LexSMT. ISHWARI DEVI versus SMT. SARLA DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. ISHWARI DEVI v. SMT. SARLA DEVI AND ORS. DECEMBER 14, 1994 [R.M. SARAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sale Deed-Interpretation of-Words used by Vendor cannot be ignored on presumption-Where in a deed property has been specifically identified by the vendor ambiguity or inconsistency arising out of it has to be disregarded C executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant. The recitals stated that (i) the vendor was transferring 4 biswas of land, in Khasra A B c 1 No. 613, over which a two storey building called 'Anand Bhi:tvan' was built in four set of flats, in favour of vendee completely and permanently; and (ii) the possession of the property- one set of which was with the husband of the appellant- vendee, AC, and the rest of D three sets with other tenants viz., SR, SL and BR- has been handed over to the appellant-vendee. In 1979 the appellant filed a suit for eviction of SR who contested the appellant's ownership. Therefore, in order to prove her title the appellant relied on the sale deed as well as on a revenue extract viz. Jamabandi entry of 1970-71. On this revenue-. E entry SR claimed that the area of Anand Bhavan was 7 biswas out of which 4 biswas was transferred in favour of the appellant-vendee. The. Rent Control Officer held that the claim was based on misapprehension as the details of 4 biswas mentioned in the Khasra was added up to submit that total area was 7 biswas and allowed the evictio~ application only to the extent that SR was in arrears from December 1976 to F August 1979. Since SR was probably aware that total area over which the build- ing was standing was 7 biswas he got 3 biswas entered in the Jamabandi record in 1980-81 in the name of the vendor, C, over Khasra No. 491. He also got an ex parte report from the Kanungo that G Anand Bhavan was situated in two plots. On the basis of 1980-81 Jamabandi entry SR obtained a power of attorney from the sons of the vendor and as power of attorney he sold 3 biswas of land to his daughter-in-law, respondent No. 1. In 1987 the appellant filed another eviction petition against SR which was contested and the ownership of the flat was claimed with respondent. The Rent Control Officer allowed H 583 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R A the application and commented adversely against SR. Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit for declaration that the orders passed by Rent Control Officer were null and void and sought an injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that (i) the sale deed in favour of respondent was invalid and (ii) the recitals in sale deed executed by C B were conclusive. · On appeal the District Judge relying on the evidence of Kanungo, who had gone to demarcate the area on spot, tax receipts and report of Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that since C sold only 4 biswas of Khasra No. 613 and no corrigendum was issued the sale of C remaining 3 biswas, which had separate Khasra No. 491, by his sons in favour of respondent was valid. This order was upheld by the High Court. In appeal to this Court on the question whether what was transferred by C under the sale was the entire building owned by the D vendor or only 4 biswas: Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, this Court HELD: 1. In construing a sale deed the words used by the vendor E cannot be ignored on any supposition or presumption. Where the property has been specifically identified in a deed any ambiguity or inconsistency arising out of it has to be disregarded. (589 BJ 2. The circumstances and above all the sale deed executed by C are so transparent that it leaves no doubt that the order of the two Courts p below are manifestly erroneous. No amount of evidence, oral or documentary, could demolish the sanctity of the sale deed e~ecuted by C. The recital in the sale deed is clear and unequivocal. The vendor · intended without any reservations to transfer the two storeyed building in favour of the appellant. This could not be diluted merely because the area was mentioned as 4 biswas. The appellant became owner of the G entire building and the entire area stood vested in her. The erroneous recital in the sale deed that the building was situated in 4 biswas would not in any manner affect the title of the appellant. [588 E, 5
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.