CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S.100 — Scope of interference — High Court cannot re-appreciate concurrent findings unless perverse, contrary to law, or based on inadmissible material — Where trial and appellate courts return reasoned findings on title and fraud, second appeal dismissed — Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh, AIR 1993 SC 398; Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 471, applied.
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY / SALE — Registered sale executed through impersonation — Effect — A deed executed by an impostor is void ab initio — Conveys no title — No cancellation required — A subsequent bona fide purchaser gets no title — Document is a legal nullity — Held, sale deeds dated 21-10-2002 and 11-05-2006 did not convey title as executant impersonated true owner.
EVIDENCE — Proof of Title — Burden of proof — In declaratory suits, plaintiff must prove own title, cannot depend on weaknesses of defence — Vendor examined (PW2); title deed (1979 sale deed) proved — Defendant’s vendor admitted impersonation — Fraud established — Title proved in plaintiff.
IMPERSONATION AND FRAUD — Consequences — Criminal conviction of impersonator under Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC reinforced civil finding that sale was fraudulent — Registration of mortgage, tax payment and mutation do not cure fraud nor confer title.
PROPERTY LAW — Adverse possession — Claim negated — A person asserting lawful title under registered sale deed cannot simultaneously plead adverse possession — Assertion of lawful title inconsistent with hostile animus required.
LIMITATION — Declaratory suit based on title and dispossession — Article 65 governs — 12-year limitation — Suit filed immediately after dispossession — Not barred — Article 59 inapplicable because void sale deed need not be cancelled.
APPEAL — Order 41 Rule 31 CPC compliance — First appellate court framed points, considered evidence witness-wise, and recorded findings — Judgment valid.
HELD — Plaintiff proved title; defendants’ title claims collapsed due to impersonation; defendant No.1’s possession neither lawful nor adverse — Second appeal dismissed — Defendant directed to deliver possession.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
1. Core Issue Structure
The case crystallized around four doctrinal axes:
-
Whether the plaintiff proved title through his vendor.
-
Whether the defendant acquired any title under fraudulent sale deeds.
-
Whether Article 59 barred the suit or Article 65 governed it.
-
Whether second appeal interference under Section 100 CPC was warranted.
The court dealt with each in layered reasoning.
2. Title Proof — Burden and Satisfaction
The plaintiff discharged the heavy burden by:
• Producing title deed of 1979 (Ex.A2)
• Producing his sale deed of 2008 (Ex.A1)
• Producing vendor (PW2) whose testimony was categorical.
PW2’s evidence was decisive — the court viewed it as direct proof of root title, continuity, and delivery of possession.
The defence could not rebut chain of title; instead, their witness (DW5) admitted fraud.
This placed the evidentiary fulcrum squarely in plaintiff’s favour.
3. Fraud and the Void Nature of Impersonated Deeds
The jurisprudence is classical — impersonated documents are void ab initio.
A void document:
• creates no rights
• conveys no title
• requires no cancellation
This aligns with SC holdings (e.g., A.C. Ananthasubramania v. Karnataka, SCC citations).
The defendant attempted to sanctify title through:
• tax receipts
• mortgage loan
• mutation
But registering fraud does not cure it.
The court applied a settled position:
“Fraud vitiates everything.”
The conviction of impersonator (DW5) fortified this civil conclusion.
4. Response to Defendant’s Doctrinal Defences
a) Adverse Possession Rejected
The court used fundamental inconsistency jurisprudence:
A person claiming:
-
I purchased the property lawfully,
cannot additionally plead:
-
my possession is hostile to the true owner.
Hostile intent cannot co-exist with claim of rightful title.
This is exactly the reasoning in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, applied implicitly.
b) Limitation Plea under Article 59 Rejected
Court’s logic:
• Plaintiff was dispossessed 10-12-2008
• Suit filed immediately (2009)
Therefore, Article 65 applies (12 years), as suit is for declaration + possession based on title.
Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments requiring cancellation.
Here, deed is void, therefore:
No cancellation necessary → No Article 59 bar.
5. Maintainability of Suit Without Cancellation Relief
The defendant’s argument was doctrinal:
“Suit must fail as plaintiff didn’t seek cancellation of earlier deeds.”
Court rejected this via void/voidable distinction.
If a deed is void ab initio (as impersonated deeds are):
• It can be ignored
• No formal cancellation needed
This is consistent with SC jurisprudence in Dhurandhar Prasad, though not cited expressly.
6. Section 100 CPC Application — Why Appeal Failed
The court rigorously reaffirmed Section 100 boundaries:
• First appellate court assessed facts
• Returning reasoned findings
• Based on admissible evidence
Therefore, High Court:
• cannot re-evaluate credibility
• cannot reopen factual inference
Unless perversity or legal error exists — neither found.
Hence:
“Substantial questions do not survive.”
This is a classic clean dismissal where concurrent findings of fact bind the High Court.
CONCLUDING EVALUATION
This judgment is notable for:
-
Strong reinforcement of civil impact of criminal conviction for impersonation.
-
Correct doctrinal use of void vs voidable instrument analysis.
-
Straight application of inconsistency doctrine on adverse possession.
-
Proper delimitation of Section 100 CPC boundaries — faithful to SC jurisprudence.
It thus stands as a clean reaffirmation of settled principles rather than innovation — but its factual richness (impersonation, criminal conviction, double sale) makes it instructive for title litigation and fraud litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment