MD. MOSHAHAQ ALI MIA Vs. RABEYA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by, special, leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court Division, in Second Appeal No. 40 of 1974.

(2.) Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit under section 77 of the Registration Act. Plaintiffs case was that the defendant No.1 entered into a contract with the plaintiff to sell the disputed land and in pursuance of that contract defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 24.4.67 on receipt of a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. Thereafter, defendant No.1, however, refused to adroit the execution of the deed when the Sub-Registrar visited her commission. An appeal was preferred Before the Registrar but the same was dismissed. Hence the plaintiffs brought the suit under section 77 of the Registration Act.

(3.) An appeal was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellate court below considered the evidence and found that the defendants did not deny the execution of the deed in their written statement but their case was that the L.T.Is of defendant No.1 were obtained on blank stamp papers for causing mutation of the Heba land. It may be mentioned that the defendant No.1, Gulshan Bibi gifted away the suit land to her sons by a deed of heba and also gifted away the other lands by another deed of heba to her daughter both dated 30.6.67, whereas the sale-deed in question was executed by her on 24.4.67 Hence the defence tried to make out a case that L.T. Is of defendant No. 1 had been taken on blank stamp papers on the plea of mutating the heba land and the sale-deed was created fraudulently. The appellate court below considered the scope of section 77 of the Act and concluded that the investigation in such suit should be confined to the question whether or not defendant No.1 had executed the sale-deed as alleged by the plaintiff. (Evidence disclosed that the defendant No.1 had executed the document. In this view of the matter the appellate, court below could not place any reliance on the defence and accordingly directed the registration of the deed failing which the deed could be registered through court.) The appeal was, therefore, allowed.