Case Note & Summary
The appellant filed a second appeal challenging the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's dismissal of a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed. The original plaintiff (respondent No.1) sought cancellation of sale deed dated 25.01.1999, mutation entry, and restoration of possession of agricultural land, alleging fraud and non-execution. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the registered sale deed valid. The appellate court reversed, declaring the sale deed null and void and directing delivery of possession. The appellant then appealed to the High Court, which framed two substantial questions of law: (i) whether the plaintiff proved non-execution of the sale deed, and (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the sale deed (Exh.35) lacked the vendor's signature at the execution place but bore his signatures at corrections and on the reverse acknowledging balance consideration before the Registrar. Two attesting witnesses and the scribe testified that the vendor executed the document in their presence. A Sub Registrar also stated that office records showed the vendor's thumb impression and signature. The court was called upon to decide whether such a sale deed could be invalidated solely for want of signature at one place. The judgment text provided ends before the final decision, leaving the outcome undetermined.
Headnote
A) Transfer of Property - Execution of Sale Deed - Validity of Registered Sale Deed - Requirement of Vendor's Signature - If a registered sale deed lacks the vendor's signature at the designated execution place but is signed by the vendor at corrections and on the reverse acknowledging consideration before the Registrar, it cannot be held invalid solely on that ground if other evidence supports due execution. (Paras 1, 11-14)
B) Limitation - Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed - Limitation Act, 1963 - The appellate court held that the suit filed in 2002 for cancellation of a sale deed executed in 1999 was within limitation; the High Court admitted substantial question on whether the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 6-8, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a registered sale deed which does not bear the vendor's signature at the place where his name is written as vendor, but bears his signatures at places where corrections are made and on the reverse acknowledging receipt of consideration before the Registrar, is invalid solely for want of signature at one place.
Law Points
- validity of registered sale deed
- absence of vendor's signature does not invalidate if signed elsewhere on document
- proof of execution through attesting witnesses and scribe
- limitation for suit for cancellation of sale deed
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 138
Second Appeal No. 55 of 2016
Mr. R.A. Haque (Appellant), Mr. Akhtar Nawab Ansari (Respondent No.1), Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh (Respondent Nos. 2 to 5)
Ramesh s/o Gulabrao Wakare
1. Ratnakar s/o Mahadeo Chore, 2. State of Maharashtra through Collector, Wardha, 3. The Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Seloo, District Wardha, 4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Seloo, District Wardha, 5. Talathi of Mouza Khairy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for cancellation of registered sale deed and restoration of possession.
Remedy Sought
The respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) sought cancellation of sale deed dated 25.01.1999, cancellation of mutation entry, and restoration of possession of suit land.
Filing Reason
The respondent No.1 claimed that the sale deed was fraudulently executed by the appellant without his signature and that he was forcibly dispossessed after mutation.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit upholding validity of sale deed; Appellate court allowed appeal, cancelled the sale deed as null and void, and directed delivery of possession within one month.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff has proved that he has not executed the sale deed dated 25.01.1999, Exh.-35?
Whether the appellate Court was right in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued that mere absence of vendor's signature at one place does not invalidate a registered sale deed which bears signatures at other places and on reverse acknowledging consideration, supported by attesting witnesses and scribe; suit was barred by limitation.
Respondent No.1's counsel argued that the sale deed was fraudulent as the vendor's signature was missing at the crucial place and other signatures were denied; cause of action arose upon mutation and dispossession, making the suit within limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
An interesting question arises in this appeal, as to whether a registered sale deed which does not bear signature of the vendor at the place where his name is written as the vendor, but bears his signatures in places where corrections are made in the text of the sale deed and it also bears signature on the reverse of the last page along with his thumb impression, acknowledging receipt of balance consideration, before the Registrar, can be said to be a valid sale deed or it has to be discarded only because signature of the vendor is absent at the place where his name is written as the vendor.
At Exh.35 is the registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999. Perusal of the same shows that signature of the respondent No.1 (vendor) is absent at the place where his signature is supposed to be affixed, towards the end of the document. Only the signature of the appellant is found at that place. There are signatures of two attesting witnesses... The said document also shows signatures, said to be that of the respondent No.1 at two places where certain corrections are made and on the reverse of the last page. At the said place on the reverse of the last page, apart from signature one thumb impression said to be that of the respondent No.1 is found affixed in presence of the Registrar wherein it is acknowledged that balance amount of consideration of Rs.30,000/- has been received by the respondent No.1.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.501 of 2002 before Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha on 16.11.2002 seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 25.01.1999. Trial court dismissed the suit on 30.10.2009, upholding the sale deed's validity. Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.241 of 2009; District Judge, Wardha allowed the appeal on 22.09.2014, setting aside trial court decree and declaring sale deed null and void, directing delivery of possession. Appellant filed Second Appeal No.55 of 2016 before High Court; notice issued on 05.12.2017 framing two substantial questions of law; appeal admitted and heard finally.
