Dismissed

Chowkilal Sahu v. Vijay Lal and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2014SA/1127/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a second appeal, affirmed the lower courts' finding that a registered sale deed was a nominal transaction executed as security for a loan, supported by subsequent unregistered paper evidence of loan repayment terms. The appeal dismissing the claim for retransfer of land was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; findings of lower courts affirming that registered sale deed was nominal security for loan upheld.

Chowkilal Sahu Vs Vijay Lal and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

s!l:i

¶2

IN 2HB HI6H GOCTB2 O? JUBISAIUaB Al JABALPUa
^ Saeoad Appsal Ho. \5.'7 of 1998
APPLIQANS : Qhowkilal Safaa s/c» Pyaralal Saba agad
Dafaadaat atioat 35 years B/0 Tillage Kasdol,
Distt. Baipar
7SBSCT3
^3SPOHBSM3' 1. 1 Tijay I.als/o Barga agad aboat 55 yaars
tlaiQtiff B/0 village Kasdol, Distt. Batpar
2. State of M.P' througii Gollaetor, Baipur
SBqOND APBSAI, 0/3,100 _3QDB_OF_G_I.nL ,?im3SIXJ3S
—i.-Atn^n^nM- -i_q -i_Q_i_a

¶3

:.l.t

¶4

^^z'%<2< °^^x~%^cL%.
"S-. •^
"^ ^ 1'^,^' '%«- ';<s•^ Ifr
lt(l
1-<1 <Tj
^ <B lt-1
y
(0
s
•y
(6
30 -s 3-5
(A
<—• U)•~^
o
n u> <.^^
-+
ii ls.^
-a i <.»..;
r°
^<br>*.
•n Q- w
•^ra o_
-B
c

1 ai

UJIi

^ f^.<br>r' '^
..V
^
RIV
l,p! ^
^w .f
r t^

l(c

!11ji{

Sahu, aqed about 45 Years\ Sahu, cged about 41 Years, Kamal Narayan S/o. Late Shri Chowkila!

¶13

i f-e\

¶14

Sahu, aged about 35 Years,

¶15

../^-

¶16

( t .^^'.

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

¶18

SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

¶19

Second Appeal No. 1127 OF 1998 APPELLANTS Chowkilal Sahu (Dead) through his Legal Representatives yersus KESPONDENTS Vijay Lal (Dead) through his Legal Representatives and another

¶20

(SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION PROCEDUKE,	100 OF THE 1908)	CODE OF	CIVIL
Present:
Mr. Sunil Sahu,	Advocate	for	the
appellants/defendants.

¶21

Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No. l(a), l(b) & 1(c)/plaintiff.

¶22

J U_D G M E N T (Passed on 02/04/2014)

¶23

The substantial question of law formulated and to

¶24

be answered in defendant's second appeal is as under:-

¶25

"Whether both the Courts below were justified in granting decree in favour of plaintiff on the basis of unregistered document Exhibit/P-3 allegedly executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff stating return of the suit property, which has been purchased by the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 07/03/1969 (Exhibit/D-1).?"

¶26

For sake of convenience, the parties would be 1

¶27

¶28

referred hereinafter as their status shown in the per suit before the trial Court] .

¶29

Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are that:-

¶30

2.1 Plaintiff-Vijay Lal owned suit land bearing Khasra No. 2828/01, area 2 acres, situated at Moja Kashdol, Tahsil Kashdol, District Raipur. He sold the said land by registered sale deed dated 07/03/1969 (Exhibit/D-1) to the defendant Chowkilal Sahu for consideration of Rs. 2,000/ -.

¶31

2 .2 The plaintiff filed a suit on 05/01/1988 seeking retransfer of the said land in his favour and also for recovery of possession stating inter alia that the said sale deed was nominal sale deed executed for security of loan, as the plaintiff has taken loan of Rs. 2,000/-. It is a further case of the plaintiff that defendant had executed an unregistered agreement (Exhibit/P-3) on 16/04/1969 evidencing that the said transaction is a loan transaction and when the plaintiff had approached the defendant to repay the loan, defendant refused to accept the loan amount, leading to issuance of legal notice and filed the suit claiming aforesaid relief.

¶32

¶33

2.3 The defendant filed his written statement denying the aforesaid averments and took a specific defence that the transaction dated 07/03/1969 (Exhibit/D-1) is an out right and operative sale and he is in possession of the suit land pursuant to sell, therefore, suit be dismissed.

¶34

2.4 Upon pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as 6 issues and put the parties to trial on the aforesaid issues. The issues and finding thereon are as under:

¶35

	?re ff?g	Pl'^'i
1.	'cPIT c[T^t -^ C
2.	qqr yf?icii<{1 'swr fct^i q^f %nT ^ x^uf ^ Pi^iRd ^^n^ 'STT^ ^ WTET '^' cRW VI f^O 16-4-69 cpt' pl^lRcl f^TT STT?	"gf"
3.	cpff cn4t ^{-^}yRiciic?) qfr ^•S!\v\T^ ^Cf ^cpTT ^ sreppft ^K cii<<K'w •^pr^s3f TT ^ftq felT Sff?	"Bf"
4.	cfqr c[T^t ^T cfK '9tl<4	c
5.	cFIlT qi^t c	*l'41 ^?T '^IIT q^igd?T?t? cpt 3RT
6.	^cf ^pT?	"qT^t ^ cTR' ivs 1^ir ^rari qr^t yRiciitTl ^ ijft cCT 3ITfStqT;T
		gra- q?^ ^ CTRl'-StflKK"! t<WI

¶36

¶37

2.5 The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 29/08/1991, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the document Exhibit/D-1 was a nominal sale deed executed for security of loan and the execution of the Exhibit/P-3 by the defendant is duly established. 2.6 Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code 'the of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth CPC'). The First Appellate Court by its impugned and decree dated 12/10/1998, affirmed judgment the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶38

Questioning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 12/10/1998 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/1997, the instant Second Appeal No. 1127/1998 has been filed by the defendants, in which, substantial question of law has been formulated, as it has been mentioned in opening Paragraph of this judgment.

¶39

Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that the both the Courts below have committed palpable error of

¶40

r^)

¶41

jurisdiction in granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff by recording a finding, which is contrary to the evidence available on the record and as such, judgment and decree of both the Courts below deserves to be set aside.

¶42

Combating the submissions made on behalf of the appellants/defendants, Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the unregistered agreement (Exhibit/P-3) purporting to be a nominal and was not intended to be used as sale deed.

¶43

I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶44

Answer to substantial question of law:-

¶45

It is true that mere registration of a document does not necessarily operate to transfer or affect the property dealt with by it without regard to the intention of the parties to the document. A party to the registered document can plead that the document in question was a mere paper transaction and it was never acted upon. The Court has power to see intention of the parties in each particular case but where document is duly executed and registered; normal presumption would be that the parties intended title to pass _ ; -

¶46

¶47

forthwith.

¶48

Ordinarily upon the due execution and registration of the sale deed the title in the sold from the vendor to the vendee. property passes Where a sale deed was properly executed and registered and the vender recited in the deed and admitted before the Sub-Registrar that he had received the entire consideration the terms of the deed coupled with the acknowledgment before the Sub-Registrar show that the vendor intended to divest and did indeed divest himself of the ownership which immediately vested in the vendee.

¶49

On the face of the contents of registered document (Exhibit/D-1) sale deed dated 07/03/1969, a very heavy burden lies on the plaintiff, who has alleged that the registered document was not intended to be acted upon. It was for the plaintiff. to prove by giving convincing evidence that the document Exhibit/D-1 was nominal and was not intended to be used as a sale deed.

¶50

It is the case of the plaintiff that immediately after execution of the sale deed dated 07/03/1969 (Exhibit-D/1), defendantChowkilal had executed unregistered document (Exhibit/P-3) on 16/04/1969 stating Inter alia that the sale deed has been executed by plaintiff-Vijay Lal in his favour and he

¶51

¶52

has given Rs. 2,700/to him, and on repayment of loan with interest, registered sale deed will be returned to him. The said document is duly signed by defendant and his father Pyarelal Sahu and witnessed by two witnesses namely Kiritram Jaiswal and Bagasram Sahu.

¶53

The defendant Chowkilal Sahu examined himself as DW-1. He has clearly deposed that he has given Rs. 2,700/to the plaintiff Vijay Lal, and when plaintiff demanded document in writing, he handed over a blank stamp paper duly signed by him.

¶54

Kiritram (PW-2), is a witness of registered sale deed (Exhibit/D-1) dated 07/03/1969 and also a witness of unregistered document (Exhibit/P-3) dated 16/04/1969. He has clearly deposed that the transaction was a loan transaction and the sale deed Exhibit/D-1 dated 07/03/1969 executed in lieu of loan of Rs. 2,000/- having been given by defendant from the plaintiff. He further deposed that Exhibit/P-3 (unregistered document) was executed by defendant Choukilal, which was duly signed by him and his father Pyarelal.

¶55

Apart from this, plaintiff-Vijay Lal has also deposed that he has taken loan of Rs. 2,000 from the defendant and executed a nominal sale deed in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant has executed unregistered document (Exhibit/P-3) „ / ^

¶56

¶57

evidencing the transaction of loan.

¶58

The trial Court after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record has clearly recorded a finding that the sale deed dated 07/03/1969 (Exhibit /D-l) and the stamp paper of Exhibit/P-3 was purchased on 07/03/1969. Thus, considering the fact that the execution of Exhibit/P-3 by defendant is duly established, in which, he categorically mentioned the execution of sale deed in his favour by the plaintiff, as he has advanced loan of Rs. 2,700/and that document was written in his own writing and signed by him and also by his father and further promised to return the same on repayment of loan. 15. The Trial Court has further considered the evidence of the parties and reached to the categorical conclusion that the document Exhibit/D-1 was a nominal sale deed executed for security of loan and the execution of the Exhibit/P-3 by the defendant is duly established. The First Appellate Court has also considered and came to the categorical conclusion that the registered sale deed Exhibit/D-1 is a nominal sale deed not intended to be acted upon by the parties and it was a nominal sale. I do not find any illegality/infirmity in the finding so arrived by two Courts below. Therefore, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court is absolutely and perfectly 1

¶59

justified in granting the . decree in favour of the plaintiff and I hereby affirm the findings so recorded by the two Courts below is based on material available on record. Thus, substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

¶60

In the result, I do not find any merit in the second appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. No

¶61

order as to costs.

¶62

A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶63

Sd/sanjayK.Agrawal Judge

¶64

Tiwarl

Chowkilal Sahu v. Vijay Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chowkilal Sahu v. Vijay Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Urmila Devi and Another Vs Smt.Savitri

Umed Ram Sahu Vs Gouri Shankardeadth.Lr'S Manoj and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava and Ors. Vs Smt. Kumbati and Ors.

Bhugde Kenwat Vs Nanki Kenwat and Others

Bhagwat and Anr. Vs Bhanwar and Ors.

Phekanbai Vs Rewatibai and Ors.