Supreme Court of India
KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR.versusKANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 540
- Decided
- 19 July 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The 1985 sale deed was validly executed, presented, and, upon its eventual registration, transferred title to the appellants, making the 2010 conveyance void and the subsequent purchaser not a bona fide purchaser.
Summary
The appellants purchased half of a 3.40‑hectare land from respondent No.2 in 1985, and a sale deed was executed on 02‑12‑1985 but remained unregistered due to stamp‑duty deficiency until 14‑06‑2011. Respondent No.2 later executed a second conveyance in 2010 in favour of respondent No.1 for the same land, leading the appellants to sue for cancellation of the 2010 deed. The trial and High Courts erred by treating the vendor’s vague statements as a denial of execution and consideration, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the 1985 deed was validly executed, presented, and, once registered, enjoys a presumption of correctness, thereby transferring title to the appellants and rendering the 2010 conveyance void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the first appellate court decree restored.
Issues considered
- Whether the sale deed dated 02‑12‑1985 was executed by respondent No.2
- Whether sale consideration was paid for the 02‑12‑1985 deed
- Whether the deed was presented for registration on 05‑12‑1985
- Whether the 26‑year delay in registration defeats the deed
- Whether non‑mutation of the land defeats the rights of the vendees
- Whether respondent No.2 retained any title after 02‑12‑1985
- Whether the deed is void because the vendees were minors
- Whether respondent No.1 is a bona fide purchaser for value under the 2010 conveyance
Legislation cited
- Contract Act, 1872s. 11
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 114
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899s. 32, s. 33, s. 34
- Registration Act, 1908s. 32, s. 33, s. 34, s. 60, s. 85
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 17, s. 41, s. 49, s. 54
Subjects
sale deedregistrationstamp dutyminor contractbona fide purchasertransfer of propertycontract actregistration actdelay in registrationmutationconsiderationfraud
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2295 : 2024 INSC 540
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr.
v.
Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023)
19 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by
Respondent No. 2; whether the sale consideration was paid with
respect to sale deed dated 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated
02.12.1985 was presented for registration on 05.12.1985 or not;
whether delayed registration of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985
would prove to be fatal; whether non-mutation would take away
the right created by the sale deed in favor of the vendees; whether
respondent no.2 had any right, title or interest left in the suit
property after 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985
was void as the vendees were alleged to be minors; whether the
respondent no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser for value by way of
a subsequent sale deed dated 03.12.2010.
Headnotes†
Contract Act, 1872 – s.11 – Registration Act, 1908 – s.85 –
A Land measuring 3.40 Hectares was sold by respondent no.2
to appellants and collaterals of the appellants – Half of the
total land (suit land) was purchased by appellants and other
half by the collaterals of appellants – Respondent no.2 herein
executed a Sale Deed (suit land) in favour of appellant no.1
and his minor brother (since deceased) on 02.12.1985 with
respect to suit land and another sale deed was also executed
with the collateral of the appellants – The sale deed (suit
land) in favour of the appellant no.1 and his minor brother
could not be registered and remained pending for registration
before the Sub-Registrar on account of deficiency in stamp
duty – On 03.12.2010 respondent no.2 executed a Conveyance
Deed with respect to the suit land in favour of respondent
no.1 – It is the same land which was transferred in favour of
the appellant no.1 and his brother in December, 1985 – The
appellants then followed up registration of their sale deed,
* Author
2296 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
which was registered on 14.06.2011 – Appellant filed suit
for cancellation of sale deed 03.12.2010 and the same was
dismissed by the Trial Court – First Appellate Court allowed
the appeal filed by the appellants – However, the High Court
set aside the decision of the First Appellate Court and upheld
the decision of the Trial Court – Correctness:
Held: The Trial Court and the High Court had proceeded on the
premise that the defendant No.1-the vendor (respondent no.2
herein) had denied the execution of the sale deed and had also
denied that he had not received any consideration – This premise
taken by both the Courts i.e. Trial Court and the High Court are
contrary to the pleadings on record and the evidence led during the
Trial – There is clear misreading of the evidence – In his written
statement, defendant no.1 has not specifically denied anywhere
that he had not executed the sale deed or that the signatures on
the sale deed were not his signatures – Thus, the very premise on
the basis of which the Trial Court and the High Court proceeded
are perverse being contrary to the material on record – Both the
said courts also failed to take into consideration that defendant no.1
the vendor (respondent no.2 herein) neither entered the witness
box in support of his pleadings and to prove them, nor did lead any
evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of his pleadings –
There was no justification to treat a vague statement in the written
statement of not recollecting about execution of sale deed, to be
taken as a denial of the execution – The Trial Court and the High
Court fell into the trap of clever drafting and a vague statement of
defendant no.1 – The Trial Court and the High Court also committed
a manifest error in recording that the defendant no.1- vendor
(respondent no.2 herein) had denied having received any sale
consideration with respect to the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 – In
the written statement filed by the defendant no.1, there is no such
statement made – Based upon the aforesaid two factual errors,
the Trial Court and the High Court wrongly shifted the burden on
the plaintiff to prove execution of the sale deed and also payment
of the sale consideration – The impugned judgment thus suffers
from manifest error of law and facts both – It is not disputed by
respondent No.2 that on 02.12.1985, he had executed another sale
deed with respect to the remaining portion of the land in favour
of the collaterals of the appellants – This sale deed in favour of
the collateral was presented for registration on the same date as
the sale deed of the appellant i.e. 05.12.1985 and was thereafter
duly registered – The respondent No.2 has never challenged the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2297
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
said sale deed in favour of the collaterals – It is thus apparent that
the family members and collaterals of the appellants purchased
the entire land measuring 3.40 Hectares from respondent No.2 in
equal shares by two separate documents which were executed
on the same date and presented for registration on the same
day – There is no specific denial in the written statement filed by
respondent No.2 about the sale deed in favour of collaterals –
General denial has been made by placing strict proof of liability
on the plaintiff – The respondent No.2 apparently wants to take
advantage of certain minor aberrations and minor technicalities
and is also taking up self-conflicting pleas – As far as the question
of payment of sale consideration is concerned, assuming that no
sale consideration was paid even though there was a registered
sale deed, it would be at the instance of the vendor to challenge
the said sale deed on the ground of no sale consideration being
paid – In the present, case, there is no such challenge to the
sale deed for being declared as void or being cancelled on such
ground – Regarding delay of 26 years in registering the document,
Non-registration of a document duly presented for registration
could be for many reasons – But once it is registered, there is a
presumption of correctness attached to it, that is to say that the
document has been duly executed and registered in accordance
to law – It was for the defendants (respondents) to come forward
and to establish that the document was wrongly registered – They
did not lead any evidence in this respect – Instead, they tried to
put burden on the plaintiff-appellant by requiring him to call the
Sub-Registrar as a witness, which the appellant rightly denied – It
was always open for the respondents to have called for the records
of the Sub-Registrar’s office and also the Sub-Registrar in order
to find out any mandatory lacuna or illegality or lack of procedure
not being followed with respect to the registration – They did
nothing of this sort – In fact, respondent No.2 did not make any
bone of contention with regard to the registration process and the
registration of the documents after 26 years by challenging the same
before the same authority or any superior authority or any Court
of law – Registration of a document carries with it presumption
of correctness until and unless the same was challenged by way
of independent proceeding or a counter claim – In the absence
of any such claim, the sale deed in favour of the appellants has
to be treated as a valid document – The High Court recorded
the findings that the fact that the purchasers were minors would
not per se affect the validity of the sale deed for the reason that
2298 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the second purchaser who was mentioned as a minor in the sale
deed was represented through his natural guardian and mother –
The respondent no.2 appears to be a dishonest person, which
is apparent from his conduct not only during the trial but also
acting in collusion with respondent no.1 to execute the sale deed
for the same land which he had already transferred – Thus, the
impugned judgement of the High Court is set aside and that of the
first Appellate Court decreeing suit of the appellant is restored and
maintained. [Paras 29, 30, 33.1,33.2, 33.6, 33.8, 33.9, 33.12, 33.13]
Contract Act, 1872 – s.11 – Registration Act, 1908 – s.85 –
Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by
Respondent No. 2:
Held: It is not disputed by respondent No.2 that on 02.12.1985, he
had executed another sale deed with respect to the remaining portion
of survey No.13/1 in favour of the collaterals of the appellants – This
sale deed in favour of the collateral was presented for registration
on the same date as the sale deed of the appellant i.e. 05.12.1985
and was thereafter duly registered – The respondent No.2 has
never challenged the said sale deed in favour of the collaterals –
It is thus apparent that the family members and collaterals of the
appellants purchased the entire survey No. 13/1 measuring 3.40
Hectares from respondent No.2 in equal shares by two separate
documents which were executed on the same date and presented
for registration on the same day – There is no specific denial in the
written statement filed by respondent No.2 about the sale deed in
favour of collaterals – General denial has been made by placing
strict proof of liability on the plaintiff. [Para 33.1]
Registration Act, 1908 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 –
Registration of documents/sale deed – Payment of stamp
duty – Deficiency of stamp duty – Deficiency of stamp duty
cannot enure any benefit to the vendor:
Held: The issue of registration of a document is with the State,
which requires compulsory registration of documents so that it is
not deprived of revenue by way of stamp duty payable on such
transfers of immovable property – If the purchaser has no means
to pay stamp duty or exorbitant demand of stamp duty is made by
the registering authority which the purchaser is unable to pay at
that time but he remains satisfied with the fact that the vendor has
fairly and duly executed the sale deed presented it for registration
and put him in possession of the purchased property which he is
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2299
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
peacefully enjoying, he is always at liberty to pay the deficiency
of stamp duty at any point of time – The document presented for
registration will remain with the Registering Authority till such time,
the deficiency is removed – However, this pendency of registration
on account of deficiency cannot enure any benefit to the vendor,
who has already eliminated all his rights by executing the sale
deed after receiving the sale consideration – He cannot become
the owner of the transferred land merely because the document
of sale is pending for registration – It is the purchaser who cannot
produce such document which is pending registration with respect
to the immovable property in evidence before the Court of law
as the same would be inadmissible in view of statutory provision
contained in the TP Act as also the Act, 1908. [Para 33.13]
Principles/Doctrines – Doctrine of bona fide purchaser –
Applicability in case of subsequent purchaser:
Held: The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value applies in
situations where the seller appears to have some semblance
of legitimate ownership rights – However, this principle does
not protect a subsequent purchaser if the vendor had already
transferred those rights through a prior sale deed – In a case
where the vendor deceitfully executes a second sale deed 26 years
after the initial transfer, without disclosing the earlier transaction
and without any ongoing litigation regarding the property, the
subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of a bona fide
purchaser – Essentially, if the vendor’s rights were already
severed by the first sale, any later sale deed made without
transparency and in bad faith is invalid – The subsequent
purchaser, even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be considered
bona fide because the vendor no longer had the legal right to
sell the property – Thus, the protection afforded by the bona fide
purchaser doctrine is nullified by the vendor’s deceitful conduct and
the pre-existing transfer of rights – This ensures that the original
purchaser’s rights are upheld and prevents unjust enrichment
through fraudulent transactions. [Para 35]
Case Law Cited
Raghunath & Ors. v. Kedar Nath [1969] 3 SCR 497 : (1969) 1
SCC 497; Bondar Singh & Ors. v. Nihal Singh & Ors. [2003] 2
SCR 564 : (2003) 4 SCC 161; Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Anr. [2009] 9 SCR 1048 : (2009) 7
2300 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
SCC 363; S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors. [2010] 4
SCR 515 : (2010) 5 SCC 401; M/s Paul Rubber Industries Pvt.
Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr. [2023] 14 SCR 28; Veena Singh
(dead) Thr. Lrs. v. District Registrar/Additional Collector [2022] 3
SCR 736 : (2022) 7 SCC 1; Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad [2014] 2
SCR 1129 : (2015) 3 SCC 588 – distinguished.
Alka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and others [2008] 17 SCR 822 :
(2009) 2 SCC 582; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors.
[2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008) 4 SCC 594; Raghwendra Sharan
Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh by LR [2019] 4 SCR 1069 :
(2020) 16 SCC 601; Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary & Ors. [2014]
5 SCR 621 : (2015) 5 SCC 622; Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha
Ranjan Debbarma [2023] 1 SCR 355 : (2023) SCC On Line
SC 9; Sukhwinder Singh v. Jagroop Singh and Anr. [2020] 1
SCR 512 : (2020) SCC Online SC 86; Seethakathi Trust Madras
v. Krishnaveni [2022] 1 SCR 322 : (2022) 3 SCC 150; Hansa
V. Gandhi v. Deep Shankar Roy (2013) 12 SCC 776; Hardev
Singh v. Gurmail Singh [2007] 2 SCR 141 : (2007) 2 SCC 404;
Krishnaveni v. M.A. Shagul Hameed and another (Civil Appeal
No.2591 of 2024 @ SLP(Civil) No.23655 of 2019); Babasaheb
Dhondiba Kure v. Radha Vithoba Barde (C.A. No.002458 of
2024); The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Ganga
Bai Menariya (dead) through Lrs. and others [2024] 2 SCR 650;
Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad [2014] 2 SCR 1129 : (2015) 3 SCC
588 – referred to.
Kunda wd/o Mahadeo Supare & Ors. v. Haribhau s/o Husan Supare
(2014) 5 Mah. L.J.726 – referred to.
List of Acts
Contract Act, 1872; Registration Act, 1908; Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
List of Keywords
Section 11 of Contract Act, 1872; Section 85 of Registration
Act, 1908; Execution of sale deed; Registration of sale deed;
Payment of stamp duty; Deficiency of stamp duty; Deficiency of
stamp duty cannot enure any benefit to the vendor; Doctrine of
bona fide purchaser; Subsequent purchaser; Fraudulent transaction;
Delay in registration of document; Pendency of registration of
document; Payment of sale consideration.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2301
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.06.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in SA No. 649 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Chinmay Deshpande, Sudhanshu Prakash,
Anirudh Sanganeria, Advs. for the Appellants.
Huzefa Ahmadi, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi
Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Devansh Srivastava, E. C. Agrawala, Tirathraj
Pandya, Nirali Sarda, Kaushik Poddar, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. “Law is the king of kings, nothing is mightier than law, by whose aid,
even the weak may prevail over the strong.”
The power structures of our society are such that the weaker ones
often find themselves exploited and oppressed by those who yield
greater power. Land ownership is one such arena where we see the
swords of powerplay being sharpened with continued fraud, deceit,
and greed. While we shall deal with the facts of the present case
in detail later, it is a classic example of continued suffering faced
by the common man owing to mala fide intentions of the vendors
who try to gain double-benefits, either by arm-twisting or through
manipulation of the legal processes. Sometimes, the misery of the
litigant is deepened when such travesty of justice is prolonged for
decades. It is in cases like these, the law comes to the aid of the
weak. While adjudicating such cases, it is not just the lives and the
properties of the people that we are dealing with, but also their trust
in the legal system. In cases like the one before us, it is not for us
to just mechanically analyse the contentious transactions but to also
ensure that injustice is remedied and nobody is benefitted by their
own wrongs. Justice knows no bias and thus, through its aid, even
the weak may prevail over the strong.
2302 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2. This appeal by the plaintiff assails the correctness of the judgment and
order dated 9th June, 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the defendant
no.2 (respondent no.1 herein) was allowed the judgment of the first
Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court dismissing
the suit of the appellant was maintained.
3. Respondent no.2 was the owner of Survey No.13 Hissa No.1
measuring 3.40 Hectares situate in village Shelwali, Tehsil Palghar,
District Thane, Maharashtra. Half of the total area which would come
to 1.70 Hectares on the western side is the suit land purchased by
the appellants. Remaining half was purchased by collaterals of the
appellants.
4. Relevant facts for appropriate adjudication of this appeal are as
follows:
(a) Respondent no.2 herein executed a Sale Deed in favour of
appellant no.1 and his minor brother Ambrish Mishra (since
deceased) on 02.12.1985 with respect to suit land and the
appellant no.1, along with his brother, was put into possession
of the same.
(b) On the same date another Sale Deed was executed by the
respondent no.2 in favour of one Param Umakant Mishra and
Sohardha Jagdish Mishra (collaterals of the appellants) for the
remaining half portion.
(c) On 05.12.1985 both the aforementioned Sale Deeds were
presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Palghar.
(d) The Sale Deed in favour of Param Mishra and Sohardha Mishra
was registered and later on their names were mutated in the
revenue records. However, on account of deficiency in stamp
duty, the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant no.1 and his
minor brother could not be registered and remained pending
for registration before the Sub-Registrar. As such their names
could not be incorporated in the revenue records and the name
of the respondent no.2 continued to be recorded.
(e) It would be relevant to mention that in the Sale Deed it was
mentioned that the appellant no.1 is aged 18 years whereas
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2303
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
his brother Ambrish, was a minor and was represented through
his natural guardian-mother (Smt. Malti).
(f) On 8th October, 1999, brother of the appellant Ambrish passed
away issueless and later on his widow re-married, as such, his
parents became the successors and legal heirs of the estate
of Ambrish.
(g) On 3rd December, 2010 respondent no.2 executed a Conveyance
Deed with respect to the suit land in favour of respondent
no.1. It is the same land which was transferred in favour of the
appellant no.1 and his brother in December, 1985.
(h) On 8th June, 2011 the appellants came to know about inspection
of the suit land by some strangers, so they went to the spot.
They found that respondent no.1, along with some musclemen,
was trying to take possession of the suit land but on account
of suit land being protected by fencing, they could not enter.
It was at that time the appellant no.1 came to know about a
conveyance deed in favour of respondent no.1 on the basis of
which he was trying to take possession.
(i) The appellants thereafter made inquiries in the office of the
Sub-Registrar and came to know that there was a sale deed
dated 3rd December, 2010 in favour of respondent no.1
(j) After obtaining a certified copy of the said Deed, which was
received on 14th June 2011, the picture became clear to the
appellant. The fraud played on them by respondent no.2 of
transferring the same property (suit land) in favour of respondent
no.1, which had been earlier transferred in their favour, became
apparent.
(k) The appellants then followed up registration of their sale deed.
After removing the deficiency in stamp duty, the sale deed
executed on 02.12.1985 and presented for registration on
05.12.1985 before the Sub-Registrar came to be registered on
14th June, 2011. The above incident of interference in possession
by the respondent no.1 gave rise to filing of the suit.
5. The appellants along with Premkumar, father of appellant no.1,
instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.12.2010 and
2304 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for perpetual injunction on 27th June, 2011 which was registered
as Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2011. The vendor was impleaded
as defendant No.1 (respondent no.2 herein) and the subsequent
purchaser as defendant No.2 (respondent no.1 herein). The facts
as stated in paragraph 4 above are pleaded in the plaint as such
are not being repeated.
6. Both the defendants filed separate written statements. The written
statement filed by the defendant no.1 averred that the plaintiff was
not entitled to any of the reliefs; the suit was barred by limitation;
the land in suit was owned by him; that he did not recollect having
executed any such sale deed in favour of the appellant no.1 and
his brother; that the plaintiff purchasers were minors, as such, the
sale deed in their favour was void; it was also denied that defendant
no.2 had tried to trespass the property and take forcible possession
with the help of musclemen.
7. Defendant no.2 in his written statement averred that the valuation of
the suit was not proper; that no cause of action arose to file the suit;
that the plaintiffs had supressed material facts and documents and,
as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed; that the plaintiff no.1
and his brother Ambrish were minors and, as such incompetent to
contract; that as per section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 18721 the
transaction with minor was void and as such unenforceable in law;
that guardian of minor Ambrish was shown as his mother whereas
actually it should have been his father and therefore also the sale
deed was bad; that there was no signature of plaintiff no.2 in the sale
deed; that the widow of brother Ambrish was not made a party, as
such, the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party; that
the sale deed was not duly registered as per provisions of law; that
before registration no notice was issued to the vendor i.e. defendant
no.1; no explanation or details were given with regard to the delay
of 26 years in getting the registration; that under section 85 of the
Registration Act, 1908,2 the documents pending for two years were
liable to be destroyed, as such, the sale deed was not legal and
proper; that there was interpolation in the documents of sale; that he
was bona fide purchaser for value and had done so after verification
1 The Act, 1872
2 The Act, 1908
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2305
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
of the title from the revenue records as also having searched the
records of the Sub-Registrar; lastly, it was prayed that the suit be
dismissed.
8. In the written statement of the respondent no.2 (defendant no.1)
there was no specific denial of the execution of the Sale Deed on
02.12.1985 in favour of the appellant no.1 and his brother. There
was also no specific or even general denial of not receiving the sale
consideration. No suit for cancellation of the said Sale Deed has ever
been filed nor any counter claim was filed by the defendants to the
suit filed by the appellants assailing the sale deed dated 02.12.1985.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues:
"(i) Do plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and occupation
of the suit land?
(ii) Do plaintiffs prove that they are owners of the suit land by virtue
of registered Sale Deed dated 02/12/1985?
(iii) Do plaintiffs prove that the defendants were trying to take
possession of the suit land forcibly and unauthorizedly?
(iv) Do plaintiffs prove that the Deed of Conveyance dated
03/12/2010 registered at serial No.9176 is void-ab-initio?
(v) Do plaintiffs prove that they are entitle for relief of permanent
injunction against the defendants as prayed in the suit?
(vi) Do plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for any other relief?
(vii) Does defendant No.1 prove that the alleged Agreement to Sale
dated 02/12/1985 is void-ab-initio?
(viii) Does defendant No.1 prove that the plaintiffs’ suit is barred by
limitation?
(ix) Does defendant No.2 prove that the Sale Deed dated 02/12/1985
was not enforceable by law?
(x) Does defendant No.2 prove that he is bona fide purchaser and
the possessor of suit land?
(xi) What order and decree?”
10. The parties to the suit led evidence, both oral and documentary. On
behalf of the plaintiffs Kaushik Premkumar Mishra examined himself
2306 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
as PW-1 and further examined Shri Mohan Joshi, Advocate as PW-2
and Prashant Mishra as PW-3. They also filed documentary evidence
which included amongst others (i) sale deed dated 02.12.1985,
(ii) certified copy of 7/12 extract of suit property, (iii) mutation entry
no.668, (iv) Form No.1 of Register of Marriages for the year 2007
and (v) Conveyance deed dated 03.12.2010.
11. Defendant no.1 the vendor did not lead any evidence, either oral or
documentary. He failed to appear and enter the witness box even
to support his pleadings made in the written statements. There was
also no cross-examination of PW-1 on his behalf.
12. Defendant no.2, the subsequent purchaser examined himself as
DW-1, and further examined Ranjeet Patil as DW-2, Parvez Patel
as DW-3, Sunit Patil as DW-4, Govind Rawaria as DW-5. He also
filed voluminous documents relating to revenue records, mutation
entries, search reports, copy of notices and various other documents
relating to his possession.
13. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties,
dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 24.02.2016. The Trial Court
recorded the following findings:
13.1 Issues Nos.1,2,4,5 and 6 were decided in negative, whereas
Issues nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the affirmative, mainly for the
reason that the appellant no.1 as also his brother were minors
at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed on 02.12.1985,
as such could not have entered into a contract being a minor
and, therefore, the Sale Deed was void.
14. The appellants preferred appeal before the District Judge which was
registered as Civil Appeal No.28 of 2016. The District Judge, vide
judgment dated 7th March, 2019 allowed the appeal, set aside the
judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The first Appellate
Court framed the following points for determination in paragraph 14 of
the judgment and in the said table, it also recorded the outcome of
the said findings. The said table is reproduced below:
“14. Heard the Ld. Advocates for both the parties. Perused
the record and the proceedings. Following points arise for
my determination on which I have recorded my findings
for the reasons to follow:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2307
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
S.No. Points Findings
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are …In the affirmative.
in possession and occupation of the
suit property?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are …In the affirmative.
owners of the suit land by virtue of
registered sale deed dated 02.12.1985?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that the …In the affirmative.
defendants were trying to take
forcible possession of suit property
unauthorizedly?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove that the deed …In the affirmative.
of conveyance dated 03.12.2010
registered at sr. no.9176 is void-ab-
initio?
5. Whether plaintiffs prove that they …In the affirmative.
are entitled for relief of permanent
injunction?
6. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are …In the affirmative.
entitled for other reliefs?
7. Whether defendant no.1 proves that …In the negative.
the alleged agreement to sale dated
02.12.1985 is void ab-initio?
8. Whether defendants prove that the suit …In the negative.
is barred by Law of Limitation?
9. Whether defendant no.2 proves that …In the negative.
sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was not
enforceable by law?
10. Whether defendant no.2 proves that …In the negative.
he is bona fide purchaser and in
possession of the suit property?
11. Whether judgment and decree in …In the affirmative.
Spl. Civil Suit No.46 of 2011 requires
interference and is liable to be set
aside?
12. What order? As per final order.
”
2308 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15. In the analysis, the First Appellate Court recorded the following
findings also:
15.1. It held that the title of the property relates back to the date of
execution of the sale deed and not the date of the registration.
15.2. It held that during the lifetime of the father, mother can act as
the natural guardian of the minor.
15.3. The defendants having failed to seek a declaration of the
sale deed dated 02.12.1985 being declared void ab-initio or
for its cancellation, once the document is duly registered by
the Sub-Registrar, it is only the competent Civil Court which
would have the jurisdiction to declare it as cancelled or void
ab-initio.
15.4. Merely because the challenge to the procedure has been
made with respect to the registration, the submission of the
defendants with respect to the delayed registration etc. gets
washed out.
16. The said judgment was assailed by way of Second Appeal by the
respondent no.1, the subsequent purchaser (defendant no.2) only.
No appeal was filed by the respondent no.2 (defendant no.1), vendor
of the appellant. This appeal was registered as Second Appeal
No.649 of 2019.
17. By the impugned judgment dated 09.06.2022, the High Court has
allowed the same and after setting aside the judgment of the first
Appellate Court, restored that of the Trial Court and dismissed the
suit. It is this judgment of the High Court, which is under challenge in
the present appeal. The High Court framed the following substantial
questions of law in paragraph 12 of the judgment which are reproduced
hereunder: -
“12. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal
are:
i) Whether execution of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985
at Exhibit 54 has been duly proved;
ii) Whether the sale deed at Exhibit 54 conveys title in
favour of plaintiffs;
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2309
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
iii) Whether the findings of the first Appellate court on
the issue of execution and validity of sale deed dated
02.12.1985 are not based on evidence on record
and are perverse.”
18. The High Court recorded the following findings:
18.1. The sale deed in question dated 02.12.1985 could not be held
to be invalid for the sole reason that the deed was signed only
by the vendor and not by the vendees (in favour of plaintiffs).
18.2. The fact that the purchasers were minors would not per se
affect the validity of the sale deed (in favour of plaintiffs).
18.3. It criticizes the findings of the first Appellate Court regarding
the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 having been validly proved
by the plaintiffs to be not based on consideration of material
facts on record as discussed and considered by the Trial Court
while holding that the sale deed was not validly proved.
18.4. It considered in great detail the provisions of the Registration
Act to hold that the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was not validly
registered, as such, could not have been relied upon by the
plaintiffs for any of the reliefs claimed by them or to maintain
the suit.
19. We have heard Shri Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel
representing respondent No.1.
20. The submissions of Shri Navare for the appellant may be summarized
as under:
20.1. Respondent No.2 did not specifically deny execution of the
sale deed in favour of appellant no.1 and his brother. He has
only stated in the written statement that he does not recollect
to have executed any such document.
20.2. Respondent No.2 did not cross-examine the appellant No.1 who
had entered the witness box. The appellant No.1 had specifically
stated, not only in the plaint but also in his deposition, that
respondent No.2 had executed the sale deed on 02.12.1985
after receiving the sale consideration.
2310 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
20.3. Respondent No.2, although filed a written statement making
vague assertions but chose not to appear in the witness box
apparently to avoid being cross-examined.
20.4. The first Appellate Court had decreed the suit of the appellant
but no appeal was filed against the same by the respondent
No.2. The only appeal filed before the High Court was by
respondent No.1.
20.5. The objection as to the registration or the procedure adopted
while registering the sale deed was essentially available to
respondent No.2 but he did not raise it in the written statement.
Further respondent no.2 neither cross-examined appellant No.1
nor did he enter the witness box nor did he assail the judgment
of the first Appellate Court decreeing the suit.
20.6. The only manner in which respondent No.2 could have
challenged the sale deed in favour of the appellants was by
way of either a counter-claim or by way of an independent
suit praying for cancellation of the sale deed by impleading
the registering authority, which he chose not to do.
20.7. As there was no counter-claim filed by the defendant, in
particular, respondent No.2, the question of validity of execution
and registration of the Sale Deed dated 02.12.1985 in favour
of the appellant no.1 and his brother, could not be tested.
20.8. The Trial Court did not frame any issue with respect to the
validity of the registration process or the registration of the
sale deed by the registering authorities, after such a long gap
of 26 years. Without framing such an issue, the Trial Court
committed serious error and a patent illegality in recording a
finding with regard to the registration process and commenting
on the registering authorities. Even the High Court committed
the same illegality.
20.9. There is no limitation provided under the law for a sale deed
which had been executed and duly presented before the
Registrar for registration, for such document to be registered
within a particular time. Even if there was a gap of 26 years
from the date of presentation till the date of registration, it would
not make any difference and the sale deed would relate back
to the date of execution once registered.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2311
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
20.10. The fact that the sale deed was duly executed on 02.12.1985
and thereafter presented for registration on 05.12.1985 is
apparent from the fact that respondent No.2 on the same date
i.e. 02.12.1985 had executed the sale deed for the remaining
half portion of Survey No.13/1 in favour of collaterals of the
appellant and further, the said sale deed in favour of the
collaterals was also presented for registration on 05.12.1985
i.e. the same day on which the appellant presented the sale
deed for registration. The sale deed of the collaterals was later
on registered. However, the sale deed of the appellant no.1
remained pending for registration due to deficiency in stamp
duty and was finally registered in 2011 after the deficiency
was removed.
20.11. The registration of the sale deed of the appellant even after 26
years could not be said to be faulted on that ground alone. The
said registration was never challenged either before superior
authority of the registration department or before the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Till date there is
no challenge to the said sale deed in favour of the appellant
either on the ground of non-execution by respondent No.2
or on the ground of the registration being faulty before any
forum whatsoever.
20.12. Reference to the deposition of appellant No.1 has been made
to submit that the appellant No.1 nowhere stated that no
sale consideration was paid but he only stated that he had
not placed any documents on record to show that the sale
consideration of Rs.40,000/- had been paid.
20.13. The arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 that
the appellant No.1 was a minor, as such the sale deed was
void, also does not benefit the respondents inasmuch as on
behalf of the brother of the appellant No.1, who was stated
to be a minor in the sale deed, was duly represented by his
mother, natural guardian. As such the sale would, in any
case, be valid insofar as the brother of the appellant No.1
was concerned.
20.14. The collusion of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was writ large and
more than apparent from the conduct of the respondent No.2;
that he did not cross-examine the appellant no.1; he did not
2312 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
enter the witness box; he did not lead any evidence and; he
did not file any appeal before the High Court.
20.15. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Alka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and others3 wherein
this Court had observed that in India, an agreement of sale
signed by the vendor alone and possession delivered to the
purchaser and accepted by the purchaser has always been
considered to be a valid contract.
20.16. Lastly, it was submitted that the respondent No.1, the
subsequent purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser. The
sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 has a clause that the
property was being sold on as is where is basis which clearly
reflects that respondent no.1 had knowledge of the sale deed
in favour of appellant and about their possession.
20.17. On such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed, the
impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside
and that of the first Appellate Court be maintained.
21. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 made detailed submissions which we shall note a little later.
He, however, did not give any explanation whatsoever as to why
the respondent No.2 did not cross-examine the appellant No.1, why
the respondent No.2 did not enter the witness box in support of his
pleadings stated in the written statement, why no evidence was led
by him and why no second appeal was preferred by respondent
No.2 against the judgment of the first Appellate Court decreeing the
suit. The submissions advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 are
summarized hereunder:
21.1. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the sale deed
in favour of appellant was registered after 26 years.
21.2. With respect to the arguments relating to sale deed in favour
of respondent No.1 mentioning on as is where is basis, the
submission is that as there was encroachment on the suit
property by the local tribal people as such this clause was
3 [2008] 17 SCR 822 : (2009) 2 SCC 582
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2313
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
inserted so that respondent No.2 would not be saddled with any
further liability of handing over a clear and vacant possession.
21.3. The suit instituted by the appellant as framed, was not
maintainable inasmuch as no relief of declaration of title was
sought and only relief claimed was for cancellation of the
sale deed dated 03.12.2010 executed in favour of respondent
No.1 and further for grant of permanent injunction. This was
deliberately done as suit for declaration would be time barred.
21.4. Once the pleadings have been exchanged and the issues are
framed, the burden would lie on both the parties to establish
their cases and it would be wrong on the part of the appellant
to argue that the burden would be on the respondent alone
with respect to certain issues.
21.5. The appellant No.1 has admitted that he did not know the
details of the bank, cheque number, the date of the cheque, etc.
and that he had no documents to show that consideration of
Rs.40,000/- was paid except for the fact that it was mentioned
in the sale deed. Reference was also made to section 25 of the
Act,1872 to submit that the agreements without consideration
are void agreements.
21.6. Appellant No.1 had admitted that the property was not recorded
in his name and that he had applied to the revenue authorities
to record his name which he was pursuing from 1996.
21.7. Appellant No.1 declined to produce the pleadings of Special Civil
Suit No.812 of 1996, the partition suit between the members
of the family. Appellant No.1 admits of not challenging the
Mutation Entry No.668 recorded in favour of respondent No.1
pursuant to the sale deed dated 03.12.2010.
21.8. Appellant No.1 admitted of not having clearance and prior
sale permission from the competent authority which was a
pre-condition for purchase of suit property.
21.9. The appellant No.1 admitted that the word “cash” in the sale
deed was scored out and the word “cheque” was mentioned
in its place and that on some pages of the sale deed, full
signature of his mother are not there rather it has initials.
2314 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21.10. The appellant No.1 admitted that he does not remember as to
who had presented the sale deed for registration in the year
1985 and admits that he was not the one who presented.
21.11. With respect to the submission that the suit was not maintainable
as relief of declaration of title was not sought, reliance was
placed upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of Anathula
Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors.4 and Raghwendra
Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh by LR.5
21.12. Appellant No.1 had admitted in his deposition that he was
a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed on
02.12.1985 and the age shown in the sale deed that he was
18 years was incorrect. Under Section 11 of the Act, 1872
a minor is not competent to enter into a contract and as the
appellant No.1 admitted that he was a minor at the time of the
sale deed, the said contract would be void ab initio. Reliance
was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of
Mathai Mathai vs. Joseph Mary & Ors.6
21.13. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, who has based the
suit on the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 to prove the same to
be a valid sale. As the Trial Court recorded the finding that the
appellants had failed to establish their right, title and interest
in the suit property, there was shifting of the onus on the
respondent No.2 would not arise and there was no necessity
or requirement of the respondent No.2 to enter the witness
box as the same would be of no consequence. Reliance was
placed upon the judgment of this Court in Smriti Debbarma
vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma.7
21.14. Referring to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,18728
regarding presumption of existence of certain facts by the
Court, it was submitted that although the said presumption is
rebuttable but as the appellant No.1 in his cross-examination
has made various admissions which were sufficient to decide
4 [2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008) 4 SCC 594, (relevant paras 13-16, 21)
5 [2019] 4 SCR 1069 : (2020) 16 SCC 601 (para 7-10)
6 [2014] 5 SCR 621 : (2015) 5 SCC 622 (para 16-19)
7 [2023] 1 SCR 355 : (2023) SCC On Line SC 9 (para 35)
8 The Evidence Act
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2315
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
the fate of the suit against him, it was not necessary for the
respondent no.2 to either cross-examine him or to enter the
witness box. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Kunda wd/o Mahadeo Supare & Ors.
vs. Haribhau s/o Husan Supare.9
21.15. Appellant No.1 also admits that serial numbers of the stamps
are not in continuation and that regular registration process
of the sale deed was not complete at the time when the sale
deed of 2010 in favour of respondent No.1 was registered.
21.16. Relying upon section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
188210 read with section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the
submission is that an unregistered sale deed could not have
been received in evidence as no title would pass on the basis
of an unregistered document relating to immovable property.
As such the respondent No.2 continued to be the owner of
the suit property holding a valid title over the same. Reliance
has been placed upon the following judgments:
• Raghunath & Ors. vs. Kedar Nath; 11
• Bondar Singh & Ors. Vs. Nihal Singh & Ors.;12
• Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Haryana and Anr.;13
• S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors.;14 and
• M/s Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Amit Chand
Mitra & Anr.15
21.17. Lastly it was submitted that as mandatory legal conditions
were not fulfilled for the registration of the sale deed dated
02.12.1985, the same could not have been treated as a
registered sale deed.
9 (2014) 5 Mah. L.J.726 (para 8)
10 The TP Act
11 [1969] 3 SCR 497 : (1969) 1 SCC 497 (para 3)
12 [2003] 2 SCR 564 : (2003) 4 SCC 161 (para 5)
13 [2009] 9 SCR 1048 : (2009) 7 SCC 363 (para 15-18)
14 [2010] 4 SCR 515 : (2010) 5 SCC 401 [para 12,13,15]
15 [2023] 14 SCR 28 : SLP No.15774 of 2023.
2316 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21.18. To elaborate the above argument following further facts were
stated:
a) Appellant No.1 in his cross-examination (at Pg.135)
has admitted that Defendant No.1 (original Vendor)
was not called for completing process of registration
on 14.06.2011 and that there is no endorsement of
the Sub-Registrar on the last page of Sale Deed about
completion of registration. Therefore, the mandates of
Section 60, which prescribes as to what constitutes
a Certificate of registration is not fulfilled and hence,
the alleged sale deed was not validly registered on
14.06.2011 and therefore, alleged sale deed dated
02.12.1985 cannot be treated as a registered sale deed.
b) That the alleged sale deed was registered in violation of
Section 32 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Sections
17 and 20 of the Act, 1908. The essential requirement
under Section 54 of the TP Act were also not fulfilled.
That from the record as well as the admission of
appellant no.1, it is clear from the serial number of the
stamps that the same are not in continuum.
c) As per Section 32 of the Stamp Act when any instrument
is brought to the Collector then the Collector may
determine the Stamp Duty. That in the present case, the
alleged Sale Deed shows that at the time of presentation
the stamp of Rs.1600/- was given but on 14.06.2011
the Sub-Registrar accepted extra amount of Rs.2200/-
and penalty of Rs.500/- but there is no endorsement to
show that it was sent to the Collector for determining
the Stamp duty and it is not shown in the Sale Deed
that deficit stamp duty was affixed. As per Sections 33
and 34 of the Stamp Act, the Collector has power to
impound the document.
d) The alleged sale deed does not show that under which
provision of law the Sub-Registrar had accepted the
deficit charges after 26 years and no reasons were
given as to why it was kept pending for such a long time.
e) Even if assuming for the sake of arguments without
admitting that the alleged sale deed was presented
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2317
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
before the Sub-Registrar, the same was unclaimed
for 26 years and hence, by operation of Section 85,
documents unclaimed for more than two years are
required to be destroyed.
f) Compulsory affixing of photograph on the conveyance
deed is also not followed at the time of registration
process. Reliance was placed on the case of Veena
Singh (dead) Thr. LRs. District Registrar/Additional
Collector.16
22. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
No.1, the subsequent purchaser, has mainly laid stress on the point
that respondent No.1 was a bona fide purchaser having exercised
due diligence as such there would be no justification of cancellation
of sale deed executed in his favour.
23. Mr. Ahmadi has also broadly submitted that the appellant no.1 had
failed to prove the basis of claim i.e. the sale deed dated 02.12.1985
and as such had not acquired any right, title or interest in the suit
property. The respondent No.2, therefore, was well within his rights to
execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 in 2010. He
has also referred to the statement of appellant No.1 in order to show
certain admissions which already have been pointed out and noted
above in the arguments of Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent No.2. In so far as the main submission
regarding bona fide purchase for value without notice, he referred
to Section 41 of the TP Act, 1882.17 Reliance has been placed upon
the following judgements:
1. Sukhwinder Singh vs. Jagroop Singh and Anr.,18
2. Seethakathi Trust Madras vs. Krishnaveni,19
3. Hansa V. Gandhi vs. Deep Shankar Roy,20
16 [2022] 3 SCR 736 : (2022) 7 SCC 1
17 TP Act
18 [2020] 1 SCR 512 : 2020 SCC Online SC 86
19 [2022] 1 SCR 322 : (2022) 3 SCC 150
20 (2013) 12 SCC 776
2318 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
4. Hardev Singh vs. Gurmail Singh,21
5. Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh by LR.22
24. In the additional written submissions, respondent no.1 has placed
further reliance upon two judgments of this Court, for the proposition
that the sale contract with the minor even though he was the vendee,
would be void ab-initio. The two cases are Mathai vs. Mathai,23 and
another recent judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed in Civil Appeal
No.2591 of 2024 @ SLP(Civil) No.23655 of 2019, Krishnaveni
vs. M.A. Shagul Hameed and another. Further, reliance was
placed upon another judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2024 in
C.A. No.002458 of 2024, Babasaheb Dhondiba Kure vs. Radha
Vithoba Barde for the proposition that conveyance by way of sale
would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in
accordance with section 17 of the Act, 1908. Lastly, it is submitted
that the suit was not maintainable as no relief for declaration of title
was sought for which reliance was placed upon judgment of this
Court in the case of The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and
Anr. vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (dead) through Lrs. and others.24
25. Both the learned senior counsel for the respondents thus submitted
that the appeal was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
26. From the submissions advanced and the perusal of the material on
record, the following issues/questions arise for consideration in the
present appeal:
1) Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by
Respondent No. 2?
2) Whether the sale consideration was paid with respect to sale
deed dated 02.12.1985?
3) Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was presented for
registration on 05.12.1985 or not?
4) Whether delayed registration of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985
would prove to be fatal?
21 [2007] 2 SCR 141 : (2007) 2 SCC 404
22 [2019] 4 SCR 1069 : (2020) 16 SCC 601
23 (2015) 5 SCC 622
24 [2024] 2 SCR 650 : (2024) 2 SCR 650
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2319
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
5) Whether non-mutation would take away the right created by
the sale deed in favor of the vendees?
6) Whether respondent no.2 had any right, title or interest left in
the suit property after 02.12.1985?
7) Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was void as the
vendees were alleged to be minors?
8) Whether the respondent no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser for
value by way of a subsequent sale deed dated 03.12.2010?
27. Having considered the submissions advanced by the counsels for
the parties our analysis on the issues stated above is as under.
As the issues/questions raised are interlinked, they have been taken
up together in our analysis.
28. At the outset, it may be relevant to refer to the certified/xerox copy
of the sale deed dated 2.12.1985, presented for registration on
5.12.1985, copies of which were filed by both the sides under the
direction of this Court. We have carefully perused the sale deed. The
following facts may be noticeable from the said perusal:
(i). The stamp paper had been purchased on 29.11.1985.
(ii). The document was prepared and executed on 02.12.1985
(iii). The document was presented before the Sub-Registrar on
5.12.1985. The total value of the stamp paper used was
Rs 1,600/-.
(iv). The document was presented by respondent no.2, the vendor.
(v). The document bears the signature of Anees Ismail Khoja,
respondent no. 2, the witnesses and also contains the respective
endorsement by the Sub-Registrar.
(vi). The document was impounded for non-payment of proper stamp
duty. However, on 14.6.2011 the deficiency in stamp duty of
Rs.2200/- along with penalty of Rs.500/- and other statutory
payments of Rs.700/- having been paid, it was finally registered
in Book No. 1 from pages 141-147.
(vii). The document bears the signatures of not only the vendor,
the attesting witnesses and also the necessary endorsement
by the Sub-Registrar. This makes it abundantly clear that the
2320 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
sale deed was executed on 02.12.1985 and presented before
the Sub-Registrar on 5.12.1985. Later on, it was registered
on 14.06.2011.
29. The Trial Court and the High Court had proceeded on the premise
that the defendant No.1 - the vendor (respondent no.2 herein) had
denied the execution of the sale deed and had also denied that he
had not received any consideration. This premise taken by both the
Courts i.e. Trial Court and the High Court are contrary to the pleadings
on record and the evidence led during the Trial. There is clear
misreading of the evidence. In his written statement in paragraph 7
defendant no.1 (vendor) has stated that he does not recollect having
executed the sale deed. He has not specifically denied anywhere in
the written statement that he had not executed the sale deed or that
the signatures on the sale deed were not his signatures. Thus, the
very premise on the basis of which the Trial Court and the High Court
proceeded are perverse being contrary to the material on record. Both
the said courts also failed to take into consideration that defendant
no.1 the vendor (respondent no.2 herein) neither entered the witness
box in support of his pleadings and to prove them, nor did lead any
evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of his pleadings.
There was no justification to treat a vague statement in the written
statement of not recollecting about execution of sale deed, to be taken
as a denial of the execution. The defendant no.1 - the vendor was
deliberately and mischievously avoiding to make specific statement
either denying his signatures on the sale deed or his presentation
before the Sub-Registrar or had not received any sale consideration.
The Trial Court and the High Court fell into the trap of clever drafting
and a vague statement of defendant no.1.
30. The Trial Court and the High Court also committed a manifest error
in recording that the defendant no.1- vendor (respondent no.2 herein)
had denied having received any sale consideration with respect
to the sale deed dated 02.12.1985. In the written statement filed
by the defendant no.1, there is no such statement made. In case
he had made such a statement then he would be admitting the
execution but without consideration. Both the Courts again misread
the deposition of appellant no.1 (PW-1) wherein he said that he
does not have any proof of payment of the consideration to hold
that no sale consideration was paid. A registered document carries
with it presumption of correctness unless proved otherwise as per
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2321
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
Section 114 of the Evidence Act read with Section 17 of the
Act, 1908. In the present case there is no such evidence.
31. The defendant no.1 having not entered the witness box and not
having led any evidence, it was a mere presumption of the Trial
Court and the High Court to have recorded that defendant no.1
denied receiving any sale consideration.
32. Based upon the aforesaid two factual errors, the Trial Court and
the High Court wrongly shifted the burden on the plaintiff to prove
execution of the sale deed and also payment of the sale consideration.
The impugned judgment thus suffers from manifest error of law and
facts both.
33. The appeal deserves to be allowed on several other grounds which
we are dealing hereunder and hereinafter.
33.1. It is not disputed by respondent No.2 that on 02.12.1985, he
had executed another sale deed with respect to the remaining
portion of survey No.13/1 in favour of the collaterals of the
appellants, namely, Param Umakant Mishra and Sohardha
Mishra. This sale deed in favour of the collateral was presented
for registration on the same date as the sale deed of the
appellant i.e. 05.12.1985 and was thereafter duly registered.
The respondent No.2 has never challenged the said sale
deed in favour of the collaterals. It is thus apparent that the
family members and collaterals of the appellants purchased
the entire survey No. 13/1 measuring 3.40 Hectares from
respondent No.2 in equal shares by two separate documents
which were executed on the same date and presented for
registration on the same day. Despite the fact that specific
query was put to learned senior counsel for respondent no.2
with regard to the above aspect, no answer was given. In the
plaint specific averment was made with regard to the sale
deed in favour of the collaterals. There is no specific denial
in the written statement filed by respondent No.2 about the
sale deed in favour of collaterals. General denial has been
made by placing strict proof of liability on the plaintiff.
33.2. The respondent No.2 apparently wants to take advantage of
certain minor aberrations and minor technicalities and is also
taking up self-conflicting pleas.
2322 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
33.3. The sale deed is sought to be ignored and rejected on account
of a minor cutting/over writing with regard to the word ‘cash’
(Roch) by ‘cheque’. The fact remains that respondent No.2
did not enter the witness box to depose that he has not
received any sale consideration either by way of cash or by
way of cheque and further to state that he had not executed
the sale deed and the signatures and thumb impression on
the sale deed are not his. He also did not come forward to
say that the signatures and thumb impression available in
the Sub-Registrar’s office in the register taken at the time for
registration also did not bear his signatures.
33.4. Another aspect submitted on behalf of respondent was that
the appellant No.1 in his deposition has said that he had
no proof of the payment of the sale consideration, to assert
that the appellant No.1 admitted that he had not paid any
sale consideration is not correct. Appellant No.1 was being
examined sometime after 2013, i.e. after a gap of 28 years
from the date of the sale deed. He could not be expected
to remember such facts distinctly and as such he made a
fair statement that he did not have any document that could
prove the passing of the sale consideration. This would not,
by itself, be interpreted to hold that appellant admitted of not
paying any sale consideration.
33.5. The question of payment of sale consideration would arise
only and only if the vendor makes a specific statement in his
pleadings as also in his deposition in support of the pleading
that he did not receive any sale consideration either by way
of cheque or by cash. There is no such pleading and as the
vendor did not enter the witness box, even if there was any
such pleading, there is no statement to prove such pleading.
Thus, the above argument being based on minor discrepancy
in the statement of the appellant, no benefit can be derived
by the respondents. The argument is accordingly rejected.
33.6. There is one more reason to reject this argument. Even if
assuming that no sale consideration was paid even though
there was a registered sale deed, it would be at the instance
of the vendor to challenge the said sale deed on the ground
of no sale consideration being paid. In the present case, there
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2323
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
is no such challenge to the sale deed for being declared as
void or being cancelled on such ground. Thus also, the said
argument deserves to be rejected.
33.7. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents
that appellant No.1, in his deposition, stated that he did
not remember as to who had presented the document for
registration. Such statement would not be relevant at all
inasmuch as the fact remains that the document of sale
was presented for registration on 05.12.1985, which fact is
not denied. Who presented the document is not relevant. It
was for the registering authority to examine and once the
document is registered, it is presumed that it was presented
by the competent person and necessary signatures of the
vendor and vendee must have been taken by the registering
authority. From a perusal of the xerox copy of the sale deed it
is apparent that there is an endorsement by the Sub-Registrar
that the sale deed was presented by respondent no.2, the
vendor (defendant no.1 in the suit).
33.8. The submission with regard to delay of 26 years in getting
the document registered also does not extend any benefit
to the respondents. Non-registration of a document duly
presented for registration could be for many reasons. But
once it is registered, there is a presumption of correctness
attached to it, that is to say that the document has been duly
executed and registered in accordance to law. It was for the
defendants (respondents) to come forward and to establish that
the document was wrongly registered. They did not lead any
evidence in this respect. Instead, they tried to put burden on
the plaintiff-appellant by requiring him to call the Sub-Registrar
as a witness, which the appellant rightly denied. It was always
open for the respondents to have called for the records of the
Sub-Registrar’s office and also the Sub-Registrar in order to
find out any mandatory lacuna or illegality or lack of procedure
not being followed with respect to the registration. They did
nothing of this sort.
33.9. In fact, respondent No.2 did not make any bone of contention
with regard to the registration process and the registration of
the documents after 26 years by challenging the same before
2324 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the same authority or any superior authority or any Court of
law. Registration of a document carries with it presumption of
correctness until and unless the same was challenged by way
of independent proceeding or a counter claim. In the absence
of any such claim, the sale deed in favour of the appellants
has to be treated as a valid document.
33.10. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, and Mr. Huzefa
Ahmadi learned senior counsel appearing for respondents
that once the appellant No.1 admitted that he was a minor at
the time of execution of the sale deed and that his age was
incorrectly recorded as 18 years in the sale deed, the sale
deed would be void ab initio and would not transfer any right,
title or interest in the favour of the appellants. This submission
is again liable to be rejected. The sale deed was in favour of
two persons, appellant No.1 as also his minor brother, Ambrish
who was mentioned to be a minor in the sale deed and was
represented through his natural guardian, his mother. The
sale deed, therefore, in any case, would be valid in so far as
the rights of Ambrish are concerned. Respondent No.2 for 26
years never came forward to return the sale consideration and
for rescinding the contract of sale. His intentions are clearly
tainted with malice and dishonesty. His conduct throughout
the trial and at appeal stage also reflects the same.
33.11. The issue of minority of appellant no.1 would also not be of
any relevance for the reason that even if he was a minor at the
time of the execution of the sale deed and he had so stated
honestly in his deposition, the fact remains that the mother of
appellant No.1 was already representing his younger brother
as guardian who was stated to be a minor in the sale deed.
She was also the natural guardian of appellant no.1, and
therefore, it would be deemed that she was acting on behalf
of both her minor sons.
33.12. The High Court recorded the findings that the fact that the
purchasers were minors would not per se affect the validity
of the sale deed for the reason that the second purchaser
Ambrish who was mentioned as a minor in the sale deed
was represented through his natural guardian and mother
Smt. Malti Premkumar Mishra and also that the age of the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2325
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
first purchaser Kaushik was mentioned to be 18 years in the
sale deed.
33.13. The respondent no.2 appears to be a dishonest person. We
are saying so for very strong reasons, which are apparent
from his conduct not only during the trial but also acting in
collusion with respondent no.1 to execute the sale deed for
the same land which he had already transferred. The issue
of registration of a document is with the State, which requires
compulsory registration of documents so that it is not deprived
of revenue by way of stamp duty payable on such transfers
of immovable property. If the purchaser has no means to
pay stamp duty or exorbitant demand of stamp duty is made
by the registering authority which the purchaser is unable to
pay at that time but he remains satisfied with the fact that the
vendor has fairly and duly executed the sale deed presented
it for registration and put him in possession of the purchased
property which he is peacefully enjoying, he is always at
liberty to pay the deficiency of stamp duty at any point of
time. The document presented for registration will remain
with the Registering Authority till such time, the deficiency is
removed. However, this pendency of registration on account
of deficiency cannot enure any benefit to the vendor, who has
already eliminated all his rights by executing the sale deed
after receiving the sale consideration. He cannot become the
owner of the transferred land merely because the document
of sale is pending for registration. It is the purchaser who
cannot produce such document which is pending registration
with respect to the immovable property in evidence before
the Court of law as the same would be inadmissible in view
of statutory provision contained in the TP Act as also the
Act, 1908.
34. Coming to the submission of Mr. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for
the subsequent purchaser-respondent No.1, his claim would come
up for consideration only if it is finally held that the sale deed of
02.12.1985 was not a valid sale deed. As otherwise all the rights,
title and interest of the vendor- respondent no.2 would be curtailed
from the date of execution of the first sale deed on 02.12.1985.
As we have already held above that the sale deed cannot be discarded
2326 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
as void ab initio, rather we have held that it is a valid document of
sale, therefore, no benefit can be extended to respondent no.1.
Respondent no.1 would enter the shoes of the respondent no.2. If
respondent no.2 had alienated all his rights, title and interest and
also delivered possession, respondent no.1 could not claim to be a
bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
35. The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value applies in situations
where the seller appears to have some semblance of legitimate
ownership rights. However, this principle does not protect a
subsequent purchaser if the vendor had already transferred those
rights through a prior sale deed. In a case where the vendor
deceitfully executes a second sale deed 26 years after the initial
transfer, without disclosing the earlier transaction and without any
ongoing litigation regarding the property, the subsequent purchaser
cannot claim the benefits of a bona fide purchaser. Essentially, if
the vendor’s rights were already severed by the first sale, any later
sale deed made without transparency and in bad faith is invalid. The
subsequent purchaser, even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be
considered bona fide because the vendor no longer had the legal
right to sell the property. Thus, the protection afforded by the bona
fide purchaser doctrine is nullified by the vendor’s deceitful conduct
and the pre-existing transfer of rights. This ensures that the original
purchaser’s rights are upheld and prevents unjust enrichment through
fraudulent transactions.
36. This is not a case of agreement to sell in favour of appellants but is
a case of sale deed transferring ownership rights and possession.
It would be open to respondent no.1 to avail such remedy as may
be available under law to recover the sale consideration paid by him
to respondent No.2. The sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1
dated 03.12.2010 needs to be cancelled and the registering authority
be directed to score out the same from the records as directed by
the first Appellate Court.
37. Another argument raised that the sale deed did not contain the
signatures of the mother also deserves to be rejected. Prior to
insertion of section 32A in the Act, 1908 in the year 2001 there was
no requirement under law that the vendee must mandatorily sign the
document of sale for immovable property and also affix passport size
photograph and thumb impression along with proof of identification.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2327
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
In the present case the sale deed was presented for registration
in 1985, much before 2001.
38. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior Counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 2, has relied upon the following judgments in order to substantiate
his arguments pertaining to the issue of registration of the sale deed:
a. Raghunath Singh & Ors. v. Kedar Nath,25
b. Bondar Singh & Ors. v. Nihal Singh & Ors.,26
c. Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
and Anr.,27
d. S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram & Ors.,28
e. M/s Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra
& Anr.,29
f. Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad,30
g. Veena Singh (dead) thr. LRs. v. District Registrar/Additional
Collector31
39. We observe that the cases relied upon by the Respondent No. 2
do not extend any kind of benefit in the facts of the present case
as the judgments above are clearly distinguishable on facts. Thus,
to avoid lending any further burden on the instant judgment, we are
not dealing with them on their individual facts.
40. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal deserves to be
allowed. The impugned judgement of the High Court is set aside
and that of the first Appellate Court decreeing suit of the appellant
is restored and maintained.
41. Facts of this case deserves that the suit should be decreed
with exemplary costs considering the conduct of the defendant-
respondents, which is quantified at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs
only) to be paid to the appellants within eight weeks from today.
25 [1969] 3 SCR 497 : (1969) 1 SCC 497
26 [2003] 2 SCR 564 : (2003)4 SCC 161
27 [2009] 9 SCR 1048 : (2009) 7 SCC 363
28 [2010] 4 SCR 515 : (2010) 5 SCC 401
29 [2023] 14 SCR 28 : SLP (C )No.15774 of 2023 decided on 25.09.2023
30 (2015) 3 SCC 588
31 [2022] 3 SCR 736 : (2022) 7 SCC 1
2328 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The liability to pay costs shall be borne equally by each of the
two respondents. Proof of payment of costs may be filed before this
Court within ten weeks from today.
42. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "sale deed"Sign in to search