Dispute Between Defendants Regarding Validity Of Sale Deed Can’t Be Considered In Suit For Possession Instituted By Plaintiff: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprises Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar has ruled that an inter-se dispute on the validity of the sale deed executed between the defendants in respect of the suit land, cannot be considered in the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in its favour, as it would amount to adjudication of a right or a claim by way of counter-claim by one defendant against his co-defendant, which cannot be permitted by virtue of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).The top court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court who had ruled on the validity of the sale deed executed between the co-defendants with respect to the suit property, by holding the same as void in view of Section 9 (1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Consequently, the sale deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff was also held as void by the High Court.The bench observed that, while entertaining the contentions raised in respect of the Fragmentation Act, the Trial Court and the High Court did not take into consideration the statutory bar of jurisdiction contained under Section 36A of the Fragmentation Act, which barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the Act. Further, it reckoned that since the written statement of the defendant only contained a vague averment referring to the Fragmentation Act, the same could not be construed as a counter-claim capable of being treated as a plaint. Consequently, it did not enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, on the said issue.Noting that the sale deeds in question were registered and admitted by the defendant, the bench remarked that the High Court did not consider the legal impact and effect of the registered sale deeds, which was taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree of the latter.The plaintiff, Damodhar Narayan Sawale, filed a suit seeking possession of the suit land sold to him by the defendants 1 and 2, Ramakrishna Ganpat Mhaske and Tejra Bajirao Mhaske, respectively, under a registered sale deed executed in 1979.The 1st defendant, Ramakrishna, who had in turn obtained title over certain acres of the suit land from the 2nd defendant, Tejra, under a registered sale deed executed in 1978, with the latter remaining the owner in possession of the balance acres, filed a written statement endorsing the claim and contentions of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant, Tejra, however, averred in its written statement that the sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant were sham documents, and that it was executed solely as a collateral security to a money lending transaction. It further pleaded that the transaction was hit by Section 8 of the Fragmentation Act.The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the sale deed was a sham document and it was executed only as a security for a money lending transaction.The said order was set aside by the First Appellate Court, the court of the Additional District Judge, in appeal. The court held that the 2nd defendant, Tejra, had failed to prove that the sale transaction was an outcome of money lending transaction and that the sale deed was nominal in nature. The suit for possession on the strength of title was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.Against this, Tejra filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court, who allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The High Court restored the decree of dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court.In the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the decision of the High Court, the Apex Court reckoned that even though the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India must be exercised sparingly, yet there is absolutely nothing in the said Article which prohibits the Supreme Court from reversing even concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, if it is of the opinion, on the basis of the evidence on record, that affirming the findings of the courts below would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.Referring to the facts of the case, the court observed that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was registered and its execution was admitted by both the defendants- even though it was the case of the 2nd defendant that the same was executed as a collateral security at the time of a money lending transaction. Further, the 2nd defendant had also admitted execution of a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of a portion of the suit land, which was executed prior to the sale effected to the plaintiff.The top court reckoned that the Trial Court had held the sale deed executed in favour of the 1st defendant to be virtually invalid by accepting the contention that the transaction violated Section 8 of the Fragmentation Act. Thus, the sale deed executed in ...

Dispute Between Defendants Regarding Validity Of Sale Deed Can’t Be Considered In Suit For Possession Instituted By Plaintiff: Supreme Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

Dispute Between Defendants Regarding Validity Of Sale Deed Can’t Be Considered In Suit For Possession Instituted By Plaintiff: Supreme Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers