In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by Mahavir Prasad, the defendant in Original Suit No. 974 of 2014, and upheld the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, which had decreed a suit for specific performance based on a registered sale agreement. The judgment, delivered by Justice Kshitij Shailendra on August 31, 2024, reaffirms the presumption of validity attached to registered agreements unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from a suit filed by Balveer Singh and another (the plaintiffs-respondents) against Mahavir Prasad (the defendant-appellant), seeking specific performance of a registered agreement dated April 25, 2014, for the sale of 500 square yards of Bhumidhari land bearing Arazi No. 129-A, Khata No. 179. According to the plaintiffs, despite having paid the consideration and fulfilling all necessary conditions, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, leading them to file the suit.
The defendant, however, challenged the execution of the sale agreement, claiming it was obtained fraudulently. He argued that he was deceived into signing the agreement under the pretense of witnessing another document and that the land in question was co-owned and had not been partitioned, making the agreement unenforceable. He further denied receiving any advance payment from the plaintiffs.
Legal Issues and Court’s Analysis:
1. Validity of the Sale Agreement:
The primary legal issue revolved around the validity of the registered sale agreement. The defendant contended that the agreement was fraudulent and, therefore, unenforceable. However, the court observed that “once execution of a registered agreement is admitted, endorsements made by the Sub Registrar would be presumed to be correct under Sections 58, 59, and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908.” The court found no sufficient oral or documentary evidence to rebut the presumption of validity attached to the registered document.
2. Payment of Advance Money:
The defendant also disputed the payment of Rs. 5,00,000, allegedly made as an advance by the plaintiffs. The court noted that the Sub Registrar had made an endorsement on the agreement confirming the receipt of the amount. Furthermore, the court highlighted that “no specific suggestions were made on this count during the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses,” thereby undermining the defendant’s argument.
3. Non-partition Among Co-sharers:
Another contention raised by the defendant was the non-partition of the land among co-owners, which he argued rendered the sale agreement unenforceable. However, the court observed that there was no plea in the written statement that the agreement could not be executed due to non-partition. Instead, the defendant only stated that there was no necessity to execute the sale deed, which the court deemed insufficient to invalidate the agreement.
4. Admissibility of Evidence:
The defendant argued that the affidavit of one of the plaintiffs was not admissible unless the witness appeared in the witness box. The court clarified that, following the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure in 1999, examination-in-chief is done through affidavits, and cross-examination is conducted in person. The court further noted that the lack of specific cross-examination on this point rendered the defendant’s objection baseless.
Court’s Observations:
Before reaching its decision, the court made several important observations regarding the procedural and evidentiary aspects of the case:
– The court emphasized that “a bare plea that the document was fraudulently executed, without sufficient oral and documentary evidence, could not suffice for dismissal of the suit.” The court found that the defendant’s argument of fraud was unsupported by any substantial proof, especially considering the lack of evidence showing that the defendant was misled or unaware of the nature of the agreement.
– It was also noted that the defendant had admitted to executing the agreement. Therefore, the court held that “mere allegations of fraud without substantial evidence cannot dislodge a registered document.”
– Regarding the issue of non-partition among co-sharers, the court observed that “no plea was taken that for non-partition of property, the agreement would not be executable or the sale deed could not be executed.” The court clarified that such contentions could not be raised at the appellate stage when they were not part of the original pleadings.
– The court further reiterated that “whenever a witness appears for cross-examination, he answers only those questions which are asked from him. That is why, putting of suggestion is of quite significance.” The lack of cross-examination on critical points by the defendant’s counsel was a key factor in upholding the findings of the lower courts.
Court’s Decision:
After considering the submissions of both parties and the findings of the lower courts, Justice Kshitij Shailendra concluded that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the validity of the registered sale agreement. The court held that “mere allegations of fraud without substantial evidence cannot dislodge a registered document.” The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The court emphasized that “re-appreciation of evidence to arrive at a different conclusion is quite restricted in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” and found no apparent perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court.
Case Details:
– Case Number: Second Appeal No. 540 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Kshitij Shailendra
– Parties: Appellant – Mahavir Prasad; Respondents – Balveer Singh and Another
– Counsel for Appellant: Prem Prakash Chaudhary
– Counsel for Respondents: Abhishek Gupta, Chandra Bhan Gupta
