Laxminarayan And Another And Ors vs Sampatbai And Others And Ors

This common judgment shall govern disposal of both the First Appeals since they are arise out of common judgment dated 24.2.2000 and common question of law is involved in both the appeals.

Appellants have filed this first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2000 passed by the District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No.13-A/1991 (new no.8-A/1999) and Civil Suit No.14-A/1991 (new no.9-A/1999), thereby decreed the suits preferred by the respondents.

Facts of the case are that, on 20.12.1990, an agreement of sale was executed by respondent No.1/Sampatbai and respondent no.2/Umraobai in favour of the appellants in respect of agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 56, 59 and 207 situated at village Makani, Tahsil & District- Dhar. At the time of execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.72,000/- was paid to Sampatbai and Umraobai respectively. Thereafter on 14.3.1991, the respondent Nos.1 &.2 have executed two sale deeds in respect of survey No.59 and Survey Nos. 59 & 207 in favour of appellant No.1 Laxminarayan and appellant No.2 Mohinibai respectively. Thereafter, on 3. 4.1991, the respondents have filed civil suit Nos.8-A/1999 and 9-A/1999 for declaration that the sale deeds dated

3.1991 were forged documents as also null and void for want of payment of consideration. On 17.10.1997, the appellants/defendants submitted their written statement denying the plaint averments. After considering the evidence produced by both the parties, oral as well as the documentary, the trial court has passed a common judgment and decree whereby the suits filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 5 have been decreed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants have filed the present appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is illegal and contrary to the record. He submits that, the learned Judge of the trial court in paragraph 19 of the judgment has recorded the findings that the executants (Sampatbai and Umraobai) of the sale deeds are old and illiterate women. However, in the same paragraph the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding on the basis of the statements of Sampatbai and Umraobai that, Sampatbai is aged 50 years while Umraobai is aged 45 years. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial court in paragraph 19 to the effect that Sampatbai and Umaraobai were old and aged ladies is patently perverse. He further argues that, the finings given in paragraphs 20 and 48 of the impugned judgment to the effect that, on account of the executants of the sale deeds being old and aged ladies, the burden of proof of execution of the sale deeds was on the appellants. He further submits that, the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge is patently perverse being contrary to the settled legal position which mandates that proving the plea of fraud is always on the person who sets up the plea of fraud.

To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hardayal vs. Aram Singh and others: reported in AIR 2001 M.P.203. He further submits that, the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge for placing the burden of proof in respect of execution of sale deeds on the appellants is also contrary to the settled legal position that there is presumption that a registered document is validly executed and the onus of proof is on the person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh & others vs. Birbal & others : reported in AIR 2006 S.C.3608; Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh: reported in AIR 2006 S.C.1971. He further argues that, the plaintiffs/respondents have specifically raised the allegations of fraud in paragraph 12 of the plaint to contend that the sale deeds dated 14.3.1991 were null and void. However, the plaintiffs have themselves demolished the plaint averments by their own statements. The appellants have proved the execution of the agreement Exhibit D/3 as also the payment of sale consideration to the respondents by the evidence of D.W.2-Ramprasad. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/respondents have utterly failed to disprove the recitals in the sale deeds Exhibits D/8 and D/9 regarding receipt of the entire sale consideration and handing over of possession of the suit land to the appellants. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kanaklata Bai (Smt.) vs. Parvati Bai and others : reported in 2009 (1) M.P.W.N.106 page 361. He also submits that, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in paragragh 60 of the impugned judgment to the effect that no partition had taken place in respect of the suit land is contrary to the recitals of Exhibits D/8 and D/9 in which the sellers are clearly mentioned that the suit land is of their share and possession. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below. He submits that, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have never executed any sale deed in favour of the appellants. He further submits that both the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are illiterate and old ladies and by taking the benefit of their illiteracy, the appellants had obtained the sign of the respondents on the papers telling them that they are the papers of partition. He further submits that, the respondent Samptbai had never went to Dhar on the date when the alleged sale deed was executed. The appellants by impersonating the respondent No.2 have obtained the sign on the alleged sale deed by some other lady. He further submits that, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had never received any payment of sale consideration. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the court below are just and proper. The impugned judgment and decree has been passed after due appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence produced by both the parties, which does not call for any interference.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

In the present case, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed the Civil Suits for declaration that sale deeds dated 14.3.1991 are forged documents, null and void. On 20.12.1990, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the appellants in respect of agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 56, 59 and 207 situated at village Makani, Tahsil & District- Dhar. Thereafter, on 14.3.1991, two registered sale deeds were executed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellants. Thereafter, the respondents had filed the civil suits for declaring the said sale deeds are forged, void and null. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.2000 has decreed the civil suit against which the first appeal has been filed. The trial court while passing the judgment has given the finding that the sale deeds executed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants are forged documents and has been obtained by committing fraud. However, while passing the judgment the court below has given the burden of proof regarding the fraud is on the appellants. Thus, in the case of Hardayal (supra) this Court has held that the plea of fraud was taken by the plaintiff and it was for him to establish the said plea. In the present case, the court below has shifted the entire burden on the appellants to prove that the sale deed has been executed not by the plaintiffs or fraud. The finding given by the trial court is against the settled principal of law.

So far as the payment of sale consideration is concerned; in the present case, in the sale deed itself there is a recital that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had received the entire sale consideration and the trial court while passing the impugned judgment has not taken into account the same recital. D.W.2 Ramprasad also in his statement has stated regarding the payment of entire sale consideration. This evidence of D.W.2 was remained unrebuttal. This Court in the case of Kanakalatabai (Smt.) (supra) in para 6 has held that the payment of price is not necessarily a sine qaua non to the completion of the sale. If the intention is that the property should pass on registration, the sale is complete as soon as deed is registered whether the sale price has been paid or not. Thus, as per this judgment, if the document is registered then it will not invalid the said sale deed even though the price is paid or not. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in placing the burden of proof in respect of execution of sale deeds on the appellants. There is always presumption that a registered document is validly executed and the onus of proof is on the person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.

In the case of Prem Singh (supra) the Apex Court in paragraph 28 has held that there is a presumption that registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof thus would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. Thus, the trial court has erred in decreeing the suit preferred by the respondent nos.1 and 2.

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is hereby set aside.

A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of First Appeal No. 278/2000 for ready reference.