 2009 only.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.464 of 2009.

5. The plaint averments of O.S.No.464 of 2009 in brief are as under:

a) The plaintiff having purchased an extent of Ac.0.05.06 guntas of land equivalent to 612.6 square yards in Sy.No.2 of Bhakthwarguda, Hakeempet (Now Nizam Colony), Tolichowki i.e., the suit schedule property under registered sale deed bearing document No.2853/1989 dated 18.12.1989 made constructions over the said plot. The municipal authorities have assessed the property tax and assigned Municipal No.9-4-62/98 and 9-4-62/99.

b) Since the plaintiff is a citizen of United States of America holding an Overseas Citizen of India Card, he used to pay property tax by post to the municipal authorities. Since the plaintiff is having cordial relationship with his elder brother, he kept his sale deed dated 18.12.1989 and other relevant documents with his elder brother Mohammed Mahmood Khan.

c) On demand of some amount by his brother, the plaintiff issued an Account Payee Cheque bearing No.617156 for Rs.20,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad. The plaintiff came to know that the said cheque was taken by defendant No.1, who is son of his brother by name Mohammed Mahmood Khan but he could not encash the same as it was an account payee cheque. Defendant No.1 did not return the said cheque. On account of this transaction, misunderstandings developed between the plaintiff and his brother and thereby plaintiff took all the original papers from his brother.

d) In the month of November, 2008 the plaintiff came to India with an intention to settle down in India and leveled the suit schedule property with the help of labourers to construct a house. On 27.12.2008 defendant No.1 and a person by name Mirza Rafeeq Bai trespassed into the suit schedule property and damaged part of compound wall, gate and demanded to extort an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the plaintiff illegally and threatened to dispossess. Thus, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.4729/2008 on the file of learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against defendant No.1 and another for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property and the plaintiff was granted interim injunction orders on 29.12.2008, which was extended from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top