Consolidation Authorities Cannot Brush Aside A Voidable Sale Deed Unless It Is Cancelled By Competent Civil Court, Holds Supreme Court
New Delhi, June 23: The Supreme Court has held that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of genuineness and validity, and cannot be disregarded merely on the basis of minor discrepancies relating to the description of an attesting witness.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by the legal representatives of Sarafat Ali and others, setting aside the orders of the consolidation authorities and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had refused to record the appellants’ names in the revenue records on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957.
The Court directed that the names of the appellants be recorded in the revenue records.
Background
The dispute concerned land measuring 15 bigha, 11 biswa and 0 biswansi situated in village Narsipur Kalan, Jwalapur Pargana, Roorkee Tehsil, Haridwar.
According to the appellants, their predecessors had purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957. The purchasers were minors at the time of purchase, and the appellants claimed that possession of the land was transferred to them pursuant to the sale deed.
In 1983, the appellants moved an application for mutation under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Naib Tehsildar allowed the mutation application on 03.04.1984.
However, when consolidation proceedings commenced in 1991, the appellants’ names were not recorded in the revenue records. They therefore filed objections under Section 9A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, seeking deletion of the names of the original khatedars and recording of their own names on the basis of the 1957 sale deed.
Consolidation Authorities Rejected Claim
Initially, the Consolidation Officer allowed the appellants’ claim ex parte. However, the order was later recalled and the matter was heard afresh.
During the proceedings, evidence was led by both sides, including the statement of appellant Sarafat Ali and an attesting witness named Baru.
The Consolidation Officer ultimately rejected the appellants’ claim on 30.12.1999, holding that the execution of the sale deed was not duly proved. Particular reliance was placed on alleged inconsistencies concerning the identity and description of the attesting witness.
The Settlement Officer dismissed the appellants’ appeal, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation also dismissed their revision. The revisional authority additionally held that the sale deed was hit by Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and was therefore void.
The High Court upheld these findings and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants.
Issues Before Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered whether the sale deed dated 04.06.1957 could be treated as void on the ground of alleged violation of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The Court also considered whether consolidation authorities could disregard a registered sale deed on the basis of alleged discrepancies in the attesting witness.
Sale Deed Was Not Void Under Old Law
The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
The Court noted that Section 154 placed restrictions on transfer by a bhumidhar where the transferee’s total landholding exceeded the prescribed ceiling limit.
However, the Court emphasized that the legal consequences of such a transfer had to be examined with reference to the law as it existed on the date of execution of the sale deed.
The sale deed in question was executed on 04.06.1957. At that time, transfers in contravention of Section 154 were governed by Section 163 of the Act.
The Court held that under the unamended law, such transfers were not void ab initio. Instead, the transferee was only liable to ejectment at the instance of the Gaon Sabha by way of a suit.
In other words, the transfer was not automatically void. It was, at the highest, voidable or vulnerable to action under the statutory mechanism then prevailing.
Later Amendment Cannot Retrospectively Destroy Rights
The respondents argued that the amended provisions of Sections 166 and 167, under which transfers in contravention of the Act were treated as void and land vested in the State, should apply.
Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court held that the amendments introduced in 1982 could not retrospectively apply to a sale deed executed in 1957.
The Court observed that the amendment was substantive in nature because it changed the legal consequences of such transfers. Prior to the amendment, a transfer in breach of Section 154 merely exposed the transferee to ejectment proceedings by the Gaon Sabha. After the amendment, such transfers were treated as void with consequences of vesting in the State.
Such a substantive change, the Court held, could operate only prospectively unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication provided otherwise.
Since there was no indication that the amended provisions were intended to operate retrospectively, the 1957 sale deed could not be rendered void by applying the later law.
Consolidation Authorities Cannot Ignore Voidable Documents
The Supreme Court then examined the powers of consolidation authorities.
The Court explained that consolidation authorities can disregard a document if it is void. However, where a document is merely voidable, it continues to operate unless cancelled by a competent civil court.
The Court relied on the distinction between void and voidable documents and reiterated that a voidable sale deed cannot be brushed aside by consolidation authorities merely because objections are raised against it.
Since the 1957 sale deed was not void ab initio, the consolidation authorities could not ignore it unless it had been cancelled by a competent court.
Registered Document Carries Strong Presumption
The Supreme Court further held that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity, genuineness and due execution.
The Court observed that registration is not a mere formality. It gives sanctity to the document and creates a strong presumption in its favour.
Therefore, a registered conveyance cannot be lightly discarded on conjectures, suspicion or insignificant discrepancies.
The burden lies heavily on the person challenging such a document to produce cogent evidence proving fraud, fabrication, lack of execution or other circumstances striking at the root of the transaction.
Minor Discrepancy In Attesting Witness Not Enough
In the present case, the consolidation authorities had doubted the sale deed because of a discrepancy in the description of attesting witness Baru.
In his statement recorded in 1995, the witness described himself as “Baru son of Nathu, resident of Nasirpur Kalan.” In the certified copy of the registered sale deed, the attesting witness was described as “Baru resident of Nihandpur Suthari.”
The Supreme Court held that this discrepancy was wholly inconsequential.
The Court noted that the sale deed was executed in 1957, whereas the witness was examined nearly 38 years later in 1995. Minor variations in residence or village description after such a long passage of time could not dislodge the presumption attached to a registered conveyance.
The Court also noted that the witness was not confronted with any suggestion that he was fictitious, fraudulent or not the same person. Despite lengthy cross-examination, he consistently maintained that he had witnessed the execution of the sale deed and that possession had been delivered.
Attestation Not Mandatory For Sale Deed
The Supreme Court also clarified that attestation is not a statutory requirement for validity of a sale deed.
Unlike a will or gift deed, a sale deed does not derive its validity from attestation.
Therefore, minor discrepancies relating to an attesting witness cannot by themselves render execution of a registered sale deed doubtful, especially when the document otherwise carries statutory presumption.
No Plea Of Forgery Or Fraud
The Court found that the respondents had not pleaded that the sale deed was forged, executed under coercion, obtained by impersonation or vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation.
At best, the objections related to peripheral discrepancies in proof. Such objections could not justify disregarding a registered conveyance.
The Court also noted that the appellants had consistently asserted possession pursuant to the sale deed, and this assertion had not been effectively controverted.
Supreme Court Allows Appeal
Holding that the High Court and consolidation authorities committed manifest error, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and orders.
The Court held that the sale deed dated 04.06.1957 could not have been treated as void and could not have been discarded on the basis of immaterial discrepancies relating to the attesting witness.
The Court directed that the names of the appellants be recorded in the revenue records.
Key Takeaway
The judgment is significant for land and revenue disputes because it reinforces three important principles.
First, legality of a transfer must be judged according to the law existing on the date of execution of the instrument.
Second, a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of genuineness and cannot be ignored on minor discrepancies unless cogent evidence of fraud, forgery or invalidity is produced.
Third, consolidation authorities may disregard void documents, but they cannot cancel or ignore voidable documents unless such documents have been set aside by a competent civil court.