Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a portion of land admeasuring 1.70 hectares out of Survey No.13/1 of village Shelavli, Palghar. The plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4) claimed that they had purchased the suit property from Defendant No.1 (Respondent No.1) by an unregistered sale deed dated 02.12.1985 and were put in possession. The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.1 subsequently executed a deed of conveyance dated 03.12.2010 in favour of Defendant No.2 (the appellant) and a sale deed dated 14.06.2011, which were void ab initio as the property had already been sold. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.46 of 2011 seeking a declaration that the subsequent deeds were not binding on them and for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the unregistered sale deed was inadmissible and that the plaintiffs failed to prove title. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, Palghar, which allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court judgment, and decreed the suit. The appellant (Defendant No.2) challenged this decision in the High Court. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the subsequent sale deed and the admissibility of the unregistered sale deed. The court analyzed the evidence, including the unregistered sale deed, possession receipts, and the conduct of the parties. The court held that the earlier sale deed, though unregistered, was valid as a contract for sale and that the subsequent purchaser had notice of the prior sale. Applying the principle 'qui prior est tempore potior est jure', the court held that the subsequent sale deed was void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs. The court also held that the unregistered sale deed was admissible to prove the contract and possession. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decree of the District Court.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Prior Sale - Void Ab Initio - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53A; Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 49 - The court considered whether a subsequent sale deed is void ab initio when the property had already been sold to another party by an earlier unregistered sale deed. The court held that the earlier sale deed, though unregistered, was valid as a contract for sale and the subsequent purchaser had notice of the prior sale. The principle 'qui prior est tempore potior est jure' (he who is earlier in time is stronger in law) was applied. The court found that the subsequent sale deed was void ab initio and not binding on the prior purchasers. (Paras 5-20) B) Evidence - Notice - Constructive Notice - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3 - The court examined whether the subsequent purchaser had notice of the prior sale. The court held that the subsequent purchaser had actual or constructive notice of the prior sale deed and the possession of the plaintiffs. The court relied on the fact that the subsequent purchaser had inspected the property and the plaintiffs were in possession. (Paras 6-15) C) Registration - Unregistered Sale Deed - Admissibility - Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 49 - The court considered the admissibility of an unregistered sale deed. The court held that an unregistered sale deed can be used as evidence of a contract for sale and to prove possession. The court distinguished between a deed of sale and a contract for sale, holding that the unregistered deed was admissible to show the nature and character of possession. (Paras 10-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the subsequent sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 is void ab initio and not binding on the Plaintiffs who had purchased the suit property earlier by an unregistered sale deed.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 17.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Palghar in Civil Appeal No.28 of 2016 is confirmed. The deed of conveyance dated 03.12.2010 between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 is declared void ab initio and not binding on Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The Appellant and Respondent No.1 are restrained from obstructing possession of Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and from creating third party interest in the suit property.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- prior sale
- void ab initio
- qui prior est tempore potior est jure
- Section 53A Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 17 Registration Act
- 1908
- Section 49 Registration Act
