Summary
The Court restored a decree for possession founded on an admittedly executed registered sale deed. The High Court had wrongly treated the conveyance and an earlier sale between the defendants as void under the Fragmentation Act without the requisite pleadings, jurisdictional consideration or factual foundation. The vendor failed to displace the effect of the admitted conveyance and its consideration recital.
Issues
- Whether the registered conveyance supported possession despite the vendor’s plea of a nominal loan-security transaction.
- Whether the courts could invalidate the sales under the Fragmentation Act on the pleadings and jurisdictional footing presented.
Provisions considered
- Sections 36A and 36B, Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947Questions reserved to statutory authorities cannot be decided by the civil court; an issue actually arising that requires such determination must be referred after staying the suit. No adequate foundation for invoking that procedure was established here. (¶¶ 20-24, 27-31)
- Sections 91 and 92, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Recognised admissibility of evidence that a document was never intended to operate, while holding that the oral case did not override the admitted registered conveyance on these facts. (¶ 32-35)
- Order VIII Rule 6A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The vague defence was not a counterclaim, and a counterclaim could not be used to adjudicate an independent claim solely against a co-defendant. (¶¶ 24-30, 34)
Held
- The courts failed to address the statutory jurisdictional bar before declaring the transactions invalid under the Fragmentation Act. A stay and reference require an issue genuinely arising for determination by the competent authority. Neither the plaint nor the vague defence established such an issue here; the Court declined a remand in this long-pending suit. (¶¶ 20-24, 27-31)
- A defendant may raise alternative inconsistent pleas, but mutually destructive pleas can operate to his detriment. The plea that no real transfer ever occurred undermined the attempted application of statutory provisions directed at an actual transfer or partition, and the necessary foundational facts for applying the Act were absent. (¶¶ 15-19, 22-24)
- The earlier registered sale between the defendants could not be invalidated through an independent inter se claim treated as a counterclaim in the purchaser’s suit. No proper counterclaim had been filed, and the High Court’s resulting invalidation of the later conveyance was unsustainable. (¶¶ 25-31, 34)
- Registration alone does not prove disputed execution. Here execution and registration were admitted, the conveyance expressly transferred title and recorded consideration, and the burden of establishing the asserted contrary character lay on the challenging vendor. The admitted sale of one acre and the co-vendor’s endorsement of the entire conveyance were material. (¶ 32-34)
- Parol evidence can establish that a document was never intended to be acted upon and served a collateral purpose. That principle did not justify overriding this conveyance on the evidence and admissions in this case; its terms disclosed present passage of ownership without ambiguity. The High Court’s reversal of the first appellate decree rested on perverse appreciation of the evidence. (¶ 35)
Result
Appeal allowed with costs. High Court judgment set aside; first appellate judgment and decree granting possession restored.