Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Chandna(D) Thru Lrs Raghuveer – Appellant
Versus
Lakhan Singh & Anr. – Respondent
SA 509/2002
The legal document pertains to a dispute over the nature of a sale deed executed in favor of the defendant. The core issue is whether the document is an out-and-out sale or a sham intended as a mortgage or security for a loan. The court emphasizes that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness, and such documents should not be declared sham casually, as doing so could undermine public confidence in property transactions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In this case, the sale deed (Ex.P/1) was duly registered, and there is no indication within the document itself that it was executed as a security or mortgage rather than a sale (!) (!) . The plaintiff's primary argument is that the transaction was a mortgage, not a sale, based on alleged misrepresentation by the defendant. However, the court finds that the document's language and the absence of any clause indicating a mortgage or reconveyance condition support the conclusion that it was an outright sale (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the plaintiff admitted to executing the sale deed and that there was no provision for reconveyance or mortgage terms within the document (!) . The plaintiff's claims of a usufructuary mortgage are contradicted by his own testimony, which indicates that he was willing to refund the amount and that possession was taken by the defendant after the sale, not under a mortgage arrangement (!) (!) .
The court also notes that challenging a registered document as sham requires clear, cogent evidence and material particulars; mere suspicion or vague allegations are insufficient (!) (!) . The burden of proof rests heavily on the challenger to demonstrate that the document was never intended as a sale but was a mortgage or security transaction, which has not been established here.
In conclusion, the court affirms that the sale deed in question is a valid, out-and-out sale, and the claim that it was a sham or a mortgage is not substantiated by the evidence or the language of the document. The appellate court's decision to dismiss the suit on the ground of limitation is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed (!) (!) .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 509 of 2002 CHANDNA(D) THROUGH LR RAGHUVEER (D) THROUGH LR SMT.
GULAB BAI Versus LAKHAN SINGH & ANOTHER Appearance:
Shri J.P.Mishra, Advocate for LR of appellant Shri K.N.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Suhani Dhariwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
JUDGMENT This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13/2/2002 passed by I Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 8A/95, by which the judgment and decree dated 22/3/1995 passed by II Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 94A/88 was set aside and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The original appellant Chandana died during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly his son Raghuveer was substituted in his place. Thereafter, even Raghuveer died during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly Smt. Gulab Bai who is the widow of Raghuveer Singh has been substituted.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that original plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as for possession of 16 Bigha and 6 Biswa of land situated in village Nitarri, Tahsil and district Vidisha. It was the case of the plaintiff that in the month of December 1971, he was in need of money and accordingly he demanded Rs.1,000/- from defendant. Although he agreed to pay that much of amount, but he insisted that the plaintiff should execute a sale deed in respect of 16 bigha and 6 Biswa of land and in case if the loan amount is refunded with interest at the rate of Rs.2/- per Rs.100/-, then the defendant would not use the sale deed and a period of four years was fixed for refund of the entire loan amount. It was also misrepresented by defendant that the practice of writing a mortgage deed has been discontinued and now only sale deeds can be executed. Accordingly, plaintiff by relying upon the misrepresentation given by defendant executed a sale deed in respect of Araji No. 289 area 10 Bigha and 13 Biswa and Araji No. 290 area 5 Bigha and 13 Biswa. However, the said sale deed was by way of security to loan and it was not to be implemented by any of the party. However, in defiance of his promise, defendant filed an application for mutation of his name. When plaintiff came to know about the dishonest intention of defendant, then he filed an objection. On 17/7/1974, counsel for defendant projected that since the case of defendant has been rejected, therefore he would not like to press this case. After verification, it was found that in mutation proceedings, a public notice was issued and as no objection was filed by anybody, therefore the name of defendant has been recorded in the revenue record. The said action was taken taking advantage of the illiteracy of plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff preferred an appeal and appeal was allowed. Against the order of appellate Authority, respondent/defendant approached the Board of Revenue but even that revision was dismissed and the Tahsildar was directed to re-decide the question of mutation after hearing both the parties. After remand, Tahsildar accepted the application filed by defendant on the ground that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the sale deed and the plaintiff must approach the Civil Court and accordingly the name of the defendant was mutated in the revenue record. As a result, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to file a suit for cancellation of sale deed as well as for possession. It was claimed that since the mortgage in question was a usufructuary mortgage, therefore, even after expiry of four years, plaintiff is not required to repay the loan amount. As such, the suit was filed for declaration that sale deed dated 28/12/1971 be declared as null and void and possession of land in dispute be handed over to plaintiff.
4. Defendant filed his written statemen
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
