Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 23-11-2017 in case of petitioner name Smt. Bayanabai Kaware vs Rajendra S/o Baburao Dhote
| |

Property Dispute Resolved: Supreme Court Upholds Ownership Based on Registered Sale Deed

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the case of Smt. Bayanabai Kaware vs. Rajendra S/o Baburao Dhote, addressing a longstanding property dispute involving claims of ownership and adverse possession. The case centered around a plot of land in Nagpur and involved multiple levels of judicial scrutiny, culminating in a final decision by the Supreme Court. The judgment reaffirms the importance of legally executed sale deeds in property ownership disputes and clarifies key principles of adverse possession.

Background of the Case

The dispute revolves around Plot No. 12 of Field No. 13/3, P. H. 44, Mouza Parsodi, District Nagpur, measuring 1625 sq. ft. The plot was originally owned by a housing cooperative society, Subhash Nagar Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Nagpur. The respondent, Rajendra S/o Baburao Dhote, purchased the plot from the society through a registered sale deed dated 29.12.1981 and took possession.

In March 1985, the respondent noticed that the appellant, Smt. Bayanabai Kaware, had allegedly encroached upon the land and constructed a hut without any legal authority. Despite being served a legal notice to vacate, she refused to do so, prompting the respondent to file a suit for possession and mesne profits in Regular Civil Suit No. 1210/1985.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Smt. Bayanabai Kaware)

  • The appellant contended that the suit land had been allotted to one Dhondiba Lodhi by the society, who constructed a house on it.
  • After Dhondiba Lodhi’s death, his wife, Hirabai, became the owner of the property.
  • The appellant claimed that Hirabai entered into an agreement to sell the land to her on 22.05.1972, after which she was placed in possession.
  • She asserted that since she had been in continuous possession of the land since 1972, she had perfected her title through adverse possession.

Arguments of the Respondent (Rajendra S/o Baburao Dhote)

  • The respondent argued that he was the legal owner of the property, having purchased it through a registered sale deed in 1981.
  • He claimed that he had taken lawful possession of the land and that the appellant had illegally encroached upon it.
  • The respondent rejected the appellant’s claims of adverse possession, arguing that she had no legal title and was merely a trespasser.

Trial Court’s Decision

The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, dismissed the respondent’s suit on 31.01.1989, ruling:

  • The sale deed dated 29.12.1981 (Ex.P-31) was not properly proven due to discrepancies.
  • The appellant had been in continuous possession of the land since 1972, supporting her claim of adverse possession.
  • The dispute fell within the purview of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, making it non-maintainable in a civil court.

First Appellate Court’s Decision

The respondent challenged the trial court’s ruling before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 152/1989. The appellate court ruled:

  • The civil suit was not barred by Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
  • The appellant failed to prove adverse possession.
  • However, the sale deed was still considered unproven, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

High Court’s Ruling

The respondent then filed a Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Second Appeal No. 304/1997). The High Court framed a key legal question:

“Whether it is necessary for the plaintiff-appellant to examine his vendor and attesting witnesses to prove his title to the suit property in a suit for recovery of possession against an encroacher when there is a registered sale deed executed by his vendor in his favor?”

The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating:

  • The sale deed was duly proven and valid.
  • The respondent, as the legal owner, was entitled to possession of the land.
  • The appellant’s claim of adverse possession was unsubstantiated.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The appellant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

1. Validity of the Sale Deed

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, emphasizing that a sale deed does not require attesting witnesses for proof, unlike a gift deed.

“The execution of a sale deed does not require attesting witnesses like a gift deed under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.”

2. No Requirement for Attesting Witnesses

The Court ruled that Section 68 of the Evidence Act (which requires attesting witnesses to be examined) does not apply to sale deeds.

3. Ownership Based on Documentary Evidence

The Court found that the respondent’s ownership claim was substantiated through:

  • The registered sale deed.
  • The lack of any challenge to the vendor’s title by the appellant.
  • The appellant’s failure to provide any documentary evidence supporting her claim.

4. Rejection of Adverse Possession

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s claim of adverse possession, stating:

“The appellant had no title to the suit land, and her plea of adverse possession was not proved.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, granting the respondent possession of the land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the legal validity of registered sale deeds in property disputes and clarifies that an adverse possession claim must be conclusively proven. The judgment reinforces that an individual with a legally executed sale deed has a stronger claim to ownership than one asserting possession without documented rights.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Smt. Bayanabai Kawar vs Rajendra So Baburao Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts