The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the original purchasers in a long-running land dispute case, emphasizing that the law protects the rights of the weak against those who wield greater power. In a judgment delivered on July 19, 2024, the apex court allowed the appeal filed by Kaushik Premkumar Mishra and others, setting aside an order of the Bombay High Court and restoring the decree passed by the first appellate court.
Case Background:
The case, Civil Appeal No. 1573 of 2023 titled Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. vs Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr., involved a dispute over a piece of land in Palghar district of Maharashtra. The appellants had purchased the land from respondent no. 2 through a sale deed executed on December 2, 1985. However, the sale deed could not be immediately registered due to a deficiency in stamp duty.
Twenty-five years later, in 2010, respondent no. 2 executed another sale deed for the same land in favour of respondent no. 1. When the appellants discovered this in 2011, they filed a suit seeking cancellation of the 2010 sale deed and for permanent injunction.
Legal Journey:
The trial court initially dismissed the suit in 2016. However, on appeal, the District Judge allowed the appellants’ case in 2019. This was again overturned by the Bombay High Court in 2022, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decisions:
1. Validity of the 1985 Sale Deed:
The court held that the sale deed of 1985 was valid and binding. It criticized the lower courts for misreading the evidence and wrongly concluding that the original vendor (respondent no. 2) had denied executing the sale deed or receiving consideration.
2. Effect of Delayed Registration:
The court ruled that the delay in registration of the 1985 sale deed did not invalidate it. Once registered, the deed’s effect would relate back to the date of execution.
3. Minority of Purchasers:
While one of the original purchasers was a minor at the time of the 1985 sale, the court held this did not invalidate the sale as the minor was represented by his natural guardian.
4. Bona Fide Purchaser Claim:
The court rejected respondent no. 1’s claim of being a bona fide purchaser, stating that the original vendor had no rights left to transfer in 2010.
Important Observations:
Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench which included Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, made several noteworthy observations:
“Law is the king of kings, nothing is mightier than law, by whose aid, even the weak may prevail over the strong.”
“While adjudicating such cases, it is not just the lives and the properties of the people that we are dealing with, but also their trust in the legal system.”
“Justice knows no bias and thus, through its aid, even the weak may prevail over the strong.”
The court severely criticized the conduct of respondent no. 2 (the original vendor), calling him “a dishonest person” for attempting to sell the same land twice.
Lawyers:
Shri Vinay Navare for appellants, Shri Ranjit Kumar for respondent no. 2, Shri Huzefa Ahmadi for respondent no. 1
