Ram Singh (Deceased) and 2 Others vs Mahaveer Singh and Another

Court No. - 37

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1013 of 2024

Appellant :- Ram Singh (Deceased) And 2 Others Respondent :- Mahaveer Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Keshav Hari Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Naresh Kumar Pal

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 25.5.2000 filed on behalf of the plaintiffs has concurrently been discarded by both the courts below.

¶6

Plaintiff came with the case that he has never executed the sale deed in question in favour of the defendants, however, same has illegally been got executed by an imposter and no sale consideration has been given to the plaintiffs as recited in the sale deed. It is next mentioned in the plaint that total value of the subject matter of the sale deed is about Rs. 1,25,000/-, therefore, there was no occasion to execute the sale deed only for Rs. 60,000/- Learned trial court has dismissed the suit on the ground that previously plaintiffs have executed an agreement to sell dated 28.6.1999 for the sale consideration amount to Rs. 10,000/- only in favour of third person namely Smt. Pragshri wife of Raj Bahadur, out of which Rs. 9,500/- has been given as an earnest money, therefore, at subsequent stage, considering the value of the suit property on the higher side, as stated by the plaintiffs, is highly improbable. It is next observed by the learned trial court that no application has been moved to get the signature of the plaintiffs examined by the hand writing and finger print experts. While deciding Issue No. 1 and 7, learned trial court has observed that there is no evidence to prove that plaintiff is in possession, however, defendant appears to be in possession of the property in question. The trial court has treated the sale deed as genuine on the ground of it being registered under the Registration Act. First appellate court has affirmed the order passed by the trial court almost on similar grounds.

¶7

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that agreement to sell dated 28.6.1999 was on the record which can easily be taken as a document to compare the signature, however, the appellate court has given perverse finding that no document has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in this regard. It is next submitted that nature and location of the plot is explicitly defined

¶8

in the Amin report (paper No. 39C), however, same has illegally been ignored by the court below. Statement of heirs and legal representatives of the sole plaintiff has illegally been ignored for want of proper knowledge.

¶9

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶10

(i) Whether plea of fraud in execution of the sale deed dated 25.5.2000 through imposter could be ignored for want of report of the hand writing and fingerprint expert, whereas court himself could compare the signature of plaintiff with his signature on the agreement to sell dated 28.06.1999 or could call for a report from the handwriting and fingerprint expert?

¶11

(ii) Whether mere registration of a sale transaction is sufficient to prove its execution, despite the plea of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents of the document?

¶12

(iii) Whether recital qua sale consideration in the sale deed dated 25.05.2000 is sufficient to prove its payment and defendants have no owns to prove the payment of said amount, whereas surrounding circumstances creates reasonable doubt quo fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents of the document?

¶13

Let the record of the courts below be summoned.

¶14

Issue notice to the respondents through RPAD as well as normal mode of service fixing 25.7.2025 as the date.

¶15

Stay Application

¶16

List on 25.7.2025. Issue notice to respondents as observed above.

¶17

In the meantime, both the parties are directed to exchange their respective affidavits, if any.

¶18

Until further orders of this Court, transfer, if any, with respect to the property in question shall be subject to the provisions as enunciated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

¶20

vinay

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Singh (Deceased) and 2 Others v. Mahaveer Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh (Deceased) and 2 Others v. Mahaveer Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Sarita Devi vs State of U.P.

Rajat Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Indu Chandel vs Shri Deepak Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Basic Education Department and a

Smt Dhan Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramautar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Foran Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another