SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, September 15, 2025

Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1756

In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.)

Kaushik Premkumar Mishra and Another …

Appellant(s);
Versus
Kanji Ravaria and Another … Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023
Decided on July 19, 2024
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VIKRAM NATH, J.:— “Law is the king of kings, nothing is mightier
than law, by whose aid, even the weak may prevail over the strong.”
The power structures of our society are such that the weaker ones
often find themselves exploited and oppressed by those who yield
greater power. Land ownership is one such arena where we see the
swords of powerplay being sharpened with continued fraud, deceit, and
greed. While we shall deal with the facts of the present case in detail
later, it is a classic example of continued suffering faced by the
common man owing to mala fide intentions of the vendors who try to
gain double-benefits, either by arm-twisting or through manipulation of
the legal processes. Sometimes, the misery of the litigant is deepened
when such travesty of justice is prolonged for decades. It is in cases
like these, 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. In cases
like the one before us, it is not for us to just mechanically analyse the
contentious transactions but to also ensure that injustice is remedied
and nobody is benefitted by their own wrongs. Justice knows no bias
and thus, through its aid, even the weak may prevail over the strong.
2. This appeal by the plaintiff assails the correctness of the
th
judgment and order dated 9 June, 2022 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the
defendant no. 2 (respondent no. 1 herein) was allowed the judgment of
the first Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court
dismissing the suit of the appellant was maintained.
3. Respondent no. 2 was the owner of Survey No. 13 Hissa No. 1
measuring 3.40 Hectares situate in village Shelwali, Tehsil Palghar,
District Thane, Maharashtra. Half of the total area which would come to
1.70 Hectares on the western side is the suit land purchased by the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

appellants. Remaining half was purchased by collaterals of the

appellants.
4. Relevant facts for appropriate adjudication of this appeal are as
follows:
(a) Respondent no. 2 herein executed a Sale Deed in favour of
appellant no. 1 and his minor brother Ambrish Mishra (since
deceased) on 02.12.1985 with respect to suit land and the
appellant no. 1, along with his brother, was put into possession of
the same.
(b) On the same date another Sale Deed was executed by the
respondent no. 2 in favour of one Param Umakant Mishra and
Sohardha Jagdish Mishra (collaterals of the appellants) for the
remaining half portion.
(c) On 05.12.1985 both the aforementioned Sale Deeds were
presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Palghar.
(d) The Sale Deed in favour of Param Mishra and Sohardha Mishra
was registered and later on their names were mutated in the
revenue records. However, on account of deficiency in stamp duty,
the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant no. 1 and his minor
brother could not be registered and remained pending for
registration before the Sub-Registrar. As such their names could
not be incorporated in the revenue records and the name of the
respondent no. 2 continued to be recorded.
(e) It would be relevant to mention that in the Sale Deed it was
mentioned that the appellant no. 1 is aged 18 years whereas his
brother Ambrish, was a minor and was represented through his
natural guardian-mother (Smt. Malti).
th
(f) On 8 October, 1999, brother of the appellant Ambrish passed
away issueless and later on his widow re-married, as such, his
parents became the successors and legal heirs of the estate of
Ambrish.
rd
(g) On 3 December, 2010 respondent no. 2 executed a Conveyance
Deed with respect to the suit land in favour of respondent no. 1.
It is the same land which was transferred in favour of the
appellant no. 1 and his brother in December, 1985.
th
(h) On 8 June, 2011 the appellants came to know about inspection
of the suit land by some strangers, so they went to the spot. They
found that respondent no. 1, along with some musclemen, was
trying to take possession of the suit land but on account of suit
land being protected by fencing, they could not enter. It was at
that time the appellant no. 1 came to know about a conveyance
deed in favour of respondent no. 1 on the basis of which he was
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

trying to take possession.

(i) The appellants thereafter made inquiries in the office of the Sub-
Registrar and came to know that there was a sale deed dated 3rd
December, 2010 in favour of respondent no. 1
(j) After obtaining a certified copy of the said Deed, which was
received on 14th June 2011, the picture became clear to the
appellant. The fraud played on them by respondent no. 2 of
transferring the same property (suit land) in favour of respondent
no. 1, which had been earlier transferred in their favour, became
apparent.
(k) The appellants then followed up registration of their sale deed.
After removing the deficiency in stamp duty, the sale deed
executed on 02.12.1985 and presented for registration on
05.12.1985 before the Sub-Registrar came to be registered on
14th June, 2011. The above incident of interference in possession
by the respondent no. 1 gave rise to filing of the suit.
5. The appellants along with Premkumar, father of appellant no. 1,
instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.12.2010 and for
th
perpetual injunction on 27 June, 2011 which was registered as Special
Civil Suit No. 46 of 2011. The vendor was impleaded as defendant No.
1 (respondent no. 2 herein) and the subsequent purchaser as
defendant No. 2 (respondent no. 1 herein). The facts as stated in
paragraph 4 above are pleaded in the plaint as such are not being
repeated.
6. Both the defendants filed separate written statements. The
written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 averred that the plaintiff
was not entitled to any of the reliefs; the suit was barred by limitation;
the land in suit was owned by him; that he did not recollect having
executed any such sale deed in favour of the appellant no. 1 and his
brother; that the plaintiff purchasers were minors, as such, the sale
deed in their favour was void; it was also denied that defendant no. 2
had tried to trespass the property and take forcible possession with the
help of musclemen.
7. Defendant no. 2 in his written statement averred that the
valuation of the suit was not proper; that no cause of action arose to
file the suit; that the plaintiffs had supressed material facts and
documents and, as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed; that the
plaintiff no. 1 and his brother Ambrish were minors and, as such
incompetent to contract; that as per section 11 of the Indian Contract
Act, 18721 the transaction with minor was void and as such
unenforceable in law; that guardian of minor Ambrish was shown as his
mother whereas actually it should have been his father and therefore
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also the sale deed was bad; that there was no signature of plaintiff no.
2 in the sale deed; that the widow of brother Ambrish was not made a
party, as such, the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party;
that the sale deed was not duly registered as per provisions of law; that
before registration no notice was issued to the vendor i.e. defendant no.
1; no explanation or details were given with regard to the delay of 26
years in getting the registration; that under section 85 of the
2
Registration Act, 1908 , the documents pending for two years were
liable to be destroyed, as such, the sale deed was not legal and proper;
that there was interpolation in the documents of sale; that he was bona
fide purchaser for value and had done so after verification of the title
from the revenue records as also having searched the records of the
Sub-Registrar; lastly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
8. In the written statement of the respondent no. 2 (defendant no.
1) there was no specific denial of the execution of the Sale Deed on
02.12.1985 in favour of the appellant no. 1 and his brother. There was
also no specific or even general denial of not receiving the sale
consideration. No suit for cancellation of the said Sale Deed has ever
been filed nor any counter claim was filed by the defendants to the suit
filed by the appellants assailing the sale deed dated 02.12.1985.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues:
“(i) Do plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and occupation of
the suit land?
(ii) Do plaintiffs prove that they are owners of the suit land by virtue
of registered Sale Deed dated 02/12/1985?
(iii) Do plaintiffs prove that the defendants were trying to take
possession of the suit land forcibly and unauthorizedly?
(iv) Do plaintiffs prove that the Deed of Conveyance dated
03/12/2010 registered at serial No. 9176 is void-ab-initio?
(v) Do plaintiffs prove that they are entitle for relief of permanent
injunction against the defendants as prayed in the suit?
(vi) Do plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for any other relief?
(vii) Does defendant No. 1 prove that the alleged Agreement to Sale
dated 02/12/1985 is void-abinitio?
(viii) Does defendant No. 1 prove that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by
limitation?
(ix) Does defendant No. 2 prove that the Sale Deed dated
02/12/1985 was not enforceable by law?
(x) Does defendant No. 2 prove that he is bona fide purchaser and
the possessor of suit land?
(xi) What order and decree?”
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. The parties to the suit led evidence, both oral and documentary.
On behalf of the plaintiffs Kaushik Premkumar Mishra examined himself
as PW-1 and further examined Shri Mohan Joshi, Advocate as PW-2 and
Prashant Mishra as PW-3. They also filed documentary evidence which
included amongst others (i) sale deed dated 02.12.1985, (ii) certified
copy of 7/12 extract of suit property, (iii) mutation entry no. 668, (iv)
Form No. 1 of Register of Marriages for the year 2007 and (v)
Conveyance deed dated 03.12.2010.
11. Defendant no. 1 the vendor did not lead any evidence, either
oral or documentary. He failed to appear and enter the witness box
even to support his pleadings made in the written statements. There
was also no cross-examination of PW-1 on his behalf.
12. Defendant no. 2, the subsequent purchaser examined himself as
DW-1, and further examined Ranjeet Patil as DW-2, Parvez Patel as DW
-3, Sunit Patil as DW-4, Govind Rawaria as DW-5. He also filed
voluminous documents relating to revenue records, mutation entries,
search reports, copy of notices and various other documents relating to
his possession.
13. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties,
dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 24.02.2016. The Trial Court
recorded the following findings:
13.1 Issues Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were decided in negative, whereas
Issues nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the affirmative, mainly for the reason that
the appellant no. 1 as also his brother were minors at the time of the
execution of the Sale Deed on 02.12.1985, as such could not have
entered into a contract being a minor and, therefore, the Sale Deed was
void.
14. The appellants preferred appeal before the District Judge which
was registered as Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2016. The District Judge, vide
th
judgment dated 7 March, 2019 allowed the appeal, set aside the
judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The first Appellate
Court framed the following points for determination in paragraph 14 of
the judgment and in the said table, it also recorded the outcome of the
said findings. The said table is reproduced below:
“14. Heard the Ld. Advocates for both the parties. Perused the
record and the proceedings. Following points arise for my
determination on which I have recorded my findings for the reasons
to follow:
S. No. Points Findings
1. Whether plaintiffs prove …In the affirmative.
that they are in
possession and
occupation of the suit
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

property?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove …In the affirmative.
that they are owners of
the suit land by virtue of
registered sale deed
dated 02.12.1985?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove …In the affirmative.
that the defendants were
trying to take forcible
possession of suit
property unauthorizedly?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove …In the affirmative.
that the deed of
conveyance dated
03.12.2010 registered at
sr. no. 9176 is void-ab-
initio?
5. Whether plaintiffs prove …In the affirmative.
that they are entitled for
relief of permanent
injunction?
6. Whether plaintiffs prove …In the affirmative.
that they are entitled for
other reliefs?
7. Whether defendant no. 1 …In the negative.
proves that the alleged
agreement to sale dated
02.12.1985 is void ab-
initio?
8. Whether defendants …In the negative.
prove that the suit is
barred by Law of
Limitation?
9. Whether defendant no. 2 …In the negative.
proves that sale deed
dated 02.12.1985 was
not enforceable by law?
10. Whether defendant no. 2 …In the negative.
proves that he is bona
fide purchaser and in
possession of the suit
property?
11. Whether judgment and …In the affirmative.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

decree in Spl. Civil Suit

No. 46 of 2011 requires
interference and is liable
to be set aside?
12. What order? As per final order.
”
15. In the analysis, the First Appellate Court recorded the following
findings also:
15.1. It held that the title of the property relates back to the date of
execution of the sale deed and not the date of the registration.
15.2. It held that during the lifetime of the father, mother can act as
the natural guardian of the minor.
15.3. The defendants having failed to seek a declaration of the sale
deed dated 02.12.1985 being declared void ab-initio or for its
cancellation, once the document is duly registered by the Sub-
Registrar, it is only the competent Civil Court which would have the
jurisdiction to declare it as cancelled or void ab-initio.
15.4. Merely because the challenge to the procedure has been made
with respect to the registration, the submission of the defendants with
respect to the delayed registration etc. gets washed out.
16. The said judgment was assailed by way of Second Appeal by the
respondent no. 1, the subsequent purchaser (defendant no. 2) only. No
appeal was filed by the respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 1), vendor of
the appellant. This appeal was registered as Second Appeal No. 649 of
2019.
17. By the impugned judgment dated 09.06.2022, the High Court
has allowed the same and after setting aside the judgment of the first
Appellate Court, restored that of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
It is this judgment of the High Court, which is under challenge in the
present appeal. The High Court framed the following substantial
questions of law in paragraph 12 of the judgment which are reproduced
hereunder:—
“12. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are:
i) Whether execution of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 at Exhibit
54 has been duly proved;
ii) Whether the sale deed at Exhibit 54 conveys title in favour of
plaintiffs;
iii) Whether the findings of the first Appellate court on the issue of
execution and validity of sale deed dated 02.12.1985 are not
based on evidence on record and are perverse.”
18. The High Court recorded the following findings:
18.1. The sale deed in question dated 02.12.1985 could not be held
to be invalid for the sole reason that the deed was signed only by the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vendor and not by the vendees (in favour of plaintiffs).

18.2. The fact that the purchasers were minors would not per se
affect the validity of the sale deed (in favour of plaintiffs).
18.3. It criticizes the findings of the first Appellate Court regarding
the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 having been validly proved by the
plaintiffs to be not based on consideration of material facts on record as
discussed and considered by the Trial Court while holding that the sale
deed was not validly proved.
18.4. It considered in great detail the provisions of the Registration
Act to hold that the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was not validly
registered, as such, could not have been relied upon by the plaintiffs for
any of the reliefs claimed by them or to maintain the suit.
19. We have heard Shri Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 and Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel
representing respondent No. 1.
20. The submissions of Shri Navare for the appellant may be
summarized as under:
20.1. Respondent No. 2 did not specifically deny execution of the
sale deed in favour of appellant no. 1 and his brother. He has only
stated in the written statement that he does not recollect to have
executed any such document.
20.2. Respondent No. 2 did not cross-examine the appellant No. 1
who had entered the witness box. The appellant No. 1 had specifically
stated, not only in the plaint but also in his deposition, that respondent
No. 2 had executed the sale deed on 02.12.1985 after receiving the
sale consideration.
20.3. Respondent No. 2, although filed a written statement making
vague assertions but chose not to appear in the witness box apparently
to avoid being cross-examined.
20.4. The first Appellate Court had decreed the suit of the appellant
but no appeal was filed against the same by the respondent No. 2. The
only appeal filed before the High Court was by respondent No. 1.
20.5. The objection as to the registration or the procedure adopted
while registering the sale deed was essentially available to respondent
No. 2 but he did not raise it in the written statement. Further
respondent no. 2 neither cross-examined appellant No. 1 nor did he
enter the witness box nor did he assail the judgment of the first
Appellate Court decreeing the suit.
20.6. The only manner in which respondent No. 2 could have
challenged the sale deed in favour of the appellants was by way of
either a counter-claim or by way of an independent suit praying for
cancellation of the sale deed by impleading the registering authority,
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which he chose not to do.

20.7. As there was no counter-claim filed by the defendant, in
particular, respondent No. 2, the question of validity of execution and
registration of the Sale Deed dated 02.12.1985 in favour of the
appellant no. 1 and his brother, could not be tested.
20.8. The Trial Court did not frame any issue with respect to the
validity of the registration process or the registration of the sale deed
by the registering authorities, after such a long gap of 26 years.
Without framing such an issue, the Trial Court committed serious error
and a patent illegality in recording a finding with regard to the
registration process and commenting on the registering authorities.
Even the High Court committed the same illegality.
20.9. There is no limitation provided under the law for a sale deed
which had been executed and duly presented before the Registrar for
registration, for such document to be registered within a particular
time. Even if there was a gap of 26 years from the date of presentation
till the date of registration, it would not make any difference and the
sale deed would relate back to the date of execution once registered.
20.10. The fact that the sale deed was duly executed on 02.12.1985
and thereafter presented for registration on 05.12.1985 is apparent
from the fact that respondent No. 2 on the same date i.e. 02.12.1985
had executed the sale deed for the remaining half portion of Survey No.
13/1 in favour of collaterals of the appellant and further, the said sale
deed in favour of the collaterals was also presented for registration on
05.12.1985 i.e. the same day on which the appellant presented the sale
deed for registration. The sale deed of the collaterals was later on
registered. However, the sale deed of the appellant no. 1 remained
pending for registration due to deficiency in stamp duty and was finally
registered in 2011 after the deficiency was removed.
20.11. The registration of the sale deed of the appellant even after
26 years could not be said to be faulted on that ground alone. The said
registration was never challenged either before superior authority of the
registration department or before the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Till date there is no challenge to the said sale deed in
favour of the appellant either on the ground of non-execution by
respondent No. 2 or on the ground of the registration being faulty
before any forum whatsoever.
20.12. Reference to the deposition of appellant No. 1 has been made
to submit that the appellant No. 1 nowhere stated that no sale
consideration was paid but he only stated that he had not placed any
documents on record to show that the sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/
- had been paid.
20.13. The arguments advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 that
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the appellant No. 1 was a minor, as such the sale deed was void, also
does not benefit the respondents inasmuch as on behalf of the brother
of the appellant No. 1, who was stated to be a minor in the sale deed,
was duly represented by his mother, natural guardian. As such the sale
would, in any case, be valid insofar as the brother of the appellant No.
1 was concerned.
20.14. The collusion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was writ large and
more than apparent from the conduct of the respondent No. 2; that he
did not cross-examine the appellant no. 1; he did not enter the witness
box; he did not lead any evidence and; he did not file any appeal
before the High Court.
20.15. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of Alka Bose v. Parmatma Devi3 wherein this Court had observed
that in India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and
possession delivered to the purchaser and accepted by the purchaser
has always been considered to be a valid contract.
20.16. Lastly, it was submitted that the respondent No. 1, the
subsequent purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser. The sale deed in
favour of respondent No. 1 has a clause that the property was being
sold on as is where is basis which clearly reflects that respondent no. 1
had knowledge of the sale deed in favour of appellant and about their
possession.
20.17. On such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed, the impugned order
of the High Court deserves to be set aside and that of the first
Appellate Court be maintained.
21. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No. 2 made detailed submissions which we shall note a
little later. He, however, did not give any explanation whatsoever as to
why the respondent No. 2 did not cross-examine the appellant No. 1,
why the respondent No. 2 did not enter the witness box in support of
his pleadings stated in the written statement, why no evidence was led
by him and why no second appeal was preferred by respondent No. 2
against the judgment of the first Appellate Court decreeing the suit.
The submissions advanced on behalf of respondent no. 2 are
summarized hereunder:
21.1. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the sale deed in
favour of appellant was registered after 26 years.
21.2. With respect to the arguments relating to sale deed in favour
of respondent No. 1 mentioning on as is where is basis, the submission
is that as there was encroachment on the suit property by the local
tribal people as such this clause was inserted so that respondent No. 2
would not be saddled with any further liability of handing over a clear
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and vacant possession.

21.3. The suit instituted by the appellant as framed, was not
maintainable inasmuch as no relief of declaration of title was sought
and only relief claimed was for cancellation of the sale deed dated
03.12.2010 executed in favour of respondent No. 1 and further for
grant of permanent injunction. This was deliberately done as suit for
declaration would be time barred.
21.4. Once the pleadings have been exchanged and the issues are
framed, the burden would lie on both the parties to establish their
cases and it would be wrong on the part of the appellant to argue that
the burden would be on the respondent alone with respect to certain
issues.
21.5. The appellant No. 1 has admitted that he did not know the
details of the bank, cheque number, the date of the cheque, etc. and
that he had no documents to show that consideration of Rs. 40,000/-
was paid except for the fact that it was mentioned in the sale deed.
Reference was also made to section 25 of the Act,1872 to submit that
the agreements without consideration are void agreements.
21.6. Appellant No. 1 had admitted that the property was not
recorded in his name and that he had applied to the revenue authorities
to record his name which he was pursuing from 1996.
21.7. Appellant No. 1 declined to produce the pleadings of Special
Civil Suit No. 812 of 1996, the partition suit between the members of
the family. Appellant No. 1 admits of not challenging the Mutation
Entry No. 668 recorded in favour of respondent No. 1 pursuant to the
sale deed dated 03.12.2010.
21.8. Appellant No. 1 admitted of not having clearance and prior
sale permission from the competent authority which was a precondition
for purchase of suit property.
21.9. The appellant No. 1 admitted that the word “cash” in the sale
deed was scored out and the word “cheque” was mentioned in its place
and that on some pages of the sale deed, full signature of his mother
are not there rather it has initials.
21.10. The appellant No. 1 admitted that he does not remember as
to who had presented the sale deed for registration in the year 1985
and admits that he was not the one who presented.
21.11. With respect to the submission that the suit was not
maintainable as relief of declaration of title was not sought, reliance
was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy4 and Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram
5
Prasanna Singh by LR .
21.12. Appellant No. 1 had admitted in his deposition that he was a
minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed on 02.12.1985 and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the age shown in the sale deed that he was 18 years was incorrect.
Under Section 11 of the Act, 1872 a minor is not competent to enter
into a contract and as the appellant No. 1 admitted that he was a minor
at the time of the sale deed, the said contract would be void ab initio.
Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of
6
Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary .
21.13. The burden of proof was on the plaintiff, who has based the
suit on the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 to prove the same to be a valid
sale. As the Trial Court recorded the finding that the appellants had
failed to establish their right, title and interest in the suit property,
there was shifting of the onus on the respondent No. 2 would not arise
and there was no necessity or requirement of the respondent No. 2 to
enter the witness box as the same would be of no consequence.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Smriti
Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma7.
21.14. Referring to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18728
regarding presumption of existence of certain facts by the Court, it was
submitted that although the said presumption is rebuttable but as the
appellant No. 1 in his cross-examination has made various admissions
which were sufficient to decide the fate of the suit against him, it was
not necessary for the respondent no. 2 to either cross-examine him ˜or
to enter the witness box. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Kunda wd/o Mahadeo Supare v. Haribhau s/o
9
Husan Supare .
21.15. Appellant No. 1 also admits that serial numbers of the
stamps are not in continuation and that regular registration process of
the sale deed was not complete at the time when the sale deed of 2010
in favour of respondent No. 1 was registered.
21.16. Relying upon section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
10
1882 read with section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the
submission is that an unregistered sale deed could not have been
received in evidence as no title would pass on the basis of an
unregistered document relating to immovable property. As such the
respondent No. 2 continued to be the owner of the suit property holding
a valid title over the same. Reliance has been placed upon the following
judgments:
11
• Raghunath v. Kedar Nath ;
12
• Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh ;
13
• Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana ;
• S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram14; and
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra15.

21.17. Lastly it was submitted that as mandatory legal conditions
were not fulfilled for the registration of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985,
the same could not have been treated as a registered sale deed.
21.18. To elaborate the above argument following further facts were
stated:
a) Appellant No. 1 in his cross-examination (at Pg.135) has admitted
that Defendant No. 1 (original Vendor) was not called for
completing process of registration on 14.06.2011 and that there is
no endorsement of the Sub-Registrar on the last page of Sale
Deed about completion of registration. Therefore, the mandates of
Section 60, which prescribes as to what constitutes a Certificate of
registration is not fulfilled and hence, the alleged sale deed was
not validly registered on 14.06.2011 and therefore, alleged sale
deed dated 02.12.1985 cannot be treated as a registered sale
deed.
b) That the alleged sale deed was registered in violation of Section
32 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Sections 17 and 20 of the
Act, 1908. The essential requirement under Section 54 of the TP
Act were also not fulfilled. That from the record as well as the
admission of appellant no. 1, it is clear from the serial number of
the stamps that the same are not in continuum.
c) As per Section 32 of the Stamp Act when any instrument is
brought to the Collector then the Collector may determine the
Stamp Duty. That in the present case, the alleged Sale Deed
shows that at the time of presentation the stamp of Rs. 1600/-
was given but on 14.06.2011 the Sub-Registrar accepted extra
amount of Rs. 2200/- and penalty of Rs. 500/- but there is no
endorsement to show that it was sent to the Collector for
determining the Stamp duty and it is not shown in the Sale Deed
that deficit stamp duty was affixed. As per Sections 33 and 34 of
the Stamp Act, the Collector has power to impound the document.
d) The alleged sale deed does not show that under which provision of
law the Sub-Registrar had accepted the deficit charges after 26
years and no reasons were given as to why it was kept pending
for such a long time.
e) Even if assuming for the sake of arguments without admitting
that the alleged sale deed was presented before the Sub-
Registrar, the same was unclaimed for 26 years and hence, by
operation of Section 85, documents unclaimed for more than two
years are required to be destroyed.
f) Compulsory affixing of photograph on the conveyance deed is also
not followed at the time of registration process. Reliance was
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

placed on the case of Veena Singh (dead) Thr. LRs. District

Registrar/Additional Collector16.
22. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1, the subsequent purchaser, has mainly laid stress on
the point that respondent No. 1 was a bona fide purchaser having
exercised due diligence as such there would be no justification of
cancellation of sale deed executed in his favour.
23. Mr. Ahmadi has also broadly submitted that the appellant no. 1
had failed to prove the basis of claim i.e. the sale deed dated
02.12.1985 and as such had not acquired any right, title or interest in
the suit property. The respondent No. 2, therefore, was well within his
rights to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1 in
2010. He has also referred to the statement of appellant No. 1 in order
to show certain admissions which already have been pointed out and
noted above in the arguments of Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. In so far as the main
submission regarding bona fide purchase for value without notice, he
17
referred to Section 41 of the TP Act, 1882 . Reliance has been placed
upon the following judgments:
1. Sukhwinder Singh v. Jagroop Singh18,
2. Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni19,
3. Hansa V. Gandhi v. Deep Shankar Roy20,
21
4. Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh ,
22
5. Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh by LR .
24. In the additional written submissions, respondent no. 1 has
placed further reliance upon two judgments of this Court, for the
proposition that the sale contract with the minor even though he was
the vendee, would be void ab-initio. The two cases are Mathai v.
23
Mathai , and another recent judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed in
Civil Appeal No. 2591 of 2024 @ SLP(Civil) No. 23655 of 2019,
Krishnaveni v. M.A. Shagul Hameed. Further, reliance was placed upon
another judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2024 in C.A. No. 002458
of 2024, Babasaheb Dhondiba Kure v. Radha Vithoba Barde for the
proposition that conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the
time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with section 17 of the
Act, 1908. Lastly, it is submitted that the suit was not maintainable as
no relief for declaration of title was sought for which reliance was placed
upon judgment of this Court in the case of The Tehsildar, Urban
Improvement Trust v. Ganga Bai Menariya (dead) through Lrs.24.
25. Both the learned senior counsel for the respondents thus
submitted that the appeal was devoid of merit and liable to be
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dismissed.
26. From the submissions advanced and the perusal of the material
on record, the following issues/questions arise for consideration in the
present appeal:
1) Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by
Respondent No. 2?
2) Whether the sale consideration was paid with respect to sale deed
dated 02.12.1985?
3) Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was presented for
registration on 05.12.1985 or not?
4) Whether delayed registration of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985
would prove to be fatal?
5) Whether non-mutation would take away the right created by the
sale deed in favor of the vendees?
6) Whether respondent no. 2 had any right, title or interest left in
the suit property after 02.12.1985?
7) Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was void as the vendees
were alleged to be minors?
8) Whether the respondent no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser for value
by way of a subsequent sale deed dated 03.12.2010?
27. Having considered the submissions advanced by the counsels for
the parties our analysis on the issues stated above is as under. As the
issues/questions raised are interlinked, they have been taken up
together in our analysis.
28. At the outset, it may be relevant to refer to the certified/xerox
copy of the sale deed dated 2.12.1985, presented for registration on
5.12.1985, copies of which were filed by both the sides under the
direction of this Court. We have carefully perused the sale deed. The
following facts may be noticeable from the said perusal:
(i). The stamp paper had been purchased on 29.11.1985.
(ii). The document was prepared and executed on 02.12.1985
(iii). The document was presented before the Sub-Registrar on
5.12.1985. The total value of the stamp paper used was Rs 1,600/
-.
(iv). The document was presented by respondent no. 2, the vendor.
(v). The document bears the signature of Anees Ismail Khoja,
respondent no. 2, the witnesses and also contains the respective
endorsement by the Sub-Registrar.
(vi). The document was impounded for non-payment of proper
stamp duty. However, on 14.6.2011 the deficiency in stamp duty
of Rs. 2200/- along with penalty of Rs. 500/- and other statutory
payments of Rs. 700/- having been paid, it was finally registered
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in Book No. 1 from pages 141-147.

(vii). The document bears the signatures of not only the vendor, the
attesting witnesses and also the necessary endorsement by the
Sub-Registrar. This makes it abundantly clear that the sale deed
was executed on 02.12.1985 and presented before the Sub-
Registrar on 5.12.1985. Later on, it was registered on 14.06.2011.
29. The Trial Court and the High Court had proceeded on the
premise that the defendant No. 1 - the vendor (respondent no. 2
herein) had denied the execution of the sale deed and had also denied
that he had not received any consideration. This premise taken by both
the Courts i.e. Trial Court and the High Court are contrary to the
pleadings on record and the evidence led during the Trial. There is clear
misreading of the evidence. In his written statement in paragraph 7
defendant no. 1 (vendor) has stated that he does not recollect having
executed the sale deed. He has not specifically denied anywhere in the
written statement that he had not executed the sale deed or that the
signatures on the sale deed were not his signatures. Thus, the very
premise on the basis of which the Trial Court and the High Court
proceeded are perverse being contrary to the material on record. Both
the said courts also failed to take into consideration that defendant no.
1 the vendor (respondent no. 2 herein) neither entered the witness box
in support of his pleadings and to prove them, nor did lead any
evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of his pleadings. There
was no justification to treat a vague statement in the written statement
of not recollecting about execution of sale deed, to be taken as a denial
of the execution. The defendant no. 1 - the vendor was deliberately and
mischievously avoiding to make specific statement either denying his
signatures on the sale deed or his presentation before the Sub-
Registrar or had not received any sale consideration. The Trial Court
and the High Court fell into the trap of clever drafting and a vague
statement of defendant no. 1.
30. The Trial Court and the High Court also committed a manifest
error in recording that the defendant no. 1- vendor (respondent no. 2
herein) had denied having received any sale consideration with respect
to the sale deed dated 02.12.1985. In the written statement filed by
the defendant no. 1, there is no such statement made. In case he had
made such a statement then he would be admitting the execution but
without consideration. Both the Courts again misread the deposition of
appellant no. 1 (PW-1) wherein he said that he does not have any proof
of payment of the consideration to hold that no sale consideration was
paid. A registered document carries with it presumption of correctness
unless proved otherwise as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act read
with Section 17 of the Act, 1908. In the present case there is no such
evidence.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. The defendant no. 1 having not entered the witness box and not
having led any evidence, it was a mere presumption of the Trial Court
and the High Court to have recorded that defendant no. 1 denied
receiving any sale consideration.
32. Based upon the aforesaid two factual errors, the Trial Court and
the High Court wrongly shifted the burden on the plaintiff to prove
execution of the sale deed and also payment of the sale consideration.
The impugned judgment thus suffers from manifest error of law and
facts both.
33. The appeal deserves to be allowed on several other grounds
which we are dealing hereunder and hereinafter.
33.1. It is not disputed by respondent No. 2 that on 02.12.1985, he
had executed another sale deed with respect to the remaining portion
of survey No. 13/1 in favour of the collaterals of the appellants, namely,
Param Umakant Mishra and Sohardha Mishra. This sale deed in favour
of the collateral was presented for registration on the same date as the
sale deed of the appellant i.e. 05.12.1985 and was thereafter duly
registered. The respondent No. 2 has never challenged the said sale
deed in favour of the collaterals. It is thus apparent that the family
members and collaterals of the appellants purchased the entire survey
No. 13/1 measuring 3.40 Hectares from respondent No. 2 in equal
shares by two separate documents which were executed on the same
date and presented for registration on the same day. Despite the fact
that specific query was put to learned senior counsel for respondent no.
2 with regard to the above aspect, no answer was given. In the plaint
specific averment was made with regard to the sale deed in favour of
the collaterals. There is no specific denial in the written statement filed
by respondent No. 2 about the sale deed in favour of collaterals.
General denial has been made by placing strict proof of liability on the
plaintiff.
33.2. The respondent No. 2 apparently wants to take advantage of
certain minor aberrations and minor technicalities and is also taking up
self-conflicting pleas.
33.3. The sale deed is sought to be ignored and rejected on account
of a minor cutting/over writing with regard to the word ‘cash’ (Roch) by
‘cheque’. The fact remains that respondent No. 2 did not enter the
witness box to depose that he has not received any sale consideration
either by way of cash or by way of cheque and further to state that he
had not executed the sale deed and the signatures and thumb
impression on the sale deed are not his. He also did not come forward
to say that the signatures and thumb impression available in the Sub-
Registrar's office in the register taken at the time for registration also
did not bear his signatures.
33.4. Another aspect submitted on behalf of respondent was that
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the appellant No. 1 in his deposition has said that he had no proof of
the payment of the sale consideration, to assert that the appellant No.
1 admitted that he had not paid any sale consideration is not correct.
Appellant No. 1 was being examined sometime after 2013, i.e. after a
gap of 28 years from the date of the sale deed. He could not be
expected to remember such facts distinctly and as such he made a fair
statement that he did not have any document that could prove the
passing of the sale consideration. This would not, by itself, be
interpreted to hold that appellant admitted of not paying any sale
consideration.
33.5. The question of payment of sale consideration would arise only
and only if the vendor makes a specific statement in his pleadings as
also in his deposition in support of the pleading that he did not receive
any sale consideration either by way of cheque or by cash. There is no
such pleading and as the vendor did not enter the witness box, even if
there was any such pleading, there is no statement to prove such
pleading. Thus, the above argument being based on minor discrepancy
in the statement of the appellant, no benefit can be derived by the
respondents. The argument is accordingly rejected.
33.6. There is one more reason to reject this argument. Even if
assuming that no sale consideration was paid even though there was a
registered sale deed, it would be at the instance of the vendor to
challenge the said sale deed on the ground of no sale consideration
being paid. In the present case, there is no such challenge to the sale
deed for being declared as void or being cancelled on such ground.
Thus also, the said argument deserves to be rejected.
33.7. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that
appellant No. 1, in his deposition, stated that he did not remember as
to who had presented the document for registration. Such statement
would not be relevant at all inasmuch as the fact remains that the
document of sale was presented for registration on 05.12.1985, which
fact is not denied. Who presented the document is not relevant. It was
for the registering authority to examine and once the document is
registered, it is presumed that it was presented by the competent
person and necessary signatures of the vendor and vendee must have
been taken by the registering authority. From a perusal of the xerox
copy of the sale deed it is apparent that there is an endorsement by the
Sub-Registrar that the sale deed was presented by respondent no. 2,
the vendor (defendant no. 1 in the suit).
33.8. The submission with regard to delay of 26 years in getting the
document registered also does not extend any benefit to the
respondents. Non-registration of a document duly presented for
registration could be for many reasons. But once it is registered, there
is a presumption of correctness attached to it, that is to say that the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 19 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

document has been duly executed and registered in accordance to law.

It was for the defendants (respondents) to come forward and to
establish that the document was wrongly registered. They did not lead
any evidence in this respect. Instead, they tried to put burden on the
plaintiff-appellant by requiring him to call the Sub-Registrar as a
witness, which the appellant rightly denied. It was always open for the
respondents to have called for the records of the Sub-Registrar's office
and also the Sub-Registrar in order to find out any mandatory lacuna or
illegality or lack of procedure not being followed with respect to the
registration. They did nothing of this sort.
33.9. In fact, respondent No. 2 did not make any bone of contention
with regard to the registration process and the registration of the
documents after 26 years by challenging the same before the same
authority or any superior authority or any Court of law. Registration of a
document carries with it presumption of correctness until and unless
the same was challenged by way of independent proceeding or a
counter claim. In the absence of any such claim, the sale deed in favour
of the appellants has to be treated as a valid document.
33.10. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, and Mr.
Huzefa Ahmadi learned senior counsel appearing for respondents that
once the appellant No. 1 admitted that he was a minor at the time of
execution of the sale deed and that his age was incorrectly recorded as
18 years in the sale deed, the sale deed would be void ab initio and
would not transfer any right, title or interest in the favour of the
appellants. This submission is again liable to be rejected. The sale deed
was in favour of two persons, appellant No. 1 as also his minor brother,
Ambrish who was mentioned to be a minor in the sale deed and was
represented through his natural guardian, his mother. The sale deed,
therefore, in any case, would be valid in so far as the rights of Ambrish
are concerned. Respondent No. 2 for 26 years never came forward to
return the sale consideration and for rescinding the contract of sale. His
intentions are clearly tainted with malice and dishonesty. His conduct
throughout the trial and at appeal stage also reflects the same.
33.11. The issue of minority of appellant no. 1 would also not be of
any relevance for the reason that even if he was a minor at the time of
the execution of the sale deed and he had so stated honestly in his
deposition, the fact remains that the mother of appellant No. 1 was
already representing his younger brother as guardian who was stated to
be a minor in the sale deed. She was also the natural guardian of
appellant no. 1, and therefore, it would be deemed that she was acting
on behalf of both her minor sons.
33.12. The High Court recorded the findings that the fact that the
purchasers were minors would not per se affect the validity of the sale
deed for the reason that the second purchaser Ambrish who was
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 20 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mentioned as a minor in the sale deed was represented through his

natural guardian and mother Smt. Malti Premkumar Mishra and also
that the age of the first purchaser Kaushik was mentioned to be 18
years in the sale deed.
33.13. The respondent no. 2 appears to be a dishonest person. We
are saying so for very strong reasons, which are apparent from his
conduct not only during the trial but also acting in collusion with
respondent no. 1 to execute the sale deed for the same land which he
had already transferred. The issue of registration of a document is with
the State, which requires compulsory registration of documents so that
it is not deprived of revenue by way of stamp duty payable on such
transfers of immovable property. If the purchaser has no means to pay
stamp duty or exorbitant demand of stamp duty is made by the
registering authority which the purchaser is unable to pay at that time
but he remains satisfied with the fact that the vendor has fairly and
duly executed the sale deed presented it for registration and put him in
possession of the purchased property which he is peacefully enjoying,
he is always at liberty to pay the deficiency of stamp duty at any point
of time. The document presented for registration will remain with the
Registering Authority till such time, the deficiency is removed.
However, this pendency of registration on account of deficiency cannot
enure any benefit to the vendor, who has already eliminated all his
rights by executing the sale deed after receiving the sale consideration.
He cannot become the owner of the transferred land merely because
the document of sale is pending for registration. It is the purchaser who
cannot produce such document which is pending registration with
respect to the immovable property in evidence before the Court of law
as the same would be inadmissible in view of statutory provision
contained in the TP Act as also the Act, 1908.
34. Coming to the submission of Mr. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel
for the subsequent purchaser-respondent No. 1, his claim would come
up for consideration only if it is finally held that the sale deed of
02.12.1985 was not a valid sale deed. As otherwise all the rights, title
and interest of the vendor-respondent no. 2 would be curtailed from the
date of execution of the first sale deed on 02.12.1985. As we have
already held above that the sale deed cannot be discarded as void ab
initio, rather we have held that it is a valid document of sale, therefore,
no benefit can be extended to respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1
would enter the shoes of the respondent no. 2. If respondent no. 2 had
alienated all his rights, title and interest and also delivered possession,
respondent no. 1 could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice.
35. The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value applies in
situations where the seller appears to have some semblance of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 21 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

legitimate ownership rights. However, this principle does not protect a

subsequent purchaser if the vendor had already transferred those rights
through a prior sale deed. In a case where the vendor deceitfully
executes a second sale deed 26 years after the initial transfer, without
disclosing the earlier transaction and without any ongoing litigation
regarding the property, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim the
benefits of a bona fide purchaser. Essentially, if the vendor's rights
were already severed by the first sale, any later sale deed made without
transparency and in bad faith is invalid. The subsequent purchaser,
even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be considered bona fide
because the vendor no longer had the legal right to sell the property.
Thus, the protection afforded by the bona fide purchaser doctrine is
nullified by the vendor's deceitful conduct and the pre-existing transfer
of rights. This ensures that the original purchaser's rights are upheld
and prevents unjust enrichment through fraudulent transactions.
36. This is not a case of agreement to sell in favour of appellants but
is a case of sale deed transferring ownership rights and possession. It
would be open to respondent no. 1 to avail such remedy as may be
available under law to recover the sale consideration paid by him to
respondent No. 2. The sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1
dated 03.12.2010 needs to be cancelled and the registering authority
be directed to score out the same from the records as directed by the
first Appellate Court.
37. Another argument raised that the sale deed did not contain the
signatures of the mother also deserves to be rejected. Prior to insertion
of section 32A in the Act, 1908 in the year 2001 there was no
requirement under law that the vendee must mandatorily sign the
document of sale for immovable property and also affix passport size
photograph and thumb impression along with proof of identification. In
the present case the sale deed was presented for registration in 1985,
much before 2001.
38. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 2, has relied upon the following judgments in order to
substantiate his arguments pertaining to the issue of registration of the
sale deed:
a. Raghunath Singh v. Kedar Nath25,
b. Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh26,
27
c. Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana ,
28
d. S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram ,
29
e. Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Amit Chand Mitra ,
30
f. Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad ,
g. Veena Singh (dead) thr. LRs v. District Registrar/Additional
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 22 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Collector31
39. We observe that the cases relied upon by the Respondent No. 2
do not extend any kind of benefit in the facts of the present case as the
judgments above are clearly distinguishable on facts. Thus, to avoid
lending any further burden on the instant judgment, we are not dealing
with them on their individual facts.
40. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal deserves to
be allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and
that of the first Appellate Court decreeing suit of the appellant is
restored and maintained.
41. Facts of this case deserves that the suit should be decreed with
exemplary costs considering the conduct of the defendant-respondents,
which is quantified at Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to be
paid to the appellants within eight weeks from today. The liability to
pay costs shall be borne equally by each of the two respondents. Proof
of payment of costs may be filed before this Court within ten weeks
from today.
42. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
———
1
The Act, 1872

2
The Act, 1908

3
(2009) 2 SCC 582

4
(2008) 4 SCC 594, (relevant paras 13-16, 21)

5
(2020) 16 SCC 601 (para 7-10).

6
(2015) 5 SCC 622 (para 16-19).

7
2023 SCC OnLine SC 9 (para 35).

8
The Evidence Act

9
(2014) 5 Mah LJ 726 (para 8).

10
The TP Act

11
(1969) 1 SCC 497 (para 3);

12
(2003) 4 SCC 161 (para 5);

13
(2009) 7 SCC 363 (para 15-18);
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 23 Monday, September 15, 2025
Printed For: Mr. Rahul IAS
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14
(2010) 5 SCC 401 [para 12,13,15]

15
SLP No. 15774 of 2023.

16
(2022) 7 SCC 1

17
TP Act

18
2020 SCC OnLine SC 86

19
(2022) 3 SCC 150

20
(2013) 12 SCC 776

21
(2007) 2 SCC 404

22
(2020) 16 SCC 601

23
(2015) 5 SCC 622

24
(2024) 2 SCR 650

25
(1969) 1 SCC 497

26
(2003) 4 SCC 161

27
(2009) 7 SCC 363

28
(2010) 5 SCC 401

29
SLP (C) No. 15774 of 2023 decided on 25.09.2023

30
(2015) 5 SCC 588

31
(2022) 7 SCC 1

Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.