Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

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.

Similar News