2012 (7) TMI 1138 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale deed executed in 1975 by Defendant No. 3 in favor of Defendant No. 2 was proved.
2. Whether the mere registration of the sale deed can be treated as proof of its execution u/s 60 of the Registration Act, 1908.
3. Whether the courts below ignored material facts related to proceedings u/s 447 IPC and u/s 145 Cr.P.C. while determining adverse possession claims.

Summary:

Issue 1: Proof of Sale Deed Execution
The appellant argued that the execution of the registered sale deed (Ext.2) by Defendant No. 3 in favor of Defendant No. 2 in 1975 was not proved as neither the scribe nor the attesting witnesses were examined, which is required u/s 67 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court, however, found substantive evidence in a petition dated 26.5.87, where Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 admitted the sale of the suit land to Defendant No. 2, though they denied delivery of possession. The Appellate Court upheld this finding, noting that the purchaser (Defendant No. 2) testified to the presence of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 during the sale deed execution and proved their signatures. The court concluded that the sale deed was proved through other circumstantial evidence and the testimony of Defendant No. 2.

Issue 2: Registration as Proof
The appellant contended that the mere registration of the sale deed does not ipso facto prove its execution. The court acknowledged that while mere registration is not conclusive proof, the presence of other supporting evidence, such as the admission of sale in the petition dated 26.5.87 and the testimony of Defendant No. 2, sufficed to prove the execution of the sale deed.

Issue 3: Adverse Possession and Ignored Proceedings
The appellant claimed that the courts below ignored proceedings u/s 447 IPC and u/s 145 Cr.P.C., which involved the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1, while determining adverse possession. The Trial Court found that Defendant No. 1's claim of possession since 1975 was not substantiated by evidence. The Appellate Court noted that the title to the suit land was denied in 1987 when litigation started, and there was no material to establish Defendant No. 1's adverse possession against the true owner. The court emphasized that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on substantial evidence and did not warrant interference.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the sale deed executed in 1975 was proved through circumstantial evidence and the testimony of Defendant No. 2. The court also upheld the finding that Defendant No. 1's claim of adverse possession was not substantiated. The court reiterated that it would not re-appraise evidence in a second appeal unless the findings were perverse or patently illegal.