LEGAL ISSUE: Dispute over ownership of a property based on conflicting sale deeds.
CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute
Case Name: Kedar Nath Kohli (Dead) by LRs. vs. Baldev Singh
Judgment Date: 27 March 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2018
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3333 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 726 of 2014)
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a person claim ownership of a property based on a sale deed that appears to be fabricated? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case, focusing on the validity of conflicting sale deeds. The core issue revolved around whether the respondent, Baldev Singh, had a legitimate claim to the property based on his sale deed, or if the appellant, Kedar Nath Kohli, was the rightful owner. The bench comprised of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Case Background
The case began with a civil suit filed by Mehar Chand Kohli, the father of the appellant, against the defendants, claiming possession of Plot No. 27 in Wazir Nagar, New Delhi. Mehar Chand Kohli asserted ownership of the property and accused the defendants of illegal possession. After Mehar Chand Kohli’s death on July 13, 1980, his son, Kedar Nath Kohli, was substituted as the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the suit on September 21, 2016, which was upheld by the first appellate court on December 7, 2011. The High Court of Delhi also dismissed the second appeal on February 7, 2013.
The appellant claimed ownership of Plot No. 27, along with adjoining land measuring 260 square yards. He alleged that the respondents had illegally trespassed and constructed on the land without permission. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed to have purchased the property from one Dharampal through a sale deed dated August 15, 1966, for Rs. 10,000. The respondent stated that he had given a portion of the plot to the original defendant no. 1 (since deceased) and constructed on the plot at their own expense.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15.8.1966 | Respondent claims to have purchased the property from Dharampal (later amended to 15.9.1966). |
| 5.12.1947 | Dharampal purchased land from Uday Chand. |
| 23.1.1948 | Smt. Kailashwati sold the property to Smt. Kesara Devi which was registered on 10.3.1948. |
| 30.5.1952 | Smt. Kesara Devi sold the property to Mehar Chand Kohli, the appellant’s father. |
| 13.7.1980 | Mehar Chand Kohli, the original plaintiff, passed away. |
| 21.9.2016 | Trial Court dismissed the suit. |
| 7.12.2011 | First Appellate Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment. |
| 7.2.2013 | High Court of Delhi dismissed the second appeal. |
| 27.3.2018 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgments. |
Legal Framework
The primary legal issue revolved around the validity of the sale deeds presented by both parties. The respondent relied on a sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.DW1/1), claiming to have purchased the property from Dharampal. The appellant relied on a sale deed dated 30.5.1952, showing that his father had purchased the property from Smt. Kesara Devi.
The Court also examined other sale deeds, including:
- ✓ Sale deed dated 5.12.1947 (Ex.C3): Where Udai Chand sold three plots (30, 31, and 34) to Dharampal.
- ✓ Sale deed dated 9.12.1947 (Ex.DW4/1): Where Udai Chand sold plot no. 28 to Ved Prakash Shukla.
- ✓ Original sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.C1) maintained in the Sub-Registrar’s office, which was compared with the respondent’s sale deed (Ex.DW1/1).
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The appellant argued that his father was the rightful owner of Plot No. 27 based on the sale deed dated 30.5.1952.
- ✓ The appellant contended that the respondent’s sale deed dated 15.9.1966 was forged and fabricated.
- ✓ The appellant emphasized that the original document (Ex.C1) from the Sub-Registrar’s office did not match the respondent’s copy (Ex.DW1/1).
- ✓ The appellant argued that the respondent’s claim to have purchased the property from Dharampal was not valid, as Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- ✓ The respondent claimed to have purchased the property from Dharampal through a registered sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (originally claimed as 15.8.1966).
- ✓ The respondent argued that he had been in possession of the property and had constructed structures on it.
- ✓ The respondent contended that the appellant was estopped from filing the suit, as he had previously filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed.
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s detailed comparison of the respondent’s sale deed with the original document from the Sub-Registrar’s office, highlighting the discrepancies and establishing the fabrication.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership of Property | ✓ Appellant’s father owned Plot No. 27 based on the sale deed dated 30.5.1952. | ✓ Respondent purchased the property from Dharampal through sale deed dated 15.9.1966. |
| Validity of Sale Deed | ✓ Respondent’s sale deed dated 15.9.1966 was forged and fabricated. | ✓ Respondent’s sale deed was valid and registered. |
| Original Document Discrepancy | ✓ Original document (Ex.C1) did not match respondent’s copy (Ex.DW1/1). | ✓ Respondent’s sale deed was a valid proof of ownership. |
| Dharampal’s Ownership | ✓ Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27. | ✓ Respondent purchased from Dharampal, who had the right to sell. |
| Possession | ✓ Appellant is entitled to get back possession of the property. | ✓ Respondent was in physical possession and constructed on the plot. |
| Estoppel | ✓ Appellant was estopped from filing the suit due to a previous suit for injunction. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:
- Whether the appellant-plaintiff is the owner of the property in question.
- Whether the defendants have purchased the property from one Dharampal vide sale deed dated 15.8.1966 (later amended to 15.9.1966).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant-plaintiff is the owner of the property in question. | Yes, the appellant is the owner. | The appellant’s sale deed dated 30.5.1952 was valid, and the boundaries matched the property. |
| Whether the defendants have purchased the property from one Dharampal vide sale deed dated 15.8.1966 (later amended to 15.9.1966). | No, the defendants did not validly purchase the property. | The respondent’s sale deed was fabricated, and Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following documents and evidence:
- ✓ Sale deed dated 5.12.1947 (Ex.C3): By which Udai Chand sold plots 30, 31, and 34 to Dharampal.
- ✓ Sale deed dated 9.12.1947 (Ex.DW4/1): By which Udai Chand sold plot 28 to Ved Prakash Shukla.
- ✓ Sale deed dated 30.5.1952: By which Smt. Kesara Devi sold the property to Mehar Chand Kohli, the appellant’s father.
- ✓ Sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.DW1/1): The respondent’s sale deed, which was found to be fabricated.
- ✓ Original sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.C1): The original document from the Sub-Registrar’s office, used for comparison.
- ✓ Maps (Ex.PW2/4 and Ex.DW1/3): Showing the location of the plots, used to verify the claims of both parties.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| Sale deed dated 5.12.1947 (Ex.C3) | Established that Dharampal owned plots 30, 31, and 34, not plot 27. |
| Sale deed dated 9.12.1947 (Ex.DW4/1) | Demonstrated that plot 28 was sold to Ved Prakash Shukla and was adjacent to plot 27. |
| Sale deed dated 30.5.1952 | Established that Mehar Chand Kohli, the appellant’s father, was the rightful owner of plot 27. |
| Sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.DW1/1) | Found to be fabricated and not a valid proof of ownership. |
| Original sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.C1) | Used to compare with Ex.DW1/1 and prove its fabrication. |
| Maps (Ex.PW2/4 and Ex.DW1/3) | Used to verify the location of plots and confirm the appellant’s claim. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim of ownership based on sale deed dated 30.5.1952 | Accepted as valid and legitimate. |
| Respondent’s claim of ownership based on sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.DW1/1) | Rejected as fabricated and not a valid proof of ownership. |
| Appellant’s contention that Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27 | Accepted as valid. |
| Respondent’s claim of possession and construction on the property | Rejected as unauthorized possession. |
| Respondent’s claim of estoppel | Rejected. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ The sale deed dated 5.12.1947 (Ex.C3) was used to establish that Dharampal owned plots 30, 31, and 34, not plot 27.
- ✓ The sale deed dated 9.12.1947 (Ex.DW4/1) was used to demonstrate that plot 28 was sold to Ved Prakash Shukla and was adjacent to plot 27.
- ✓ The sale deed dated 30.5.1952 was used to establish that Mehar Chand Kohli, the appellant’s father, was the rightful owner of plot 27.
- ✓ The sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.DW1/1) was rejected as fabricated and not a valid proof of ownership.
- ✓ The original sale deed dated 15.9.1966 (Ex.C1) was used to compare with Ex.DW1/1 and prove its fabrication.
- ✓ The maps (Ex.PW2/4 and Ex.DW1/3) were used to verify the location of plots and confirm the appellant’s claim.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the discrepancies found between the respondent’s sale deed and the original document from the Sub-Registrar’s office. The Court also considered the fact that Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27, which invalidated the respondent’s claim. The detailed examination of the sale deeds and maps played a crucial role in the court’s reasoning.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Discrepancies in sale deed (Ex.DW1/1) compared to original document (Ex.C1) | 40% |
| Dharampal’s lack of ownership of Plot No. 27 | 30% |
| Validity of the appellant’s sale deed dated 30.5.1952 | 20% |
| Location of the plots as shown in the maps | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and evidence presented. The court found that the respondent’s sale deed was fabricated, and Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27. The court also considered the appellant’s valid sale deed and the location of the plots as shown in the maps.
The court considered the alternative interpretation of the facts and evidence, but rejected it because the respondent’s sale deed was found to be fabricated. The court also considered the fact that Dharampal never owned Plot No. 27.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant had successfully proven his case and was entitled to regain possession of Plot No. 27. The court found that the respondent was in unauthorized possession of the property.
“The said document Ex.C1 is almost replication of Ex.DW1/1 in all particulars, except on material particulars .”
“Thus, fabrication of the said deed dated 15.9.1966 (i.e. Ex.DW1/1) is evident from comparison of the same with the original sale deed received by the trial Court in the sealed cover from Sub-Registrar’s office.”
“Hence, it is amply proved by the appellant that he is the owner of plot no. 27 and that he is entitled to get back the possession of the same from the respondent, who is in unauthorised possession.”
Key Takeaways
✓ A sale deed can be invalidated if it is proven to be fabricated.
✓ The original documents maintained in the Sub-Registrar’s office are crucial in determining the validity of sale deeds.
✓ Ownership of a property cannot be claimed based on a sale deed from a person who never owned the property.
✓ Detailed examination of the facts, evidence, and maps is essential in property disputes.
The judgment underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of sale deeds and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant documents in property disputes. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving similar issues.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, first appellate court, and trial court and decreed the civil suit filed by the original plaintiff, Late Mehar Chand Kohli.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a person cannot claim ownership of a property based on a fabricated sale deed and that the original documents maintained in the Sub-Registrar’s office are crucial in determining the validity of sale deeds. This judgment reaffirms the importance of verifying the authenticity of sale deeds and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant documents in property disputes. There is no change in previous positions of law, but it emphasizes the importance of factual verification in property disputes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The Court held that the appellant was the rightful owner of Plot No. 27, based on a valid sale deed, and that the respondent’s claim was based on a fabricated document. The judgment underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of sale deeds and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant documents in property disputes.