Citation: Yogendra Prasad Singh (D) through LRS. Vs. Ram Bachan Devi Ors
[Civil Appeal No. 10412 of 2013]
Citation Code: 1 (2011) 6 SCC 555
Date of Judgement: 31st July 2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: MR. Justice Abhay S. Oka and MR. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates Appeared: P.V. Yogeshwaran, Advocates, T.Mahipal, Advocate, Smarhar Singh, Advocate
Introduction:
In the case of Yogendra Prasad Singh (D) through LRS VS Ram Bachan Devi Ors., the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Yogendra Prasad Singh, filed an appeal challenging the reversal of the trial court’s decree. The case revolves around the sale of a property, the discharge of loan liabilities, and the subsequent cancellation and gift deeds executed by the first defendant, Ram Bachan Devi. The High Court dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court of India.
Factual Background
Yogendra Prasad Singh, the son-in-law of Ram Bachan Devi, entered into a registered Sale Deed on February 4, 1963, for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. The plaintiff claimed that he was placed in possession of the suit property and considered it an absolute sale. However, a part of the consideration was meant to be paid by him to the creditors of Ram Bachan Devi. The plaintiff contended that he had paid off the debts mentioned in the Sale Deed but the first defendant, being his father-in-law, had retained the Sale Deed in his custody.
Ram Bachan Devi later executed a registered Deed of Cancellation on June 15, 1967, and a Gift Deed on January 12, 1968, in favor of the second defendant, another daughter of Ram Bachan Devi. The plaintiff was illegally dispossessed from the suit property and filed a suit for declaration of title, claiming that the Gift Deed was forged and seeking possession of the property.
Submissions and Arguments
The counsel for the legal representatives of the plaintiff argued that the Sale Deed transferred the right, title, and interest of Ram Bachan Devi to the plaintiff. They contended that there was substantial evidence to show the discharge of the first defendant’s liabilities by the plaintiff. They also pointed out the recitals in the Sale Deed, which stated that the plaintiff had become the owner of the property and that the first defendant had no claim or title over it.
On the other hand, the counsel for the first and second defendants relied on a previous decision of the Supreme Court, Janak Dulari Devi v. Kapildeo Rai, which discussed the practice of “ta khubzul badlain” in Bihar. They argued that the Sale Deed fell under this practice, which meant that the title would pass to the purchaser only after the entire amount was paid. They contended that the first defendant was justified in executing the Deed of Cancellation as the title did not pass to the plaintiff.
Our View
The Supreme Court analyzed the Sale Deed and the arguments presented by both parties. They emphasized that a sale deed, as per the Transfer of Property Act, normally transfers the title in the property to the purchaser. They noted that the recitals in the Sale Deed, specifically mentioning the transfer of possession and title to the plaintiff, cannot be ignored.
The Court also addressed the practice of “ta khubzul badlain” discussed in the previous decision. They clarified that the use of this expression in the Sale Deed alone cannot determine the nature of the transaction. They further stated that the title and ownership had passed to the plaintiff on the date of the Sale Deed, regardless of the discharge of liabilities.
The Court highlighted that the first defendant’s unilateral cancellation of the Sale Deed was not binding on the plaintiff, who was not a consenting party. They concluded that the first and second defendants did not have any right, title, or interest in the property. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court.
Key Issues and Judgment
The key issues addressed in the case were the validity of the Sale Deed, the discharge of the first defendant’s liabilities, the execution of the Deed of Cancellation, and the validity of the Gift Deed. The Court held that the Sale Deed transferred the title and ownership of the property to the plaintiff, and the first defendant’s cancellation was not valid. The second defendant did not acquire any right or interest through the Gift Deed. The Court also emphasized that the first and second defendants did not file a counterclaim for the alleged unpaid consideration, which further supported the plaintiff’s claim.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court.
Conclusion
The case of Yogendra Prasad Singh (D) through LRS VS Ram Bachan Devi Ors. highlights the importance of analyzing the terms and recitals of a Sale Deed to determine the transfer of title and ownership. It clarifies the limitations of the practice of “ta khubzul badlain” in Bihar and emphasizes the need to consider all aspects of a transaction to ascertain its true nature. The judgment provides clarity on the rights of the parties involved and upholds the transfer of title and ownership to the plaintiff.
Written by Mary Christine Delicia M an intern under legal vidhiya.
