Can't Presume Incapability Of Leprosy Patient To Execute Sale Deed Unless Absence Of Fingers & Palm Proved: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that incapacity of a leprosy patient to execute sale deed cannot ipso facto be presumed unless it is further proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he had no fingers and palm, rendering him physically incapable. While rejecting the challenge to two sale deeds executed in the year 1947 and 1964, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed – “…it cannot, ipso facto, be held that he was incapable of executing a sale deed in the absence of any further evidence to show that he had no fingers and palm.” Case Background The suit land was recorded in the names of Sk. Majudi and Sk. Zafar. Majudi died leaving behind his daughter Toffa, who died leaving behind proforma-defendants (in the original suit). Zafar died leaving behind his daughter Zoffa, who died leaving her daughter Belan Bibi, the appellant herein. The contesting defendants are children of one Sk. Maniruddin, who tried to enter upon the suit land with the intention of taking possession forcibly. They claimed that Sk. Zafar and Sk. Majudi, who owned the property having half-share each, executed sale deeds in 1947 and 1964 respectively in favour of Sk. Maniruddin. Being aggrieved by forceful dispossession from the suit property, the appellant filed the original suit. She specifically pleaded that the recorded tenant Sk. Majudi was a leprosy patient having contracted the disease from 1958 till his death and that he had no fingers, palm and feet. As such, Sk. Majudi and Sk. Jafar never transferred the suit land in favour of Sk. Maniruddin. The trial Court after analysing the evidence on record found the plea that Sk. Majudi was suffering from leprosy from the year 1958 till his death was not proved. It also held that the allegation regarding fraudulent transfer of property was also not proved satisfactorily. That apart, it also took note of the inordinate delay in challenging the sale deeds. On such findings, the suit was dismissed. The judgement of dismissal passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Jajpur in 2022. Getting no relief, the appellant filed the second appeal before the High Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to another exhibited sale deed which was even relied upon by the trial Court. In that sale deed, there was a clear mention of Sk. Majudi being a leprosy patient. High Court's Observations The Court found that except for pleading, no evidence was adduced by the plaintiff-appellant to show that the executant Sk. Majudi was a leprosy patient and that he had no fingers and palm at the relevant time. So far as reliance on an exhibited sale deed showing Sk. Majudi to be a leprosy patient was concerned, Justice Mishra said that even if it is accepted that he was a leprosy patient, that in itself cannot lead the Court to presume his incapacity to execute the sale deed so long as no further evidence is adduced showing absence of fingers and palm. The Bench also discarded the arguments claiming the sale deeds to be fraudulent since it was not demonstrated or even pleaded as to how the said sale deed can be treated as a fraudulent document. “It is well settled that fraud has to be specifically pleaded and proved to the subjective satisfaction of the Court for being accepted. After going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds no reason to accept the contention regarding fraud,” it added. Referring to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi & Ors. (2016), the Court held that concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with in second appeal unless it is shown that the same are either perverse or against the weight of evidence on record or are otherwise such that no prudent person would arrive at such decision. Consequently, it found no merit or substantial question of law involved in the second appeal and accordingly, dismissed the same. Case Title: Belan Bibi v. Sk. Allauddin & Ors. Case No: RSA No. 215 of 2022 Date of Judgment: February 06, 2025 Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Ajit Chandra Mohapatra, A.K. Panda & B.K. Panda, Advocates Counsel for the Respondents: None Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 23 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Can't Presume Incapability Of Leprosy Patient To Execute Sale Deed Unless Absence Of Fingers & Palm Proved: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags