Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subal Chandra Ala & Ors vs Srish Chandra Das & Ors on 25 June, 2026
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Supratim Bhattacharya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:- The Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
SAT 458 of 2017
With
CAN 2 of 2026
Subal Chandra Ala & Ors.
Vs.
Srish Chandra Das & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya
Mr. Sounak Mondal
Mr. Abhirup Halder
For the Respondents : Mr. Sarajit Sen
Mr. Tapas Singha Roy
Judgment Delivered On : 25.06.2026
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.:
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by
and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court that
is the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Baruipur dated 31.08.2017
in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2016 (previously numbered as Title Appeal No. 19 of
2011), whereby and wherein the learned First Appellate Court has been pleased to
pass the following:
” Hence it is
ORDERED
That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest
against the respondents;
that the Judgment & Decree dated 31.03.2011 & 08.04.2011
respectively, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)
1st Court, Baruipore in Title Suit No. 141 of 1998 is hereby
2affirmed with specific observations, as made in the body of this
judgment.
Parties shall bear the costs of this appeal of their own. ” ….
2. Factual Matrix:
The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the original suit before the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division) 1st Court at Baruipur being Title Suit No. 141 of 1998 praying for
declaration and permanent injunction.
Through the plaint the plaintiffs/appellants have submitted that originally the suit
property was recorded in the name of one Brojo Mohan Ala and after the demise of
the said Brojo Mohan Ala his two sons namely Haran Chandra Ala and Palan
Chandra Ala inherited the suit property.
The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Palan Chandra Ala and they were in joint
possession of the suit property with the said Haran Chandra Ala. It has been stated
that during the revisional settlement as the plaintiffs/appellants were minors
Haran Chandra Ala recorded his name in respect of the suit property, as such the
entries are erroneous. It has also been stated that the said Haran Chandra Ala was
not the owner of 16 Aanas in respect of the entire suit property. It has further been
stated that in respect of some of the suit properties it was recorded jointly in the
name of Haran Chandra Ala and Supati Bala Dasi being shareholders of 8 Aanas
each.
The appellants/plaintiffs are the sons of Supati Bala Dasi and the same was
recorded in the RS record of rights. The appellants have further stated that Haran
Chandra Ala was bachelor and he became unconscious on 28.08.1998 having
cerebral attack and ultimately expired on 01.09.1998. It has further been stated
3that during this period the said Haran Chandra Ala had been unconscious. It has
further been stated that on the demise of Haran the appellants/plaintiffs inherited
the properties of Haran Chandra Ala. It has also been stated that the said Haran
did not execute any deed during this period in favour of the defendants as the said
Haran had no capacity to execute any deed and he had not accepted Rs. 40,000/-
from the defendants. It has been stated that the defendants have manufactured the
said deed in their favour and there was absence of free will and free consent on the
part of Haran. It has further been stated that the defendants/ respondents have no
right, title or interest in respect of the suit property.
The respondents/defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed their
written statement. They have denied the allegations levelled by the appellants
/plaintiffs. The defendants have denied that the sale deed dated 31.08.1998 is
vitiated by fraud and undue influence or that the same is collusive and fraudulent . it
has also been denied that the said Haran Chandra Ala did not execute the sale deed
out of free will or that he had cerebra attack on 28.08.1998 or that he was
unconscious or that he could not take sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the defendants or
that the defendants did not have the said fund it has further been denied that the
said sale deed was created in collusion with the deed writer or that the defendants
did not acquire any title or possession in respect of the property. On the contrary
the defendants have averred that the said Haran Chandra Ala was healthy and
hearty and capable of understanding at the time of execution of the sale deed in
favour of these defendants. It has also been stated that the plaintiffs were not in
4good terms with the said Haran Chandra Ala as litigation was pending between
them.
On the basis of the pleadings the following issues have been framed:
“1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
2. Is there any cause of action for instituting the suit?
3. Have the plaintiffs title and possession over the suit property as
alleged in the plaint?
4. Is the alleged sale deed dated 31-08-98 vitiated by fraud and undue
influence ?
5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief as prayed for ?
6. To what other relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
Additional Issue
7. Is the suit barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act ?”
On behalf of the appellants/ plaintiffs four witnesses have deposed they are
PW1 – Subal Chandra Ala
PW2 – Chandi Ram Moni
PW3 – Tapan Kr. Sardar
PW4 – Amiya Kr. Ghoshal
On behalf of the plaintiffs the following documents have been exhibited
1. Information slip (ext.1)
2. R.S. R-O-R of Khatian no. 67 (ext. 2)
3. L.R. R-O-R of khatian no. 959, 710, 922 (ext. 3)
4. L.R. Khatian no. 598 (ext. 4)
5. L.R. Khatian no. 625 (ext. 5)
6. L.R. Khatian no. 593 (ext. 6)
7. Death certificate of Haran Chandra Ala (ext. 7)
8. Certified copy of judgment and decree in T.S.64/97 (ext. 8)
9. Certified copy of judgment and decree in T.S. 230/81 (ext. 9)
5
10. Cremation certificate (ext. 10)
11. Rent receipts (ext. 11 and 12)
12. Deed no. 4346 of 1998 (ext. 13)
13. L.R. khatian no. 605 (ext. 14)
14. Medical certificate (ext. 15)
On behalf of the defendants also four witnesses have deposed. They are
DW1 – Sunil Das
DW2 – Samar Biswas
DW3 – Swapan Naskar
DW4 – Bablu Gayen
On behalf of the defendants the following documents have been exhibited.
1. Certified copy of order passed in TS.124/98 (ext.A)
2. Original sale deed, being 5346/98 (ext. B)
3. R.S.R-O-R of khatian no. 67 (ext. C)
4. L.R. R-O-R of khatian no.598( ext. D )
5. L.R. R-O-R of Khatian No. 605 (ext.D/1)
6. Cremation Certificate (with objection) [ext. E]
3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the Trial Court has
been pleased to dismiss the suit and has passed the following :
“It is ordered that the suit be and the same is dismissed on contest as against the
defendants with cost of the suit.”
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the dismissal of the title suit , the
plaintiffs preferred the first appeal. After considering the evidence on record, both
documentary and oral, the learned first Appellate Court has been pleased to
dismiss the first appeal which has given rise to the present appeal.
6
5. In the present appeal the learned counsel representing the appellants has
submitted the following:
I. The said Haran Chandra Ala was not the owner of 16 Aanas of share in
respect of the suit property and he did not have the capacity to prefer the
appeal.
II. It has further been submitted that the appellants/plaintiffs being the sons of
Supati Bala Dasi have 8 Aanas of share in respect of the suit property as some
of the properties were recorded in the name of Supati Bala Dasi and Haran
Chandra Ala.
III. It has also been alleged that the appellants/plaintiffs got the suit property
under Khatian No. 235 and 399 in terms of the solenama decree passed in
Title Suit No. 64 of 1977 and also got the 28 decimals of land in plot No. 371
under Khatian No. 283 by a decree passed by the Court in Title Suit No. 230
of 1981.
IV. It has further been stated that the said Haran could not execute any deed in
favour of the defendants because suits and appeals were pending at that
time and it was the contention that the suit property under LR Khatian No.
605 and 598 belonged to them.
V. It has further been stated that Haran was a bachelor and he became
unconscious following heart decease on 28th August, 1998 and ultimately
expired on 01.09.1998 .
VI. It has also been stated that on the expiry of Haran the plaintiffs/appellants
have inherited the property of Haran .
7
VII. It has been alleged that Haran did not accept Rs. 40,000/- from the
defendants and the defendants had no capacity to pay the said sum.
VIII. It has been alleged that Haran was unconscious at the time of the execution
of the alleged sale deed and the respondents /defendants have
manufactured the said deed in their favour and there was absence of free will
and free consent on the part of Haran.
IX. It has been argued that the impugned deed could not have been executed in
free mind and volition a day prior to the death, overlooking the medical
certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner and the said Haran
had suffered from cerebral thrombosis and was incapable of taking decision.
X. He has further submitted that the observations of both the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court that Haran was physically fit and mentally sound
at the time of execution of the deed is not acceptable.
XI. He has further submitted that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court have surprisingly held that the plaintiffs could not discharge its
burden of proving the fact that the sale deed is vitiated by fraud and the
defendants have successfully discharged their onus of proving that the
deed was duly executed.
XII. It has also been alleged that Sunil Das who is one of the purchasers of the
suit property and the defendant No. 2 has deposed as DW1 to prove the
case of the defendant. He has deposed in his cross-examination that there is
no witness to prove the fact that there was an agreement between Haran
and the purchasers for the sale of the property.
8
XIII. It has further been stated that the defendants have no document to show
that there was any agreement for sale and no receipt can be shown
revealing payment of consideration money to Haran.
XIV. He has further stated that the said Sunil has deposed that he did not know
that Haran Chandra Ala had suffered from cerebral thrombosis and expired
and has further stated that he deals in cash but he has bank account but he
could not produce the statement of the bank account.
XV. It has also been stated that he has no document to show that he has enough
cash in hand. The said Sunil has also deposed that he took loan from bank
as capital for his business and had spent the consideration money from the
said capital.
XVI. He has also deposed that Haran was physically fit and mentally sound at the
time of the execution of the deed and had received the balance
consideration money from the defendant before execution of the said deed.
XVII. The learned counsel have further submitted that from the deposition of DW1
it is clear that he has failed to prove that he has any source of income to pay
the consideration amount.
XVIII. According to the learned counsel it appears that respondents/defendants
have failed to prove that when and in what manner consideration money
was paid by the respondents /defendants to Haran.
XIX. He has further submitted that the said witness has deposed that when the
consideration amount was paid to Haran no one was present from the
family of Haran to witness the same.
9
XX. It has further been submitted that the attesting witness and the writer of
the deed are persons of the defendant’s and their evidence is not credible
and is unreliable.
XXI. He has further submitted that it is clear that no consideration price has been
paid to Haran before the registration of the said deed so the same is a clear
violation of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as such the said deed is
liable to be set aside , cancelled and quashed.
XXII. The learned counsel has also raised a question as to whether the said Haran
though being stated to be fit did not sign on the said deed instead had put
his LTI and to that effect no explanation has been provided on behalf of the
defendants.
XXIII. The learned counsel has also stressed upon the deposition of DW2 and
DW4 and has stated that both the witnesses during their cross-examination
has stated that Haran had put his LTI after receiving the balance
consideration amount but to that effect no document has been shown.
XXIV. He has further submitted that DW2 and DW4 has demolished the case of
the defendants by stating that Haran Chandra Ala was not physically fit at
the time of execution of the said deed which is contrary to the deposition of
DW1 who said that the said Haran was fit at the time of execution of the
deed so there is total non-compliance of the Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act.
XXV. Learned counsel has also stressed upon the deposition of DW3 wherein the
said witness has deposed that Haran was ill and died due to illness. He has
10
further submitted that this witness has deposed that Haran had signed on
the deed after receiving the balance consideration amount but there is no
signature of Haran instead there is LTI of Haran on the said deed.
XXVI. Learned counsel has placed the evidence of PW4 that is one Amiya Kumar
Ghoshal who is said to be the compounder of Dr. S K. Banerjee who is said to
have treated Haran during the last few days and in his cross-examination
the said PW4 has deposed that he was the compounder of Dr. S. K. Banerjee
and has identified the medical certificate issued by the said doctor on
31.08.2018 and had identified the handwriting and the signature of the
said doctor and this witness has specifically stated that Haran has suffered
from cerebral thrombosis three to four days prior to his death and has also
stated that Haran was lying unconscious till his death. This witness has
deposed that Dr. S. K. Banerjee had written the medical certificate in his
presence. The said witness has proved the contents of the said document as
such the said document was marked exhibit with objection and as the
defendants could not produce any evidence contrary to the said document
to disproof the same so the same is conclusive proof.
XXVII. Learned counsel has further submitted that DW3 has deposed that the
deed was executed before the sub-Registrar on Commission and DW1 had
given Rs. 10,000/- to Haran in presence of the sub-Registrar but on perusal
of the said deed it appears that the said sub-Registrar had not made any
endorsement regarding payment of consideration money which is a
11
mandatory requirement under Section 58 (1)(c) of the Registration Act,
1908.
XXVIII. He has further submitted that the said provision is a mandatory provision
and not a directory one in view of the Section 60 of the Registration Act.
Section 60 of the said Act lays down that after such of the provisions of
Sections 34, 35 , 58 and 59 as apply to any document presented for
registration have been complied with, the registering officer shall endorse
thereon a certificate containing the word ‘registered’. In the instant case,
there is non-compliance by the Registrar in terms of Section 58 (1) (c) of the
said Act in terms of Section 60 of the said Act.
XXIX. The learned counsel has also raised the issue that in the death certificate
the name has been mentioend as Haran Chandra Ala whereas in the deed in
question it has been mentioned as Haradhan Ala, who was not the owner of
the properties mentioned in the said deed and he had no capacity to
transfer the said property by way of the impugned deed. He has further
submitted that the respondents have filed an application under Order XLI
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard in the instant appeal
and the said application has no merit.
XXX. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments
(1972) 1 SCC 9
(2022) 18 SCC 489
(2025) Scc Online SC 1961
(2022) 20 SCC 199
12
(2001) 3 SCC 179
Relying upon the aforementioned submission the learned counsel has
prayed for allowing the present appeal and thereby setting aside the judgment
of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
6. On the contrary the learned counsel representing the respondents /defendants
during his exhaustive argument has stressed upon the following points:
I. The learned counsel has stated that there is no proof that Haran was
under coma at the relevant point of time and he was incapacitated by
any such disease.
II. Learned counsel has highlighted the evidence of PW4 that is Amiya
Kumar Ghoshal and has stated that the said witness is not
trustworthy.
III. He has further submitted that the fact of payment of consideration
money has been proved and there is no non-compliance of Section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act,.
IV. He has further submitted that during the registration of the deed
Haran had handed over possession over the suit property which is
specifically mentioned in the deed.
V. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment reported in 1993
Supplementary (2) SCC 611 in the case between Ashoke Kumar
Sharma Vs. Chandrasekhar wherein it has been stated that the
provision of making endorsement in the registered deed as required
under Section 58 (1) (c) regarding receipt of consideration money is
13not mandatory but directory and therefore non-compliance of
making such endorsement does not render the said deed void. The
learned counsel has relied upon 1977 SCC Online Odisha 13 and
(1999) 3 SCC 722.
Banking upon the same the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
7. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law
have been framed :
“(1) Whether both the Courts below substantially erred in law and on
facts by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants without
considering the material evidence on record?
(2) Whether the Courts below erred in discarding the evidentiary value of
the medical certificate issued by the registered Doctor on the illness of
Haran Chandra Ala, when the said medical certificate was exhibited
without objection and, therefore, the contents thereof is deemed to have
been admitted?
(3) Whether the Court of Appeal below erred in dismissing the suit even
after recording the finding that it is a fit case for remand?
(4) Whether the Courts below erred in not drawing a presumption that
the purported deed was not executed by Haran Chandra Ala with free
mind and on his own volition a day prior to his death overlooking the
certificate issued by the registered Doctor that he suffered from cerebral
attack and was incapable to take a decision?
14
In the time of hearing the following two additional subvsqantial questions
of law have been framed
5. Whether the Ld. Judges of both the Courts that is the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court erred in law by not holding that the
impugned deed is vitiated due to non-compliance of formalities of Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ?
6. Whether the Ld. Judges of both the Court that is the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court erred in law by not holding that the impugned
deed is vitiated as regards to non-compliance of Section 58 of the
Registration Act, 1908? ”
8. The moot point for consideration is as to whether the deed dated 31.08.1998 is in
accordance with law or not. In this aspect from the deed it transpires that Haradhan
Ala put his LTI on the said deed. From the said deed it reveals that it has been
registered on 31.08.1998 at the private residence of Haradhan Ala, son of late Brojo
Mohan Ala, before the Additional District Sub-Registrar Baruipur, 24-Parganas-
South.
The issue which has given rise to the present lis is as to whether the said Haran
was mentally and physically fit or not at the time of execution of the said deed
which is in question. In this context on behalf of the prosecution one witness
namely Amiya Kumar Ghosal has deposed , the siad witness has deposed that he
knew Dr. S. K. Banerjee as the said Dr. Banerjee was his neighbour and he was the
assistant of Dr. Banerjee. This witness has deposed that he also knew Haran as he
was his neighbour. He has further deposed that the said Haran has expired being
15affected by cerebral thrombosis and Dr. S. K. Banerjee had treated Mr. Haran. This
witness has exhibited the certificate dated 31.08.1998 and has also deposed that
during the last three to four days Haran was unconscious. During cross-
examination this witness could not utter the full name of Dr. S.K. Banerjee and
has not produced any iota of evidence to prove that he had the training to assist
any doctor and he had assisted Dr. Banerjee. This witness has categorically stated
that he has no idea about treatment or diagnosis of any disease. This witness
could not produce any document in respect of Dr. S. K. Banerjee though claiming
himself to have assisted the said doctor as such the deposition of this witness is far
from having credibility and is a far fetched one to rely upon.
As regards to the said deed in question the said deed is a registered one thus it can
be presumed that the provisions of law which are required for registration have
been complied with.
On behalf of the respondents the said deed in question has been relied upon and
has been proved so now it is the appellants who are to adduce evidence to discard
the reliability and the presumption of sanctity of the said deed. The appellants had
tried their best to gather evidence on their behalf and they have adduced several
witnesses to depose on their behalf, among them is PW4 who has exhibited a
certificate said to be issued by the doctor who had treated the said Haran and had
tried to impress that the said Haran was affected by cerebral thrombosis and was
under the treatment of Dr. S. K. Banerjee for the last few days extending from
28.08.1998 till his death but this witness himself has demolished his credibility
by stating that he has no idea about diagnosis of disease and treatment.
16Sri Chandi Ram Moni another witness who has deposed as PW2 on behalf of the
appellants/ plaintiffs during his cross examination has deposed that he cannot say
whether Haran Ala had met with heart attack or not. This witness has also deposed
that Haran had not been taken to any hospital or nursing home. He has also
deposed that there is a nursing home near the house of Haran Ala. On the contrary,
this witness has deposed that the condition of Haran Ala was good.
So from the deposition of the witnesses it is hard to believe that Haran Ala had been
unconscious for three to four days that is from 28.08.1998 to 01.09.1998. Normal
human psychology is that if a person remains unconscious for a bit longer time then
obviously this person taken to a hospital and in this present case it is the allegation
on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs that the said Haran Ala had been unconscious
from 28.08.1998 till his death which is very hard to believe. Above all the appellants
plaintiffs have claimed themselves to be the relatives and heirs of Haran Ala and it
cannot be accepted that a relative will not attend another relative of his and will not
take him to a hospital in spite of being unconscious for pretty long time. So the fact
of unconsciousness cannot be accepted.
9. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the word ‘Sale’ . Sale is a
transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and
part promised. Thus, from the said definition itself it transpires that the words ‘price
paid or promised or part paid and part promised’ indicate that actual payment of
the whole of the price at the time of execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non
to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole price is not paid but the document is
executed and registered, the sale would be complete. So from the definition it is
17clear that the time of payment of price is not sine qua non to the completion of the
sale. If the intention is that the property should pass on registration, the sale is
complete as soon as the deed is registered irrespective of whether the price has
been paid. In this context this court relies upon Paragraph 36 of the judgment
published in (1999) 3 SCC 573 wherein it has been stated:
” 36. The definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a
transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and
interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred
by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest
or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further
says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a “price paid or promised or
part-paid and part-promised”. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of
the transaction of sale. The words “price paid or promised or part-paid and
part-promised” indicate that actual payment of the whole of the price at the
time of the execution of sale deed is not a sine qua non to the completion of the
sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and
thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs 100, the
sale would be complete.” …..
10. Section 58 of the Registration Act, 1908 lays down the particulars to be endorsed on
documents admitted to registration.
“58. Particulars to be endorsed on documents admitted to
registration.–(1) On every document admitted to registration, other than a
copy of a decree or order, or a copy sent to a registering officer under section
89, there shall be endorsed from time to time the following particulars,
namely:–
(a) the signature and addition of every person admitting the execution of the
document, and, if such execution has been admitted by the representative,
assign or agent of any person, the signature and addition of such
representative, assign or agent;
(b) the signature and addition of every person examined in reference to such
document under any of the provisions of this Act; and
18
(c) any payment of money or delivery of goods made in the presence of the
registering officer in reference to the execution of the document, and any
admission of receipt of consideration, in whole or in part, made in his presence
in reference to such execution.
(2) If any person admitting the execution of a document refuses to endorse the
same, the registering officer shall nevertheless register it, but shall at the same
time endorse a note of such refusal.”
So the aforementioned section signifies that it is the incumbent duty of the
Registrar to endorse on the deed the fact of transaction taken place in his
presence.
In the present lis there is discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses as to
whether any transaction took place in presence of the Registrar or not. Evidence
adduced on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs states that there has been no
payment of money by the purchaser to Haran Chandra Ala and accordingly there is
no endorsement by the Registrar as regards to transaction. In this regard it has
been discussed earlier that transaction of money at the time of execution of the
sale is not the essential element of sale on the contrary it is the intention of the
parties which is the main factor, which has also been opined by the Hon’ble Apex
Court. So it cannot be disregarded that the said deed has not been executed by
Haran Chandra Ala. Even non-payment of the consideration money at the time of
execution and registration of a deed does not prevent the passing of the title of the
property sold where sale has been completed by execution and registration of the
conveyance. Thus there being a registered deed of sale that too on commission
does not nullify the deed.
19
There being a registered deed, the onus of disproving the same heavily lies
upon the appellants and the appellants have strongly relied upon the deposition of
PW4. The veracity of the deposition of the said witness is very much clouded as to
the fact that he does not have any idea about diagnosis of a disease and treatment.
In addition to the above it is the contention of the appellants that the said Haran
Chandra Ala remained unconscious since being affected by cerebral thrombosis on
28.08.1998 till his death on 01.09.1998 this version is hard to believe as because if
a person remains unconscious for a pretty long time it is the nature of human
being to take the said affected person to a Hospital or Nursing home and to have
him treated. In this present case the said Haran had never been admitted to the
Hospital as there has not been any document revealing the same.
In addition to the above it is neither the case on behalf of the
appellants/plaintiffs nor has it been proved on their behalf that there was an
existence of fiduciary relationship between the respondent/ defendants and Haran
Chandra Ala.
As regards to the application under the Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure the respondents/ applicants have prayed for allowing the applicant to
take into consideration the sale deed bearing No. 949 for the year 1997 registered
in the office of the Additional District Sub-Registrar Baruipur, South-24-Parganas.
On perusal of the photocopy of the said deed it transpires that it is a deed of the
year 1997 wherein the vendor is Haradhan Ala @ Haran. As this issue was not
earlier raised by the appellants so the respondents did not have the opportunity
or did not feel necessary to produce this document earlier. As regards to identity
20
this issue has been raised in the present appeal by the appellants and had not been
raised earlier so the said document produced on behalf of the respondents is to be
taken into consideration as such the application praying for taking into
consideration the said deed is allowed. Thus the application being CAN 2 of 2026
is allowed.
11. As regards to the allegations on behalf of the appellants that the said Haran Chandra
Ala did not have the capacity to sale the scheduled mentioned property as
mentioned in the deed in contention, though it has not been pressed upon by either
of the parties, is also not at all acceptable. This Court is of the same view as that of
the First Appellate Court as regards to the title in respect of the plots of land
mentioned in the schedule.
12. The judgment relied upon on behalf of the appellants that is (1972) 1 SCC 9 lays
down that in election cases oral evidence has to be examined with great deal of care
because of partisan atmosphere continuing even after the election. In the said
judgment it has also been stated that it will be wrong on the part of Courts to just
brush aside the oral evidence even when the evidence is highly probable and the
same is corroborated by unimpeachable documentary evidence. In this present case
no unimpeachable documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of the
appellants as because the witness specifically the PW4 could not state the full name
of the doctor who had issued the certificate and veracity of his evidence is very
much clouded on having been stated by him that he knows nothing about diagnosis
and treatment and could not produce any document in support of his contention
that he used to assist the said doctor in spite of claiming himself to have assisted the
21
said doctor. So the decision referred on behalf of the appellants is of no aid to the
appellants.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2025 Scc Online SC 1961 also
does not come in aid to the appellants as because in the said case the vendor herself
averred that she never obtained any sale consideration from the defendant but in
the present case the factual aspect is not the same herein the vendor has expired
and there has not been any allegation on behalf of the vendor.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2022) 18 SCC 489 also does
not come in aid to the appellants as because there was sham transaction in respect
of the power of attorney on the strength of which the said deed was executed and in
the present case in hand the vendor has expired so the best person who could have
stated about the payment of consideration money is not alive herein and in the
judgment cited it has been stated that a sale of an immovable property has to be for
a price, the price may be payable in future and it may be partly paid and the
remaining part can be made payable in future. In the present case it is only the
vendor who could have alleged as regards to the non-payment of the consideration
amount.
The judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to on behalf of the
appellants reported in (2022) 20 SCC 199 and (2001) 3 SCC 179 are related to
framing of substantial questions of law so these two authorities do not affect the
result of the lis and it is worth mentioning that two additional substantial questions
of law have been framed at the time of hearing as per the prayer of the appellants
themselves.
22
13. From the aforementioned discussion it is apparent that the appellants have not been
able to prove the allegations levelled by them. As such this Court is of the opinion
that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court does not require
interference. So the present appeal being No. SAT 458 of 2017 is dismissed.
14. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and
order placed on the official website of the Court.
15. Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the
parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
