TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff established that the registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant was only sham and nominal and that the subsequent sales were ineffectual; (ii) Whether the plaintiff proved perfection of title by adverse possession and was in possession of the suit property on the date of suit; (iii) Whether the suit, filed long after the challenged sale deed, was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff established that the registered sale deed in favour of the first defendant was only sham and nominal and that the subsequent sales were ineffectual.
Analysis: A registered sale deed carries a presumption of genuineness once execution is proved. A plea that such a transaction is benami or sham must be proved by the party asserting it, and the defence of benami is also barred by the statutory prohibition in the applicable law. The plaintiff did not enter the witness box, and the material on record did not establish any convincing motive, custody of title deeds, or other circumstances necessary to displace the presumption attached to the registered instrument. The first defendant's contrary stand and the surrounding evidence were treated as unreliable, but the plaintiff still carried the burden to prove the transaction was nominal.
Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove that the sale deed was sham, nominal, or benami, and the challenge to the later conveyances could not succeed.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved perfection of title by adverse possession and was in possession of the suit property on the date of suit.
Analysis: A plea of adverse possession requires clear pleadings and proof of when possession became hostile, the nature of such hostility, continuity, and the knowledge of the true owner. The pleadings did not satisfactorily set out these ingredients, and the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff was found inadequate, with several documents being subsequent to the suit or otherwise insufficient to prove continuous and hostile possession. The Court held that the burden was wrongly shifted and that the evidence did not establish exclusive possession in the plaintiff's favour.
Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession was not proved, and the finding of possession in favour of the plaintiff could not be sustained.
Issue (iii): Whether the suit, filed long after the challenged sale deed, was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The suit was instituted after about twenty years from the challenged sale deed, yet no timely prayer was made to cancel or set aside the instrument. A challenge to avoid such a document attracts the limitation applicable to suits for cancellation or setting aside of instruments.
Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The concurrent decrees were held unsustainable, and the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction failed on merits and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: A party who seeks to avoid a registered sale deed on the ground of benami or sham transaction bears the burden of strict proof, cannot rely on adverse possession without specific pleadings and evidence of hostile continuity, and must sue within the prescribed limitation period for setting aside the instrument.
TaxTMI 
