Gwalior HC dismisses 22-year-old appeal, upholds registered sale deed

A property registry cannot be cancelled by calling it a sham on the strength of oral claims alone. Firm legal and documentary evidence is required. Saying this, the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a 22-year-old first appeal challenging a registered sale deed.

A single bench of Justice Ashish Shroti upheld the trial court's decision. The court said the appellants had failed to prove that the registry was executed as a purported partnership and security arrangement. Their original suit had also been filed after the legal limitation period had expired.

The case concerns the courtyard and lane of a house in Shivpuri. The appellants, Bhagwat Swaroop and others, claimed that their father Bharosilal and Ashok Kumar Jain ran an oil mill and grain business in partnership. They alleged that pressure was brought on them by showing losses in the business. As a guarantee that the partnership would continue, a nominal registry of the property was executed on August 9, 1996 for Rs 50,500. They said no money was paid in return and that possession remained with them.

According to the appellants, they received a threat in 2003 that they would be made to vacate the property, and then filed a civil suit to have the sale deed cancelled. The trial court did not accept their claims. They then approached the High Court, but in this dispute of about 22 years they got no relief there either.

During the hearing, the court found that no written document had been produced in support of the alleged partnership. The witnesses' statements were also contradictory. The father said the partnership was between him and the defendant, while the son stated that it was between himself and the defendant. Because of this contradiction, the claim of a partnership, and of a registry made on its basis, could not be proved.

The court also treated the delay in filing the suit as significant. According to the record, the alleged partnership lasted about four months, and the dispute between the two sides began as early as January 1999. Yet the suit to cancel the sale deed was filed only in April 2003. The court held that the suit was filed after the three-year limitation period applicable to cancellation of a document.

The High Court made it clear that a registered document carries strong legal credibility. If a party says a registered sale deed is a sham or differs from the real transaction, it must produce firm legal and documentary evidence to support the claim. Oral statements alone are not enough to render such a document invalid. On these grounds the court dismissed the first appeal and upheld the trial court's decision.