Ownership Over Property Can't Be Claimed When Sale Deed Is Executed By Person Having No Title : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a sale deed executed by the person (not being an owner of the property) in the plaintiff's favor wouldn't entitle the plaintiff to claim ownership/possession over such property.

Reversing the findings of the High Court which held the plaintiff to be an owner of the property, the Bench Comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar observed that the mere participation of the person, who doesn't hold title over the property, as a signatory to the execution of the sale deed wouldn't entitle the plaintiff to claim the ownership/title of the property.

“In consequence, title to the property belonging to Meghraj (defendant no.2) did not pass under the said sale deed even though his mother (defendant no.1) was a signatory thereto in her own individual capacity. The verdicts of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court holding so were, therefore, perfectly valid and justified and the High Court erred in overturning the same by applying its own notions and reversing their findings of fact and law.”, the judgment authored by Sanjay Kumar J. said.

Background

A property was bequeathed through a 'Will' in favor of defendant no. 2 i.e., son of defendant no.1 (mother of defendant no.2). The property was bequeathed by father (Babulal) of defendant no.1 in her son's favor.

Sale deeds of the various properties held by Babulal were executed in favor of the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant no.1/mother participated in the execution of the sale deed and was a signatory to the sale deeds. Amongst various sale deeds executed in the plaintiff's favor, a sale deed of the property bequeathed in defendant no.2/actual owner's favor was also executed in the plaintiff's favor, and defendant no.1 was signatory to that sale deed. However, the defendant no.2/actual owner was not a party to the execution of the sale.

The plaintiff sought ownership/possession of the bequeathed 'Will' property on the note that defendant no.1 being mother of the defendant no.2/actual owner was a signatory to the execution of the sale deed.

However, defendant no.1 contended that she neither sold the suit property to the plaintiff nor did she deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff. She stated that, as she was not educated and had faith in the relatives who executed other sale deeds in the plaintiff's favor, she signed sale deeds again and again.

The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the title of the disputed property being vested in defendant no.2 couldn't have been passed in the plaintiff's favor.

However, in the Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and first appellate court and declared the plaintiff/respondent as the real owner.

It is against the decision of the High Court that the defendant/appellant preferred the civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observation

The Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff cannot seek title over the property in which the defendant no.1 was signatory to the execution of the property, as the title over the property wasn't vested with the defendant no.1 to transfer such property to the plaintiff. 

Further, the court noted that defendant No. 1 fault couldn't aid the plaintiff as she had signed the sale deed under the impression that she was participating in the sale of her family's share in the properties.

"The High Court glossed over this Will, entertaining a doubt as to its genuineness, only on the ground that it was not produced earlier and as the first defendant had affixed her signature in the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979.The knowledge imputed by the High Court to the first defendant in relation to the said sale deed was not warranted as it was her specific case that she had affixed her signature in not only this sale deed but all the other sale deeds executed by her step-mother and the others, being under the impression that the same was required as she was also the daughter of late Babulal. Therefore, no conscious knowledge could be attributed to her only in relation to the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 and her not speaking of or producing the Will at that time could not be held against her, as she was under the impression that she was participating in the sale of her family's share in the properties, by way of abundant caution. In effect, the question of her raising the issue of the Will did not even arise.", observes the Supreme Court.

'Will' Stands Proved Once Mandatory Requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act Are Satisfied

The Supreme Court noted that the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the Sale Deed thereafter wouldn't aid the plaintiff/respondent after the court founds that the Will was duly executed in favor of defendant No. 2/actual owner. The depositions of the attestors of the 'Will' also remained unshaken and evidenced that the same was signed by the executor of the 'Will' in their presence and they, in turn, affixed their signatures in his presence.

While placing reliance on H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma, the Supreme Court stated that once such evidence was adduced in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested), and the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Execution of unprivileged Wills), were duly satisfied, the Will stood proved in the eye of law and the same ought not to have been brushed aside lightly.

"As the Will was duly proved to be genuine, the participation of the first defendant in the execution of the Sale Deed dated 18.01.1979 thereafter paled into insignificance. The owner of the property under the Will was Meghraj, the second defendant, and he was neither a party to the said sale deed nor did his mother affix her signature therein in the capacity of being his guardian.", the court records.

Conclusion

"In consequence, title to the property belonging to Meghraj (defendant no.2) did not pass under the said sale deed even though his mother (defendant no.1) was a signatory thereto in her own individual capacity. The verdicts of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court holding so were, therefore, perfectly valid and justified and the High Court erred in overturning the same by applying its own notions and reversing their findings of fact and law.", the court decided.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside while affirming the view taken by the trial court and the first appellate court.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Singh Parihar, Adv. Mr. C. Chaube, Adv. Mr. Nanakey Kalra, Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mrs. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.

Case Details: Savitri Bai and another Versus Savitri Bai, Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2013.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 178

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment