TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. Therefore, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant Ramlal Shyamlal and one Pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of ₹ 4,000/-. According to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then. Respondent No.1 - Plague filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 executed by her in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi was only a nominal sale and she continues to be the owner of the suit land. She also prayed for possession of the suit land. The trial Court held that the registered sale deed dated 01.12.1965 has not been executed nominally and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed first appeal before the District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the Courts below have failed to consider an admission by respondent No.8/defendant No. 8 - Mst. Hasrat Bi that what was given was a loan committed an error in treating the document dated 01.12.1965 as a sale and not a nominal sale. It was submitted that the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement filed by defendant No. 8 whereby in para 2 (b) and (c) it is clearly admitted that the husband of vendee/defendant No. 8 Mst. Hasrat Bi agreed to advance the loan and the nominal sale deed was executed in her name instead of in the name of her husband. He would further submit that from the sub-para (d) it is also admitted that an agreement was entered into between the vendor and the vendee that after repayment of the amount within 3 years, re-conveyance deed will be executed in favour of the plaintiff. He also invited our attention to the oral evidence of D.W.1 Mehboob Khan and the admission made by him in the witness box which reads as follows:- Plaintiff took a loan of ₹ 400/- from me and that was to be repaid within three years and the same was not repaid even after three years. Had he repaid the loan within three years, then I would have executed a re-conveyance deed in his favour. 7. Simultaneously, an agreement was also entered into between the parties for execution of the re-conveyance deed, in favour of the plaintiff as is admitted at page B of the list of dates and events by the appellants. Therefore, learned senior counsel submitted that by the said sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of 3 years, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue records and sold the property to the appellants herein by a registered sale deed for a sum of ₹ 4,000/-. In our view, since Mst. Hasrat Bi had no right, title or interest over the suit property she was not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of Ramlal Shyamlal and Pyarelal for any consideration and if Mst. Hasrat Bi executed the sale deed in favour of the appellants it never conferred any right, title or interest in favour of the subsequent purchasers i.e. the appellants. Therefore, the respondent filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 executed by him in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi was only a nominal sale and he continues to be the owner of the suit land and also prayed for possession of the suit land as he was forcibly dispossessed by the appellant after purchasing the land from Mst. Hasrat Bi. A copy of the Plaint has been filed and marked as Annexure-R3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the wrong premises holding that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove that amount of ₹ 400/- was taken from Mehboob Khan, husband of Mst. Hasrat Bi by way of loan. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for ₹ 400/-. We are of the considered opinion that the sale deed dated 01.12.1965 did not convey any title to defendant No. 8. It is well settled by catena of decisions that vendor cannot convey to the vendee better title than she herself has. Mohan Lal v. Nihal Singh, AIR2001SC2942 In the instant case, the trial Court dismissed the suit for the reasons recorded therein on the basis of the record and oral evidence. The lower Appellate Court, as noticed earlier, has not considered oral and documentary evidence properly. The lower Appellate Court which is the final Court of fact mechanically confirmed the findings of the trial Court and upheld the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit. The High Court for the cogent and convincing reasons recorded in the judgment has rightly interfered with the concurrent findings of both the Courts. In our view, both the lower courts have concurrently erred in not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence properly and, therefore, the High Court is at liberty to re-appreciate the evidence and record its own conclusion for reversing the orders passed by the lower Court. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
