Summary
A sale executed and presented for registration in 1985, but registered in 2011 after payment of deficient stamp duty, prevailed over the vendor’s subsequent sale in 2010. The vendor neither specifically denied execution or receipt of consideration nor entered the witness box. The purchasers’ minority and the delay in registration did not invalidate the first sale on these facts. The decree cancelling the later sale was restored with exemplary costs.
Issues
- Whether the first registered sale could be rejected for alleged non-payment of consideration, minority of the purchasers or delayed registration.
- Whether the subsequent purchaser obtained title or protection as a bona fide purchaser.
Provisions considered
- Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The registered deed carried a rebuttable presumption of correctness; the vendor’s vague pleading and failure to testify or adduce contrary evidence did not rebut it. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Section 32A, Registration Act, 1908The requirement introduced in 2001 could not be used to fault absence of purchasers’ photographs, signatures and identification particulars when the deed was executed and presented in 1985. (¶ 37)
Held
- The vendor did not specifically deny his signature, execution or receipt of consideration. A statement that he did not recollect the transaction, without testimony or supporting evidence, did not rebut the registered deed. The courts below wrongly shifted the burden to the purchasers. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Inability to recall the mode of payment after about twenty-eight years and an alteration from cash to cheque were not proof of non-payment. There was neither a specific pleaded and proved denial by the vendor nor an independent challenge or counterclaim to invalidate the deed on that basis. (¶¶ 33.3, 33.4, 33.5, 33.6)
- The deed had been executed and presented by the vendor in 1985 and remained pending for stamp deficiency. Its subsequent registration after payment of deficiency and penalty could not be rejected merely because of the delay, absent evidence displacing regularity of registration. (¶¶ 28, 33.7, 33.8, 33.9)
- Minority of the purchasers did not by itself invalidate this conveyance in their favour. Their mother was their natural guardian; the erroneous recital of the elder purchaser’s age did not defeat the transaction, and the vendor had not sought rescission or refund during the intervening years. (¶¶ 33.10, 33.11, 33.12)
- A vendor who had executed and presented the first sale could not exploit the outstanding stamp deficiency to retain ownership and sell the property again. The subsequent purchaser acquired no better title than the vendor possessed, and claimed bona fides did not preserve that second sale. (¶¶ 33.13, 34, 35)
- The decree cancelling the 2010 sale and requiring the registering authority to score it out was restored. The subsequent purchaser remained free to recover the price from the vendor. Exemplary costs of Rs.10 lakh were imposed equally on the two respondents, payable within eight weeks with proof within ten weeks. (¶¶ 36, 40, 41)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and first appellate decree restored. Respondents to bear exemplary costs totalling Rs.10 lakh equally, payable within eight weeks; proof to be filed within ten weeks.