{"id":1403,"date":"2024-01-29T13:23:48","date_gmt":"2024-01-29T07:53:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1403"},"modified":"2024-01-29T13:23:48","modified_gmt":"2024-01-29T07:53:48","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-the-corrections-unilaterally-made-by-the-first-defendant-after-the-execution-of-the-sale-deed-without-the-knowledge-and-consent-of-the-purchaser-will-be-invalid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-the-corrections-unilaterally-made-by-the-first-defendant-after-the-execution-of-the-sale-deed-without-the-knowledge-and-consent-of-the-purchaser-will-be-invalid\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that the corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will be invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS.\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0GEJO. (D) TH.LRS & ORS.\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h1>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013<\/p>\n

(2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ., delivered by Abhay S. Oka J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> Unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present Civil Appeal for taking exception to the judgment and order dated 16th March 2010 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents are the legal representatives of Smt. Gejo. She was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration. She claimed a declaration of ownership over the land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas (\u201csuit property\u201d) based on the sale deed executed on 6th June 1975 and registered on 23rd July 1975. The first defendant, Kanwar Raj Singh (predecessor of the present appellants), executed the sale deed. Subsequently, the first defendant executed a gift deed regarding a 2\/3rd share in respect of the same property in favour of the eighth defendant \u2013 Smt. Ravinder Kaur. The eighth defendant is the first defendant\u2019s wife. According to the case of the original plaintiff \u2013 Smt. Gejo, before registration of the sale deed, an interpolation was made in the sale deed by the first defendant by adding that only 1\/3rd share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was being sold. The suit was contested by the first defendant, contending that what was sold was the area of 23 kanals and 8 marlas, which was his 1\/3rd share in the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that what was sold to the original plaintiff was the entire land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas. The first and eighth defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court. On 23rd August 1984, the Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and held that the correction made in the sale deed was bona fide and was not fraudulently made. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal. Respondent nos. 1(i) & 1(v) are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. By the impugned judgment, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the Trial Court was restored.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the changes made unilaterally by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will be valid?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the price of the property subject matter of the sale deed was only Rs. 30,000\/-, it is impossible that a vast area of 71 kanals 8 marlas was sold under the sale deed. The learned counsel submitted that the sale took effect from the date on which the sale deed was registered and not from the date on which it was executed. He submitted that what is conveyed by the sale deed is what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. He submitted that even the agreement for sale executed before the execution of the sale deed refers to the sale of 1\/3rd share of the first defendant and not the entire property. He submitted that the entry of the name of the original plaintiff in the revenue records as the owner of the whole area would not confer any title as what is relevant is the description of the property in the registered sale deed. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer1 and submitted that in view of the said decision, the sale would be completed when the sale deed was registered and, therefore, the description of the property recorded in the registered sale deed will prevail. The respondents are not represented.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, \u201cthe consideration was entirely paid on the date of the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was registered with the interpolation made about the description\/area of the property sold. The first defendant admittedly made the said interpolation after it was executed but before it was registered. In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored. Only if such changes would have been made with the consent of the original plaintiff, the same could relate back to the date of the execution. It is not even the first defendant’s case that the subsequent correction or interpolation was made before its registration with the consent of the original plaintiff. Therefore, in this case, what will operate is the sale deed as it existed when it was executed\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS.\u00a0 \u00a0[APPELLANT(S)]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0GEJO. (D) TH.LRS & ORS.\u00a0 \u00a0[RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 (2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ., delivered by Abhay S. Oka J.)   Facts: Unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present Civil Appeal for taking exception to the judgment and order dated 16th March […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1404,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1403"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1407,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1403\/revisions\/1407"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}