KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR. versus KANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.

KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR. versus KANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.

The 1985 sale deed was validly executed and presented for registration, respondent No.2 failed to specifically deny execution or to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness upon registration in 2011; having divested his rights in 1985 the vendor could not validly transfer the same land again in 2010, therefore the subsequent 2010 conveyance is void and must be cancelled; delay or initial non-registration due to stamp deficiency did not defeat the appellants' rights.

Parties
Appellants: Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr.; Respondents: Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (second Appeal No. 649 of 2019) Arising From Civil Appeal No.1573 of 2023
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; First Appellate Court decree restored
Legal Topics
Section 11 Contract Act (minority and Capacity), Section 85 Registration Act (unclaimed Documents), Execution and Registration of Sale Deed, Payment and Deficiency of Stamp Duty, Delay in Registration of Documents, Doctrine of Bona Fide Purchaser, Mutation and Revenue Records, Cancellation of Subsequent Conveyance
Contract Act, 1872 Registration Act, 1908 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Property Law Section 11 Contract Act (minority and Capacity) Section 85 Registration Act (unclaimed Documents) +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr.

Appellants

Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (second Appeal No. 649 of 2019) Arising From Civil Appeal No.1573 of 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by Respondent No.2?
  2. 2 Whether the sale consideration was paid with respect to sale deed dated 02.12.1985?
  3. 3 Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was presented for registration on 05.12.1985 or not?

Ratio Decidendi

The 1985 sale deed was validly executed and presented for registration, respondent No.2 failed to specifically deny execution or to lead evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness upon registration in 2011; having divested his rights in 1985 the vendor could not validly transfer the same land again in 2010, therefore the subsequent 2010 conveyance is void and must be cancelled; delay or initial non-registration due to stamp deficiency did not defeat the appellants' rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; First Appellate Court decree restored

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.06.2022 set aside
  • Judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court decreeing the appellants' suit restored and maintained