Subject To Statutory Exceptions, Valid Registered Document Conveying Immovable Property Cannot Be Annulled By Any Procedure Other Than Civil Suit: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against the final judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court whereby the second appeal preferred by respondent -City Municipal Council was allowed.

The Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “We may record that generally and subject to exceptions as may be provided by statute, a valid registered document conveying immovable property cannot be annulled by any procedure other than a civil suit. In any event, cancellation of such a valid document of title by simply drawing a resolution in a board meeting is illegal on the face of the record. Such grossly illegal and high-handed action deserves to be deprecated.”

Senior Advocate G V Chandrashekar represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Shanthkumar V. Mahale represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The dispute between the parties pertained to two plots of land, which were auctioned by the first respondent-City Municipal Council. Admittedly, the second respondent -T.M. Prabhudeva (original defendant before the trial Court) purchased a plot in the first auction and the sale deed in favour of the second respondent was executed by the first respondent -CMC in the year 1988, wherein an error crept in as the plot number was inadvertently mentioned as 394 instead of 395. The auction purchaser, second respondent moved an application for rectification of the mistake of plot number and for demarcation of the plot. A Resolution was passed rectifying the mistake and affirming that plot No. 395 was sold to the second respondent.

After the second respondent parted with the plot No. 395, he allegedly colluded with the respondent CMC and got a meeting convened, wherein a Resolution was drawn to the effect that there was no mistake in executing the original sale deed in favour of the second respondent which rightly conveyed plot No. 394. Based on the said resolution, the second respondent tried to interfere with the possession of the appellant over plot No. 394. The appellant’s suit, impleading both the respondents, and seeking a declaration that she was the successful bidder for plot No. 394 was decreed.

An adverse inference was drawn against the respondent-CMC. The auction proceedings were held to be valid. The appellant was declared to be the bona fide purchaser and true owner of plot 394.The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent CMC. The second appeal to the High Court was allowed and the concurrent findings of the courts below were reversed. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, undertook a roving factual inquiry for interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant, as affirmed by the first appellate Court. “The reasoning assigned by the High Court in the impugned judgment, that the burden lay upon the appellant to fortify the factum of purchase of plot No. 394 in the auction and that she failed to discharge this burden, was recorded in sheer ignorance of the evidence on record and is absolutely perverse”, it said.

The Bench noted that there was wholesome evidence, documentary as well as oral, on the record to establish beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant had purchased plot no.394 in the auction. It was established that such sale had been fructified with the payment of the auction money and issuance of the sale certificate, which was a duly registered document. The first Respondent CMC, by virtue of the Resolution tried to set at naught the registered sale certificate issued to the appellant and this according to the Bench amounted to gross illegality.

“We may record that generally and subject to exceptions as may be provided by statute, a valid registered document conveying immovable property cannot be annulled by any procedure other than a civil suit. In any event, cancellation of such a valid document of title by simply drawing a resolution in a board meeting is illegal on the face of the record. Such grossly illegal and high-handed action deserves to be deprecated”, it stated.

As per the Bench, the view taken by the High Court that the appellant failed to establish and fortify the sale deed issued to her was conjectural and erroneous on the face of the record. Apart from a bald assertion that the documents relied upon by the appellant regarding the purchase of plot No. 394 were fabricated, no substantive evidence was produced by respondent CMC to prove this theory. “If at all these documents were fabricated and the said fact had come to the knowledge of the officers of respondent No. 1-CMC way back in the year 1992-1993, the first step which they would be expected to take would be to lodge an FIR. Further, respondent no. 1-CMC has failed to produce the original documents before the trial Court, even after the trial Court had directed to produce such documents”, it held.

The assertion of the appellant that pursuant to the rectification in the plot number, the second respondent entered into an agreement for selling the said plot No. 395, was not denied. Finding the judgment of the High Court to be unsustainable in facts as well as in law, the Bench quashed. Allowing the appeal, the Bench restored the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant.

Cause Title: Basheera Khanum v. City Municipal Council (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 955)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate G V Chandrashekar, Advocates N K Verma, Apeksha D, AOR Anjana Chandrashekar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Advocates Madhvendra Singh, Anuradha Bhat, Adveetiya Sharma, AOR Harisha S.R.

Click here to read/download Judgment