State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

The Law Comes to the Aid of the Weak: Supreme Court Restores Trust in Legal System in Landmark Land Dispute Judgment

29 October 2024 2:03 PM

By: sayum


High Court’s ruling overturned, emphasizes the legitimacy of initial sale deed despite delayed registration . The Supreme Court has reinstated the ownership rights of the appellants in a protracted land dispute, overturning the High Court’s decision and affirming the validity of an initial sale deed despite a 26-year delay in its registration. The judgment delivered by Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah underscores the importance of the initial sale transaction and the inherent rights it conferred upon the appellants.

The case involved a dispute over a piece of land measuring 1.70 hectares in Shelwali village, Tehsil Palghar, District Thane, Maharashtra. The land was initially sold to the appellants, Kaushik Premkumar Mishra and his minor brother, by the respondent, Kanji Ravaria, on December 2, 1985. The sale deed was executed but not registered due to a deficiency in stamp duty. Despite this, the appellants were put in possession of the land. The remaining half of the land was sold to their collaterals, Param Umakant Mishra and Sohardha Jagdish Mishra, and duly registered.

Years later, on December 3, 2010, the respondent sold the same piece of land to another party, leading to a suit filed by the appellants for cancellation of this subsequent sale deed. The trial court initially dismissed the appellants’ suit, but the decision was overturned by the District Judge in 2019. The High Court, however, reversed the District Judge’s ruling, reinstating the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment sets aside the High Court’s order and reaffirms the appellants’ ownership.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the initial sale deed executed on December 2, 1985, was valid and conveyed the property rights to the appellants despite the delayed registration. The court noted that “a registered document carries with it the presumption of correctness unless proved otherwise.” The delay in registration did not negate the legal transfer of ownership, especially since the deficiency in stamp duty was eventually rectified.

The court criticized the respondent’s conduct, noting that he did not specifically deny executing the sale deed nor receiving the sale consideration in his written statement. The respondent’s failure to enter the witness box or present evidence further weakened his case. “The defendant no.1 was deliberately and mischievously avoiding to make specific statements either denying his signatures on the sale deed or his presentation before the Sub-Registrar,” the court observed.

The Supreme Court discussed the principles of evaluating ownership and registration of sale deeds. It emphasized that once a sale deed is executed and presented for registration, it is presumed to be valid. The delayed registration does not invalidate the transaction. The court further clarified that the burden of proving any illegality in the registration process lies with the defendants, which they failed to do.

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “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. Justice knows no bias and thus, through its aid, even the weak may prevail over the strong.”

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the importance of the initial sale deed and the rights it conferred upon the appellants. By setting aside the High Court’s ruling, the judgment sends a strong message about the sanctity of initial transactions and the legal protections afforded to rightful owners. This decision is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, ensuring that justice prevails over technicalities.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2024

Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.

Latest Legal News