Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has rejected a civil appeal filed challenging a 2004 judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding a 1956 sale deed. The top court said that the appellant was "too greedy" for she refused to accept an offer of Rs. 1 crore made by the land purchaser-Haryana government for settling the issue, on the ground that the present value of the property was more than Rs 15 crore.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal dismissed the civil appeal filed by one Bani Amrit Kaur against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order in her second appeal.

The high court had reversed the decision of the first appellate court as well as the trial court, which had decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

The court found no reason for interference with the high court's order.

"To resolve the issue, this Court impressed upon the authorities to settle the issue. As transpired on the date of hearing, the State without prejudice to its rights had offered to pay Rs 1,00,00,000 more to the appellant, which was not acceptable to her as it was claimed that the present value of the property may be more than Rs 15,00,00,000. She seems to be too greedy," the bench said.

The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant- Sukhjit Singh (deceased) filed a suit challenging the first sale deed, which was got registered by his father-Gurinder Singh (now deceased). The first sale deed was registered for the land measuring 166 kanals and 15 marlas in favour of Harjit Singh, who subsequently sold 118 kanals and 06 marlas to the State of Punjab (now falling in the State of Haryana), by second registered sale deed (1958) for total consideration of Rs 14,784.

Challenging the first sale deed, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed a Civil Suit on October 03, 1972 on the ground that his father sold the land when he was minor without taking permission of the Court in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 

The sale was not for done for the need and welfare of the minor as nothing was stated therein. Harjit Singh, the first buyer of the land from late Gurinder Singh, did not contest the litigation as he had already transferred the land in favour of the State and his mother. 

The appellate contended the high court had gone beyond the pleaded case of the State. Once there was no permission from the Court to sell the property of the minor and the sale was not for the need and welfare of the minor, the same was rightly set aside by the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court, he argued.

The state government contended that it was a dishonest litigation initiated with a view to extract more money from the State. There were a number of other sale deeds registered in the similar fashion as was done in the case of sale in favour of Harjit Singh from whom the State had purchased the same by way of second registered sale deed. The consideration as settled at that time was duly paid, the state informed the court. 

"Even if the date of birth of late-Sukhjit Singh is taken as 16.08.1951, still the suit filed by him was not maintainable as there is no document produced on record by late-Sukhjit Singh while filing the suit or in evidence that the property was ever registered in his name or had fallen to his share. It is merely a recital in the first sale-deed executed by Late Gurinder Singh in favour of Harjit Singh, where it is mentioned that the sale-deed is being registered as a guardian of Sukhjit Singh who was minor at that time," the state counsel submitted. 

The state counsel further submitted that it was a bona fide purchase by the State from Harjit Singh who was the recorded owner. In the revenue record, the land was shown in the name of late-Sukhjit Singh.

"In any case, it is the admitted fact by the appellant that late-Sukhjit Singh was studying in Doon School, Dehradun and the certificate of date of birth from that school has been produced on record. The sale consideration was Rs 14,784 from which it can very well be taken that the land was sold for need and welfare of the child who was minor at that time and studying in Doon School", the bench noted. 

The bench said in its opinion that the suit may not be time-barred as it was filed after the issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC within a period of three years and two months from the date of registration of sale deed.

"However, otherwise, we find the suit to be totally misconceived," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that there was no document placed on record by the plaintiff showing his right in the property as on the date when Gurinder Singh (deceased) got the first sale deed registered in favour of deceased Sukhjit Singh, who was trying to derive title only from the recital in the first sale deed that the property was being sold as a guardian of the minor.

There is no pleading or document produced to show that the property in question was ever transferred in his name, in a family partition and the corresponding shares of other daughters and sons of late-Gurinder Singh, the bench said.

It also noted that the property was sold for the need and welfare of the child to provide him the best education.

"The transaction in favour of the State may otherwise be protected in terms of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the stand taken before the court was that there was due diligence before the sale transaction was entered into and there is nothing on record produced by the plaintiff to dislodge the stand taken by the State," the bench said.

Case Title: Bani Amrit Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Others