2016 (11) TMI 1753 - HC - Indian Laws

Authenticity of the sale deed - entitlement to compensation - Burden of Proof vs. Onus of Proof - Forgery and Fictitious Documents - the court dismissed the suit and ruled in favor of the defendant-respondents for compensation of the disputed land - Section 6(e) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiffs argued the sale deed was void and forged, while the defendants claimed it transferred their right to compensation. Whether sale deed transfers disputed land to the purchasers or only right to receive compensation was transferred? - HELD THAT - Once it is said that the vendors have collected entire compensation of disputed land, this factum that such compensation may have been enhanced in litigation after that was transferred, in our view, will bring the deed in question as transferring a mere right to sue and would be hit by Section 6 (e) of Act 1882 - The stipulation contemplates a chance of higher compensation in litigation and intends to transfer the same. This is evidently a mere 'right to sue' and not any interest in the disputed land - the question is answered against defendant-respondents and in favour of appellants. Whether Sale-deed dated 8.2.1994 is a forged and fictitious document, as claimed by plaintiff-appellants or Court below has rightly held it a genuine document? - HELD THAT - When a document is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, thumb impressions and signatures are obtained by Sub-Registrar on its own Register also. Defendant-respondents made no effort to get appropriate record summoned from the office of Sub-Registrar, particularly when document was challenged forged and fictitious, obtained by impersonation. It was also not signed by one of two witnesses as well as author - Court below has erred in law, firstly by stretching burden of proof of the factum of fraud and misrepresentation of aforesaid document on plaintiff-appellants on the ground that no witnesses of document were examined as plaintiffs' witnesses. plaintiff-appellants when challenged document as a forged and fictitious one, they never admitted that any person was accepted by them as a witness to such document. Hence, question of producing such witnesses by plaintiffs could not have arisen. Benefit of document was claimed by defendant-respondents. Hence onus to produce witnesses to prove document lay upon them. There is a distinction between burden of proof and 'onus' - question answered in favor of appellants. Whether Court below has rightly held that defendant-respondent are entitled to payment of compensation of disputed land? - HELD THAT - There is neither any evidence on record nor otherwise, from which it can safely be inferred that there was any interest or right to receive compensation available on 8.2.1994 which could have been transferred by plaintiff-appellants to defendant-respondents. Moreover when they themselves claimed compensation @ Rs. 400/- per square yard, would have agreed to give up such contest on meager consideration of Rs. 60,000/- is highly improbable unless there is some reason - the question is answered against defendant-respondents. The judgement and decree, dated 16.9.1998 and 29.9.1998 respectively, passed by Sri Devendra Kumar Jain, XIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Original Suit N. 47 of 1996 read with Land Acquisition Reference under Section 30 of Act, 1894 are hereby set side - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed dated 09.02.1994.
2. Jurisdiction of the court.
3. Valuation of the suit.
4. Sufficiency of the court fee paid.
5. Entitlement to relief.
6. Entitlement to compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Deed Dated 09.02.1994:
The primary issue was whether the sale deed dated 09.02.1994, executed by the plaintiffs in favor of the defendants, was valid. The plaintiffs contended that they had not executed the sale deed and claimed it was forged and fictitious. The court examined the evidence, including the testimonies of handwriting experts and witnesses. The court found that the sale deed was not executed by the plaintiffs and was a manufactured document. The court also noted that the sale deed attempted to transfer a "mere right to sue," which is non-transferable under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, the sale deed was declared void.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court addressed the issue of jurisdiction and found that it had the authority to adjudicate the matter. The plaintiffs' challenge on jurisdictional grounds was dismissed.

3. Valuation of the Suit:
The court examined whether the suit was undervalued. The plaintiffs had claimed a higher market value for the land, which was contested by the defendants. The court found that the suit was not undervalued and the valuation was appropriate based on the evidence presented.

4. Sufficiency of the Court Fee Paid:
The issue of whether the court fee paid was sufficient was also considered. The court determined that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs was adequate and met the legal requirements.

5. Entitlement to Relief:
The court evaluated the relief sought by the plaintiffs, which included the declaration of the sale deed as void and the entitlement to compensation. Given the findings on the validity of the sale deed, the court granted the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

6. Entitlement to Compensation:
The court addressed the entitlement to compensation for the acquired land. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to compensation as the original owners of the land. The court found that the plaintiffs were indeed entitled to compensation, as the sale deed transferring the right to compensation to the defendants was void. The court directed the Collector to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1998 and 29.9.1998 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. The court decreed that the sale deed dated 8.2.1994 was void and nullity, and the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the acquired land. The plaintiffs were also awarded costs throughout.