Sale Deed For Land Can't Be Executed By Person Whose Name In Mutation Entry Is Stayed: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person whose name mutation as the tenure holder of a land has been stayed, cannot execute a sale deed for the said land.While dealing with the sale of land by the wife of a deceased tenure holder, Justice Rajnish Kumar held since a stay was ordered by the Tehsildar on entry of the wife's name as the tenure holder of the disputed land, she did not have...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person whose name mutation as the tenure holder of a land has been stayed, cannot execute a sale deed for the said land.
While dealing with the sale of land by the wife of a deceased tenure holder, Justice Rajnish Kumar held since a stay was ordered by the Tehsildar on entry of the wife's name as the tenure holder of the disputed land, she did not have any right to create third party rights on the land.
Factual Background
The husband of the petitioner, Neelam Shukla, was the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute. He was the father of the respondents. After the death of her husband, the petitioner's name was recorded as a tenure hold of the land in dispute. After the petitioner remarried, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondents.
It was pleaded that since she had remarried, she had lost the right to be recorded as a tenure holder for the said land. Accordingly, the mutation of records in her favour was stayed. In her objection, the Court observed that the petitioner had only stated that Anshu (the alleged husband) was a relative but had not disclosed the nature of the relationship. Application for permanent injunction was rejected on grounds prima facie case was not established.
A civil appeal against the order of the Trial Court was allowed because the petitioner had executed a sale deed while the mutation of record in her favour had been stayed. It was also recorded that the petitioner had not specifically denied her marriage to Anshu. While allowing the appeal, Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lakhimpur Kheri directed the parties to maintain the status quo.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the order in the civil appeal was passed without considering the objections filed by the petitioner. Placing reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Another and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association SCI CINOD Secretariat, Madras, it was contended that merely because two views are possible, findings of the trial court cannot be interfered with.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that the petitioner never denied executing the sale deed in favour of the other petitioners during the operation of stay on the mutation of records of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the Court held that there was no illegality in the order of the Civil Court in allowing the appeal and granting an interim injunction against the petitioner.
The Court further observed that only one view emerges from the order of the trial court where it is recorded that the entry of the petitioner's name in the records was stayed. The Court held that once that entry had been stayed, the petitioner could not execute a sale deed for the land.
In Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Limited, the Supreme Court had relied upon Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd wherein it was held “that in such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.”
Further, the Court placed reliance on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association SCI CINOD Secretariat, Madras, wherein the Apex Court had held that quashing of an order restores the position as on the date of the order which has been quashed. However, staying of an order only means that the operation of such order shall be stayed without “wiping out” its existence.
The Court held that since there was a stay operating on the entry by which the petitioner's name was to be recorded as tenure holder of the land in dispute, she did not have any right to execute the sale deed for the said land. Since the sale of land had been challenged by the respondents in the pending civil suit, the Court upheld the injunction granted against the petitioner.
Case Title: Neelam Shukla And 3 Others vs. Balika Shukla And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 484 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5782 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 484