# Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr v. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 540
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-07-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kaushik-premkumar-mishra-anr-v-kanji-ravaria-kanji-anr-38132
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

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 dee

## Text

_Characters 0–39,864 of 72,252. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39864 for what follows._

[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 possession and occupation of the
suit property?
...In the affirmative.
2.
Whether plaintiffs prove that they are
owners of the suit land by virtue of
registered sale deed dated 02.12.1985?
...In the affirmative.
3.
Whether plaintiffs prove that the
defendants were trying to take
forcible possession of suit property
unauthorizedly?
...In the affirmative.
4.
Whether plaintiffs prove that the deed
of conveyance dated 03.12.2010
registered at sr. no.9176 is void-abinitio?
...In the affirmative.
5.
Whether plaintiffs prove that they
are entitled for relief of permanent
injunction?
...In the affirmative.
6.
Whether plaintiffs prove that they are
entitled for other reliefs?
...In the affirmative.
7.
Whether defendant no.1 proves that
the alleged agreement to sale dated
02.12.1985 is void ab-initio?
...In the negative.
8.
Whether defendants prove that the suit
is barred by Law of Limitation?
...In the negative.
9.
Whether defendant no.2 proves that
sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was not
enforceable by law?
...In the negative.
10.
Whether defendant no.2 proves that
he is bona fide purchaser and in
possession of the suit property?
...In the negative.
11.
Whether judgment and decree in
Spl. Civil Suit No.46 of 2011 requires
interference and is liable to be set
aside?
...In the affirmative.
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.