A registered sale deed is presumed valid and establishes ownership unless the opposing party provides substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act - Sections 5 and 54 - Dispute over ownership and possession of property - Plaintiff sought declaration as absolute owner and recovery of possession, asserting title via registered sale deed - Defendant contended sale deed executed as collateral for loan, not valid transfer of ownership - The trial Court found for the plaintiff, determining that the sale deed was duly executed and registered, thereby confirming title. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 29)

(B) Principle of Good Faith - It is established that a registered sale deed presumes legitimacy and validity, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging its authenticity. The Court holds that oral evidence cannot supersede registered documentation without significant corroboration. (Paras 23, 30)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claims ownership through a registered sale deed from the defendant, who alleges it was executed under duress and as security for a loan. The defendant failed to prove this claim, having previously lost a suit asserting possession against the plaintiff. (Paras 4, 10, 13, 20)

Findings of Court:
The trial Court upheld the validity of the registered sale deed, ruling that the defendant did not establish that it was merely a security arrangement rather than an actual sale. (Paras 30, 31)

Issues: The key issues addressed include the validity of the sale deed, its classification as a security versus a transfer of ownership, and adherence to the requirement for property registration under relevant laws. (Paras 6, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that a registered sale deed carries a legal presumption of validity unless convincingly challenged. The defendant’s failure to present necessary supporting evidence led to the upholding of the trial Court's decision. (Paras 24, 29)

Result: Appeal Suit dismissed; judgment and decree of trial Court confirmed.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 06.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur.

2. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.21 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff (Respondent herein):- The suit property originally belonged to one R.Krishasamy Pillai through Court auction sale in E.P.No.10358 of 1957 in O.S.No.429 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karur, as sale was confirmed on 18.12.1957. He sold the suit property to one Ramasamy Gounder by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 24.06.1958.

Thereafter, Ramasamy Gounder died, leaving behind his wife Pappayee and his sons R.Jothivel and R.Krishnan and daughters Dhananalakshmi @ Lakshmi and Kokilam as legal heirs. One of his sons R.Krishan died intestate, leaving behind his wife, K.Rajalakshmi, son K.Chandraseakran and his mother, Pappayee. The mother Pappayee, executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of his son Jothivel regarding her lawful share. Similarly, the daughters of Ramasamy Gounder namely Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi & Kokilam and deceased R.Krishan’s wife Rajalakshmi and her son Chandrasekaran jointly executed release deed, dated 22.01.2014 in favour of R.Jothivel for valuable consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-. So, the said Jothivel, who is the defendant herein, became the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant Jothivel for himself and as guardian of his minor daughters Sukanya and Swetha sold the suit property to the plaintiff by means of registered sale deed, dated 02.04.2014 for consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, the defendant came to the plaintiff and demanded additional consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the plaintiff’s refusal, the defendant made a threat and attempted to trespass into possession. So, the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.31 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Karur, for permanent injunction and that suit was dismissed as the plaintiff had not proved his possession. In such circumstances, during pongal holidays between 14.01.2019 to 17.01.2019, when the plaintiff was away from Karur, taking advantage of the dismissal suit and with the help of henchmen, the defendant trespassed into the suit property and unlawfully possessed of suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has laid the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and for recovery of possession.

(b) The case of the defendant (appellant herein):-

The defendant approached the plaintiff, who is doing money lending business, and borrowed loan. At the time, the plaintiff and his allies compelled the defendant and got the deed, styled as sale deed registered in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff assured the defendant that he would transfer the property upon the settlement of loan. The alleged sale deed, dated 02.04.2014, was obtained by the plaintiff fraudulently, by misrepresentation and undue influence. So, the sale deed is not valid in law. Since the plaintiff demanded exorbitant interest and illegally attempted to vacate the defendant from suit property, the defendant lodged a police complaint on 30.12.2014. The averments that the defendant trespassed into the property and got unlawful possession of the property are denied. The daughters of the defendant, Suganya and Swetha, who are alleged to have executed the sale deed, have not been added as parties to the suit.

5. In the reply statement, the plaintiff state

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63783

A registered sale deed is presumed valid and establishes ownership unless the opposing party provides substantial evidence to prove otherwise.

Cases Referred (2)