Blog

Case Name: Kanwar Raj Sing (D)TH.LRS vs. Gejo (D)TH.LRS
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013
Dated: January 02, 2024
Quorum: Honourable Justice ABHAY S. OKA

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondents are the legal representatives of the Plaintiff Gejo. There are total 8 defendants Plaintiff claimed a declaration of ownership over the land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas (“suit property”) based on the sale deed executed on 6th June 1975 and registered on 23rd July 1975. According to the case of the original plaintiff – Smt. Gejo, before registration of the sale deed, an interpolation was made in the sale deed by the first defendant by adding that only 1/3rd share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was being sold. The suit was contested by the first defendant, contending that what was sold was the area of 23 kanals and 8 marlas, which was his 1/3rd share in the suit property.

The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that what was sold to the original plaintiff was the entire land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas. The first and eighth defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court. On 23rd August 1984, the Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and held that the correction made in the sale deed was bona fide and was not fraudulently made. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal. High court passed a order in favour of plaintiff and then the unsuccessful defendant moved an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of high court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 47 of The Registration Act, 1908

Time from which registered document operates —A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.”

• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1984

“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. —Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.

• Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
• Contract for sale—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.”

Issues raised:

1. Whether the sale deed as originally executed will operate?
2. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored?

Submissions:

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the price of the property subject matter of the sale deed was only Rs. 30,000/-, it is impossible that a vast area of 71 kanals 8 marlas was sold under the sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that the sale took effect from the date on which the sale deed was registered and not from the date on which it was executed. He submitted that what is conveyed by the sale deed is what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. He submitted that even the agreement for sale executed before the execution of the sale deed refers to the sale of 1/3rd share of the first defendant and not the entire property. He submitted that the entry of the name of the original plaintiff in the revenue records as the owner of the whole area would not confer any title as what is relevant is the description of the property in the registered sale deed.

Court Analysis and Judgment:

The Hon’ble court referred section 47 of Registration Act,1908 and also took precedence from Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer and analyzed that Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale. It was also held that once a document is registered, it will operate from an earlier date, as provided in Section 47 of the Registration Act.

After referring section 54 of Transfer of Property Act,1984 the Court has observed Every sale deed in respect of property worth more than Rs. 100/- is compulsorily registerable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, a sale deed executed by the vendor becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered.

After considering the facts of this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed The first defendant admittedly made the said interpolation after it was executed but before it was registered. In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored. Only if such changes would have been made with the consent of the original plaintiff, the same could relate back to the date of the execution. It is not even the first defendant’s case that the subsequent correction or interpolation was made before its registration with the consent of the original plaintiff.

Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court and dismissed the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view full judgement: Kanwar Raj Sing (D)TH.LRS vs. Gejo (D)TH.LRS