KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR. versus KANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2295 · Decided: 19-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2295 : 2024 INSC 540
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. 
v. 
Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023)
19 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by 
Respondent No. 2; whether the sale consideration was paid with 
respect to sale deed dated 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 
02.12.1985 was presented for registration on 05.12.1985 or not; 
whether delayed registration of the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 
would prove to be fatal; whether non-mutation would take away 
the right created by the sale deed in favor of the vendees; whether 
respondent no.2 had any right, title or interest left in the suit 
property after 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 
was void as the vendees were alleged to be minors; whether the 
respondent no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser for value by way of 
a subsequent sale deed dated 03.12.2010.
Headnotes†
Contract Act, 1872 – s.11 – Registration Act, 1908 – s.85 –  
A Land measuring 3.40 Hectares was sold by respondent no.2 
to appellants and collaterals of the appellants – Half of the 
total land (suit land) was purchased by appellants and other 
half by the collaterals of appellants – Respondent no.2 herein 
executed a Sale Deed (suit land) in favour of appellant no.1 
and his minor brother (since deceased) on 02.12.1985 with 
respect to suit land and another sale deed was also executed 
with the collateral of the appellants – The sale deed (suit 
land) in favour of the appellant no.1 and his minor brother 
could not be registered and remained pending for registration 
before the Sub-Registrar on account of deficiency in stamp 
duty – On 03.12.2010 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 – The 
appellants then followed up registration of their sale deed, 
* Author
2296
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
which was registered on 14.06.2011 – Appellant filed suit 
for cancellation of sale deed 03.12.2010 and the same was 
dismissed by the Trial Court – First Appellate Court allowed 
the appeal filed by the appellants – However, the High Court 
set aside the decision of the First Appellate Court and upheld 
the decision of the Trial Court – Correctness:
Held: 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, defendant no.1 has not specifically denied anywhere 
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 Trial Court and the High 
Court fell into the trap of clever drafting and a vague statement of 
defendant no.1 – 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 – 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 – It is not disputed by 
respondent No.2 that on 02.12.1985, he had executed another sale 
deed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.