The case concerns issues of land ownership, fraud, and legal manipulation, with the appellants suffering due to the malicious intent of the respondents. The appellants appeal against the High Court's judgment which dismissed their suit, initially ruled in their favor by the District Judge but overturned by the High Court. Key facts include a sale deed executed in 1985 but registered only in 2011, with a subsequent fraudulent sale deed executed in 2010. The Trial Court dismissed the appellants' suit, the District Judge ruled in their favor, but the High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision. The appellants argue for the validity of the 1985 sale deed, while the respondents emphasize procedural lapses and claim bona fide purchaser status. The appeal centers on the validity of the 1985 sale deed, the impact of delayed registration, minor status, and procedural requirements for establishing title and seeking relief. The court finds in favor of the appellants, declaring the 1985 sale deed valid, dismissing the respondents' arguments, and awarding exemplary costs to the appellants.

Introduction and Overview

• Law's essence is to ensure justice, especially for the weak against the powerful.
• The case involves land ownership, fraud, and legal manipulation.
• Appellants suffered due to respondents' malicious intent.

Appeal Background

• The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment dated June 9, 2022.
• The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision dismissing the appellant's suit.
• The District Judge initially ruled in favor of the appellants.

Land Ownership Facts

• Respondent No.2 originally owned the disputed land.
• Half sold to appellants, the other half to relatives on December 2, 1985.
• Relatives' sale deed was registered; appellants' deed delayed and registered in 2011.

Key Events and Transactions

• Sale deed in favor of appellants executed in 1985, registered in 2011.
• Respondent No.2 executed another sale deed in favor of respondent No.1 in 2010.
• Appellants discovered this fraud in 2011 and filed a suit for cancellation of the 2010 deed.

Litigation History

• Appellants filed suit in 2011; Trial Court dismissed it in 2016.
• District Judge reversed this in 2019; High Court reinstated Trial Court's decision in 2022.

Issues Framed by the Trial Court

• Trial Court focused on appellants' possession, ownership, and 2010 conveyance deed.
• Ruled against appellants due to their minority status at the time of 1985 sale deed.

District Judge's Findings

• Found in favor of appellants; title relates back to execution date.
• Sale deed valid despite delay in registration.

High Court's Ruling

• Questioned validity of 1985 sale deed's execution and registration.
• Ruled it invalid and favored respondent.

Appellants' Arguments

• Respondent No.2 did not deny executing the sale deed, failed to cross-examine appellant.
• Registration delay does not invalidate the deed.
• Subsequent purchaser (respondent No.1) not bona fide.

Respondents' Arguments

• Emphasized 26-year delay in registration.
• Contended suit not maintainable without a declaration of title.
• Highlighted procedural lapses and lack of evidence for payment of consideration.

Legal Precedents and Statutes

• Appellants cited precedents supporting sale deed validity and natural guardian's authority.
• Respondents cited cases on title declaration and procedural deficiencies.

Conclusion

• Case revolves around 1985 sale deed's validity, registered in 2011.
• Legal issues include delayed registration, minor status, and procedural requirements.
• Court finds in favor of appellants, declaring 1985 sale deed valid.
• Respondents' arguments dismissed; exemplary costs awarded to appellants.

Additional Issues Considered

• Analysis of certified copy of the sale deed dated 2.12.1985.
• Respondent No.2's vague denial and lack of evidence.
• Court's detailed findings on various legal and factual issues.

Costs and Final Order

• Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment set aside.
• First Appellate Court's decree restored.
• Suit decreed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,00,000 to be paid to appellants within eight weeks.
• Costs to be equally borne by both respondents.