Failure to Exercise Due Diligence Defeats Property Claim: MP High Court Upholds 1959 Sale Deed

Justice Vivek Agarwal emphasizes historical context and legal diligence in property disputes, dismissing appeal against 1959 sale deed.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a 1959 sale deed, emphasizing the necessity for due diligence and the sufficiency of historical documents in determining property ownership. The judgment, delivered by Justice Vivek Agarwal, upheld the validity of the sale deed executed in favor of Shri S.N. Chopra, dismissing the claims of the appellants, who are the legal heirs of Shri H.R. Chopra.

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, legal heirs of Shri H.R. Chopra, seeking to declare the sale deed dated August 24, 1959, and a Will dated October 23, 1999, as null and void.
The plaintiffs demanded possession of house nos. 714, 715, and new no. 839 located at Rashidganj, Jaiprakash Ward, Jabalpur.
On November 25, 1956, Shri H.R. Chopra entered an agreement to purchase the disputed property from Sardar Begum for Rs. 10,000, paying an advance of Rs. 1,250.
When Sardar Begum reneged on the agreement, Chopra filed a civil suit, which was decreed in his favor on July 22, 1959.
Plaintiffs alleged that Shri S.N. Chopra fraudulently got the sale deed executed in his name instead of Shri H.R. Chopra's name.
The trial court dismissed the suit on February 28, 2017, prompting the plaintiffs to file this appeal.

Historical Context and Due Diligence: Justice Agarwal emphasized the importance of historical context and due diligence in property disputes. The court noted that Shri H.R. Chopra had multiple opportunities to contest the sale deed between its execution in 1959 and his death in 1967 but failed to do so. "Failure to exercise due diligence can defeat a suit on the ground of limitation alone," Justice Agarwal remarked.

Evaluation of Evidence: The court meticulously evaluated the evidence, including the historical documents and the testimonies of the involved parties. It was noted that the sale deed was executed in favor of Shri S.N. Chopra with full knowledge and no objection from Shri H.R. Chopra, indicating consent. The judgment states, "Mere reference of Shri H.R. Chopra in the document will not suffice to declare the sale deed null and void, especially when the challenge is time-barred."

Limitation Act and Evidence Act: Justice Agarwal highlighted the relevance of the Limitation Act and the Evidence Act in this case. The court referred to Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which extends the period of limitation only when fraud is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. The court found no evidence of fraud or concealment. Additionally, the court emphasized Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, which restrict the use of oral evidence to alter written contracts.

The judgment referenced several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in F.M. Devaru Ganapathi Bhat vs. Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs. State of Maharashtra, underscoring the principles of fraud, collusion, and the interpretation of written documents.

Justice Vivek Agarwal remarked, "The intention of the executor of a document is to be ascertained after considering all the words in their ordinary natural sense. The document is required to be read as a whole to ascertain the intention of the executant." He further stated, "Failure to exercise due diligence defeats the suit on the ground of limitation."

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment reinforces the necessity of due diligence and the importance of historical documents in property disputes. By upholding the sale deed executed in 1959, the court has set a precedent emphasizing the critical role of timely actions and thorough examination of historical evidence in resolving property ownership issues.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2024