Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-appellant (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) against the defendants-respondents. The suit land is Khasra No.20/2, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in village Gangalgaon, Taluk Chikhli, District Buldana. The plaintiff claimed that original defendant Nos.1 and 2 (Ramakrishna Ganpat Mhaske and Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske) sold the suit land to him by a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1979 (Exhibit 128) for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff was put in possession immediately after execution. However, on 25.04.1979, the second defendant started disturbing his possession, leading to the filing of the suit on 21.05.1979. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the sale deed was not valid and that they had earlier sold the land to others. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession. The first appellate court (Additional District Judge, Buldana) reversed the trial court's decree and decreed the suit for possession. The High Court in second appeal (Second Appeal No.435 of 1995) reversed the first appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's dismissal. The Supreme Court considered the validity of the registered sale deed and the effect of revenue entries. The Court held that a registered sale deed is a valid transfer of title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that mutation or revenue entries do not create or extinguish title. The plaintiff's title was established by the registered sale deed, and the burden shifted to the defendants to prove a better title, which they failed to do. The High Court's interference with the first appellate court's findings of fact was not justified as the findings were not perverse. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the first appellate court's decree for possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Title and Possession - Registered Sale Deed - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 - The plaintiff claimed possession based on a registered sale deed dated 21.04.1979. The Supreme Court held that a registered sale deed is a valid transfer of title and possession, and subsequent revenue entries or mutation do not affect the title unless set aside by a competent court. The plaintiff's title was established, and the defendant's possession was unauthorized. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 101, 102 - The burden of proof lies on the party who asserts a fact. The defendant claimed title through a prior sale deed but failed to prove it. The court held that the plaintiff's registered sale deed shifted the burden to the defendant to show better title. (Paras 11-15) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Interference with Findings of Fact - Section 100 CPC - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse. The first appellate court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse; the High Court erred in reversing them. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court's decree for possession based on a registered sale deed, and whether the plaintiff's title and possession were established.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated 30.10.2015 in Second Appeal No.435 of 1995 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court (Additional District Judge, Buldana) in Regular Civil Appeal No.98 of 1987 is restored. The suit for possession is decreed.
Law Points
- Registered sale deed confers absolute title
- Mutation does not create title
- Possession follows title
- Burden of proof on defendant to show title in another
- Section 54 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 135 Evidence Act
