In a special appeal by a defendant questioning the decree of a suit for declaration of title and injunction, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal, holding that the burden to prove the sale was a nominal mortgage failed.
The appeal has been dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No.479 of 2012
---- Appellant/Defendant No.1 Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent No.2: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on Board
01/05/2023
Heard on admission.
Page 2 of 4
Nawapara, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (now Mungeli) from defendant No.1Nandram for a consideration of Rs.1,51,400/- and obtained the possession thereof. It is pleaded further that vide order dated 18.08.2004, his name was directed to be mutated by the Tahsildar Lormi, but, in appeal preferred by the said defendant, it was reversed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi in Revenue Appeal No.22/A-6/2005-06, therefore, he has been constrained to institute a suit in the instant nature.
Page 3 of 4
executed only for the security of the said loan amount of Rs.65,000/- and has been paid to him (plaintiff) in 2-3 installments. In order to establish the said fact, the burden is upon the said defendant, but, he failed to prove the same, even he failed to produce the receipts in order to establish the fact that he has refunded the said loan amount to him. That apart, a bare perusal of the recitals made in the alleged registered deed of sale (Ex.P-1), it cannot be held to be a mortgage one in absence of such a recitals made therein. Besides, a bare perusal of the statement of Hira Das (PW-2), who was the attesting witness to the alleged sale, it appears that it was executed by the said defendant after receiving the entire sale consideration from him while putting him in possession thereof and, according to the testimony of the document writer, namely Virendra Soni (PW-4), it appears that he would not have executed such a deed, if defendant No.1 would have told him for executing a mortgage deed. It, thus, appears that the alleged sale (Ex.P-1) was not a mortgage deed or was executed for security of the said loan amount, as alleged by the said defendant.
Page 4 of 4
appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge
Tumane
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the registered sale deed of 10.08.2001 was executed as a mortgage for security of a loan of Rs.65,000/- instead of a genuine sale.
Nandram
Dhanau Ram
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
