Genuineness Of Denial Of Title Cannot Be Based On Assumptions Ignoring Validly Registered Document: SC
The Supreme Court has observed that in respect of sale of an immoveable property, the genuineness of the denial of title cannot be decided based on presumptions and oral assertations ignoring a valid registered document.
"…in respect of the sale of an immovable property, worth value which makes the sale deed compulsorily registrable, the genuineness of the denial of title cannot be decided based on presumptions and oral assertations ignoring a valid registered document.", the bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice CT Ravikumar observed.
The factual background of this case was that one Phool Kumari was the original owner of the petition schedule property and she had leased it out to one Balraj, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants.
According to the respondent, his father purchased the petition schedule property from Phool Kumari and according to the appellants Balraj, their predecessor-in- interest purchased it from Phool Kumari. Consequently, the appellants were directed to vacate the petition schedule property and handover its vacant physical possession to the respondent herein within three months.
This order was confirmed concurrently by the Appellate Authority and the High Court.
Aggrieved, Appellants approached Supreme Court.
Abhijit Basu, was the counsel for appellants and K. Parameshwar, was the counsel for the respondent.
The Supreme Court observed that except the oral assertation of purchase of the petition schedule property by Balraj not even a scrap of paper to support the same was produced on behalf of the appellants, either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority.
The Court further noted that "…the indisputable position obtained in this case is that the respondent herein/the petitioner therein, had adduced documentary evidence of outright purchase of the petition schedule property under Ext. P3 registered sale deed. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents therein no admissible evidence to outweigh the same to establish their bonafides in the denial of title of the respondent herein, was adduced."
Therefore the Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below on the issue that the title of the respondent was malafidely denied by the appellants is the rightful conclusion on appreciation of the facts and evidence obtained in this case and is not infected with perversity.
The Court granted two months' time to the appellants to handover vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent.
Cause title- Gopi @ Goverdhannath (d) by LRs. & Ors. v. Sri Ballabh Vyas