A registered sale deed carries a rebuttable presumption of validity. However, transfers of minor-owned immovable property by a natural guardian without judicial permission are void. Furthermore, minor discrepancies in property boundaries within a plaint do not invalidate the suit if the property is otherwise identifiable via other records.

CAV on 03.03.2025 Pronounced on 17/06/2025

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2021 (decree signed on 15.02.2021) passed by the learned District Judge-VII, Deoghar in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2019, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 29.03.2019 (decree signed on 10.04.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) -I, Deoghar in Title (D) Suit No. 16 of 2004 has been affirmed.

2. On perusal of order dated 03.03.2025 when the hearing of the case commenced, it is apparent that both the parties had agreed that this appeal be heard and decided only on the substantial questions of law framed vide order dated 27.02.2025 and consequently, the arguments were advanced only in connection with the substantial question of law nos. 4(i) and 4(ii) as framed vide order dated 27.02.2025.

3. The aforesaid two substantial questions of law framed vide order dated 27.02.2025 are as under:

(i) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the document of title i.e. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.02.1994 no. 3034, which is a registered document and has a presumption that it is validly executed document, and as such the onus is on the person who alleges the contrary?

(ii) Whether the entire plaint itself is hit by the provision of order VII rule 3 of the C.P.C. as the particulars of the schedule-B does not correspondents to the sale deed dated 15/12/1994 no. 3034 i.e. Ext. B executed in favour of the appellants?

4. The perusal of the records of this case reveals that exhibit-B is registered deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992 which is subject matter of challenge in the suit and the parties have also advanced their arguments with respect to exhibit-B and apparently in the order dated 27.02.2025 the deed number and date has been inadvertently typed as “Sale deed dated 15.02.1994 no. 3034” in substantial question of law no. (i) and “sale deed dated 15/12/1994 no. 3034” in substantial question of law no. (ii), but exhibit number has been rightly mentioned. Accordingly, the two substantial questions of law framed for consideration are as under:

(i) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the document of title i.e. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.12.1992 no. 3043, which is a registered document and has a presumption that it is validly executed document, and as such the onus is on the person who alleges the contrary?

(ii) Whether the entire plaint itself is hit by the provision of order VII rule 3 of the C.P.C. as the particulars of the schedule-B does not correspondents to the sale deed 15.12.1992 no. 3043 i.e. Ext. B executed in favour of the appellants?

5. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs: -

i) For that on adjudication of the suit Title of the plaintiff may be confirmed over schedule ‘B’ property.

ii) For that a sale deed dated 15.12.1992 vide no. 3043 executed by Jinni Devi and others in favour of Bhagwati Devi be declared void and cancelled.

iii) For that possession be delivered to the plaintiffs through the process of the court.

iv) For that a temporary injunction, be granted against the defendants restraining them not to make any type of construction over Schedule ‘B’ property.

v) Cost of the suit.

vi) Any other relief or reliefs as the court may deem fit and proper.

6. Case of the Plaintiffs

(a) The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the heirs of Chiman Rawani. Originally, said Chiman Rawani had taken settlement of 4 Kathas of Basouri land bearing plot no. 1455 under Thoka no. 59/18(old) 198/A(new) of Mouza Patharchapti of Madhupur town from the then Ghatwalin of Pathrol Estate and after taking settlement of 4 Kathas of Basouri land, Chiman Rawani had constructed building and was residing in the said premises with his family members. Thereafter, Chiman Rawani during his life time had sold 1 Katha 5 dhurs out of 4 katha to one Jamuna Debi by a registered deed of sale and