BHARATIBALA BISOYI vs SHANTILATA SWAIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK



AFR
R.S.A. No.640 of 2025
(CNR No. ODHC010916112025)

Bharatibala Bisoyi and others …. Appellants

Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate

-Versus -
Shantilata Swain …. Respondent

Mr. M. Kanungo, Senior Advocate
Mr. Dillip Kumar Pradhan, Advocate



CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF HEARING:29.07.2026



DATE OF JUDGMENT:02.11.2026



1 . Instant appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) is
preferred by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment
and decree in RFA No.57 of 2024 of the learned District
Judge, Cuttack in confirming the decision of the learned
nd
Senior Civil Judge, 2 Court, Cuttack in C.S. No.273 of
2020-I on the grounds stated.
2 . The appellants are the defendants in the suit instituted by
the respondent seeking declaration of sale deeds executed
vis-à-vis Schedule ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ properties as void,
inoperative and not binding upon her and to cancel the same
and so also the Mutation RoRs in respect thereof and further
to permanently injunct defendant Nos.2 & 3 to enter upon
the properties with such other consequential reliefs sought
for. In the said suit, the appellants filed WS denying the
Page 1 of 22

averments in the plaint. In fact, the respondent pleaded that
the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint
originally belonged to her father and in order to meet the
urgent necessities, the latter had taken money from her
husband and in lieu of that, sold the same vide RSD
th
No.3413 dated 28 May, 1979 and delivered the physical
possession of the same to them. It is further pleaded that in
the year 2001, the respondent agreed to dispose of the
Schedule ‘A’ property to defendant No.3 in respect of
Ac.0.28 dec. of land out of 7 Gunth being located adjoining
a L.I. Point and accordingly, the sale deed was executed for
a consideration money of Rs.10,000/- and in course of the
transaction, she was paid Rs.8,500/- out of the consideration
amount and the balance was deducted towards purchase of
stamp papers, registration charges and other miscellaneous
expenses towards registration of the deed. In February,
2020, the respondent realized that fraud had been
perpetuated on her by defendant No.3 as she was under the
impression that the deed was executed in respect of
Schedule ‘A’ property adjoining to the L.I. point and not the
other properties situate nearby at Dimiripandabagicha that
are under their physical possession. According to the
pleading of the respondent, the certified copy of the sale
deed was obtained and the mischief was detected and on
th
comparison of the same with the sale deed dated 30 July,
2001, it was made to reveal that there was manipulation
after the alleged transaction. It is pleaded that subsequent to
the sale deed executed, the other two transactions have
taken place which are also liable to be declared as null and
Page 2 of 22

void with immediate cancellation of the same and also the
Mutation RoRs thereof.
2.1 . The allegations of fraud and the averments in the
complaint were stoutly denied by the appellants. According
to the WS, the respondent was in need of money and hence,
consulted her husband and declared her intention to sell the
suit schedule land with an area of Ac.0.28 dec. and
th
accordingly, executed the sale deed dated 30 July, 2001
and at that time, the Consolidation operation was in
progress. Upon execution of the sale deed, defendant No.1
became the rightful owner in respect of the Schedule ‘B’
property, whereafter, she filed Objection Case No.6549 of
2002 before the Consolidation Authority under Section 9(3)
of the OCH & PFL, Act for correction of the record and
therein, the respondent was noticed and only upon a field
enquiry held and verification of the documents, the RoR
was prepared in her favour finally published in 2014 and
since, was in financial difficulty for the payment of loan,
sold a portion of the property purchased by her to defendant
st
Nos.2 & 3 and accordingly, the sale deeds dated 1 January,
2016 were executed in respect of Ac.0.155 dec. of land in
favour of defendant No.2 and Ac.0.045 dec. of land with
defendant No.3 and both mutated their names in respect of
the purchased lands and are in peaceful possession over the
same and in the meantime, they have converted the same
from agricultural to non-agricultural and developed by
spending huge amount and even constructed a house over
the land. It has been pleaded that defendant No.1 had no L.I.
Page 3 of 22

Point at any point of time but the respondent, even after
having sold the schedule property, questioned the
transactions by alleging fraud and therefore, the suit is
devoid of merit and hence, liable to be dismissed with cost.
2.2 . In the suit, the issues were framed and upon receiving
evidence from both sides, answered the same and ultimately
reached at the conclusion that the sale deed vide RSD dated
th
30 July, 2001 executed in favour of defendant No.1 is to be
st
declared void and also the other two sale deeds dated 1
January, 2016 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 are not
binding to the respondent and accordingly cancelled the
same and directed the defendants to vacate the possession of
the suit schedule property and injuncted them permanently
from entering upon the same and interfered with her
peaceful possession thereupon. Being aggrieved, the
appellants filed the RFA but it was dismissed on contest
without any order as to costs. Since the appellants could not
succeed, preferred this appeal challenging the cancellation
of the sale deeds with the confirmation of the decree dated
th
29 January, 2024 in C.S. No.273 of 2020-I on the
following grounds: (i) the suit is barred by Article 59 of the
Limitation Act since the respondent received notice in
Objection Case No.6549 of 2002 vide Ext.J and was also
st
aware of the order therein dated 31 March, 2005 and about
the consolidation proceeding; (ii) the learned courts below
committed error in holding that the parties really intended to
convey the property vide Ext.4 and possession of the same
had been delivered and therefore, omission of plots therein
Page 4 of 22

is of no consequence; and (iii) when there is conflict
between plot and khata numbers in juxtaposition to the
boundary description in the sale deed in question, the
learned courts below were to hold that the boundaries to
prevail.
2.3 . Considering the grounds pleaded on record, this Court
formulated the following substantial questions of law by
nd
order dated 2 February, 2026 which are as to the
following:
(i) Whether the suit vide C.S. No.273 of 2020-
I filed by the plaintiff (respondent) was barred
by limitation, as there was a prayer for
declaration of the sale deed vide Ext.K void on
the ground of fraud 19 years after its
execution?
(ii) When, there are discrepancies between the
contents of the original sale deed vide Ext.K
and the certified copy of the volume thereof
vide Ext.2 obtained from the Sub-Registrar’s
Office, which will be acceptable under law?
(iii) If it is established that the document vide
Ext.K has been executed by practicing fraud,
whether said Ext.K has any legal value?
(iv) When the contents of the sale deed vide
Ext.K said to have been executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 are clear
and unambiguous, then whether evidence
under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act,
Page 5 of 22

1872 is permissible/admissible contrary to the
same?
3 . Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Pradhan,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4 . Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the alleged transactions are in respect of the schedule
property and have taken place without any such fraud
perpetuated from the side of the appellants and in so far as
the plea of the respondent about having detected such fraud
is concerned, the same is utterly false for the fact that she
received notice in Objection Case No.6549 of 2002 vide
Ext.J. The further submission is that in view of the conflict
with regard to the description of the schedule property, both
the learned courts below grossly erred in not considering the
fact that the boundary descriptions are to prevail. The
contention is that the transaction in question was well within
the knowledge of the respondent and it was in respect of the
suit schedule property morefully described in the plaint and
challenged it long after 20 years with a false and frivolous
suit instituted is liable to be dismissed but instead the
learned courts below decreed the same and declared the sale
deed and the subsequent deeds as void which is not legally
tenable and hence, the impugned judgment in RFA No.57 of
2024 deserves to be set aside.
5 . On the other hand, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior
Advocate and Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel would submit
Page 6 of 22

that the learned courts below did not commit any serious
wrong and rightly declared the sale deeds as void when the
plea of fraud was proved and established. The further
submission is that the respondent is an illiterate lady and she
was subjected to fraud by the appellants and hence,
therefore, the onus was on the appellants to prove the
genuineness of the deed i.e. Ext.K in view of the settled
position of law. The further submission is that there has
been correction to the property description after the
execution of the sale deed, whereafter, the Mutation RoR
was managed by the appellants with consequential sale
deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 and hence,
considering the same, the learned courts below with
unanimous decision declared the same as invalid. It is the
submission that the respondent being a lady and having
alleged fraud to have been perpetuated, it was for the
appellants to come clean as the burden of proof was upon
them and the same having not been discharged, the learned
courts below did not commit any error in declaring the sale
deeds void, inoperative and not binding to the respondent
and therefore, the decree in C.S. No.273 of 2020-I is
perfectively justified and rightly confirmed in appeal by the
learned court below.
6 . Admittedly, the respondent and her son examined as
P.Ws.1 &2 respectively had been to the Sub-Registrar
th
Office for execution of sale deed i.e. Ext.2 on 20 July,
2001, the fact, which is not in denial. The claim is that
subsequent to the sale deed executed, Objection Case
Page 7 of 22

No.6549 of 2002 was filed before the Consolidation
Authority which is alleged to be within the knowledge of
the respondent. It is also admitted that the respondent
received notice in Objection Case No.6549 of 2002 revealed
from Ext.J and hence, according to the appellants, the suit is
not maintainable being barred by limitation and though
P.W.2 had been served with a notice therein, the plea is that
the respondent was under the impression that the sale deed
was in respect of Ac.0.28 dec. only out of the schedule
property not the other properties included by manipulation
after the alleged transaction. Even though it was proved
about the knowledge of the respondent regarding Objection
Case No.6549 of 2002 filed for correction of the RoR but
the fraud was detected in the year 2020, this Court is of the
view that only upon detection of the fraud, the suit was
instituted by the respondent examined as P.W.1 and
therefore, to claim that she had the knowledge about the
mutation subsequent to the sale deed with objection filed
before the Consolidation Authority even with reference to
Ext.K, such as, the order-sheets therein is of no avail.
6.1 . It has been concluded by the learned courts below that
the suit is not barred by limitation under Article 59 of the
Limitation Act. In this regard, a decision of the Apex Court
in Ningawwa Vrs. Byrappa & 3 others (1968) 2 SCR 797
is cited. The Apex Court in the decision (supra) held that in
a suit to set aside a registered document on the ground of
undue influence and fraud, the period of limitation is to
commence when such fraud is detected. In the aforesaid
Page 8 of 22

case, the appellant had executed a gift deed and at that time,
she was young and illiterate and believed that the deed
related only to the plots in one village which were originally
the property of her husband, whereas the properties in
another village were inherited from her father and they were
valuable and fertile and there was no reason whatever to gift
the same to her husband, who accepted the second wife but
she continued to live with him amicably and thereafter, the
conduct of the relatives of the second wife made her
suspicious and on enquiry, she found that the plots in village
inherited by her was also included in the gift deed,
whereafter, she instituted the suit to set aside the same on
the ground of fraud and under such circumstances, the Apex
Court held and observed that such a suit to cancel the gift
deed would be governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act
and since the period of limitation of 3 years prescribed
therein shall have to commence when the fraud became
known to the party wronged and hence, concluded that the
suit was in time after the appellant having acquired
knowledge about the same.
6.2 . In a catena of decisions, it has been held by the Apex
Court that knowledge about fraud is the cause of action to
institute a suit and then only limitation to commence and if
within three years from the date of such knowledge, the
same is not instituted but upon expiry of such period, it
would be barred under law. In the case at hand, such
knowledge about fraud committed by defendant No.3 was
detected by the respondent in the month of February, 2020
Page 9 of 22

and thereafter, instituted the suit. Even by considering the
fact that the order-sheets in Objection Case No.6549 of
2002 revealed issuance of notice and service of the same on
the respondent, it was not sufficient to hold that she did
have the knowledge about the mutation in respect of the
schedule property which were included in the sale deed i.e.
Ext.K. So, the decision in P. Kumarakurubaran Vrs. P.
Narayanan & others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 975 relied on
by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants with
reference to Article 59 of the Limitation Act that the suit is
barred is liable to rejection.
7 . In so far as manipulation of RSD is concerned, according
to Mr. Das, learned counsel the respondent had the
knowledge about the same with regard to the alteration in
the schedule of the property therein. From the record, it is
made to reveal that the respondent though admitted her
th
signature on the sale deed dated 30 July, 2001 but never
acknowledged about any such alteration in the schedule
property described therein and ever having consented to the
same. This Court finds from the record that the respondent
had only the intention to sell a portion of the schedule
property purchased by her and had approached defendant
No.3 to sell the same situate near the L.I. Point. On perusal
of evidence of P.W.1, it is revealed that she denied the fact
that Plot No.368 belongs to them mentioned in the sale deed
i.e. Ext.2 and hence, it was followed by correction. In fact,
the land according to the appellants was wrongly described
as Plot No.368 which was corrected by Plot No.868 and
Page 10 of 22

hence, the correction was carried out on the very day of
execution and registration of the deed and it was within the
knowledge of the respondent. But from the testimony of
P.W.1, she outrightly denied about any such knowledge
about the correction with regard to the alleged plot. Even
though there has been a delay of 19 years since execution of
the sale deed and even if such a correction was allegedly
carried out with inclusion of Plot No.868 wrongly
mentioned as Plot No.368 in Ext.2., but the boundary of the
said plot was not corrected. According to the learned courts
below in case the plot description is wrong, the boundaries
described in the sale deed is to prevail. Considering the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by both the sides, it is
admitted that a plot of the schedule property was altered and
according to the appellants, it was done within the
knowledge and consent of the respondent and P.W.2 which
has been denied by them. It is also made to appear that with
the change of plot, the boundary description was not altered.
In fact, on examination of the evidence with reference to
Ext.G, it is made to reveal that the boundary tenants of Plot
No.868 are different than the ones named in Ext.K. On
scrutiny of the evidence, this Court is of the humble view
that the respondent succeeded in proving the plea of fraud,
as she had not intended to dispose of the schedule property
but only to the extent measuring an area of Ac.0.28 dec. The
correction with the rewriting is evident from Ext.K which
allegedly carried out without the knowledge of the
respondent. Having regard to the fact that the appellants
proved Exts.H & J to testify that plot was wrongly typed
Page 11 of 22

and corrected as plot No.868 and it is within the knowledge
of the respondent and also P.W.2, who is her son having
been carried out in the Office of the Sub-Registrar. But
under the Registration Act, it shall have to be accomplished
in the deed itself and in the manner contemplated under law
and that too with the consent of both the sides and not
unilaterally as made to reveal from Ext.K. This Court finds
that the appellants corrected/interpolated the plot details in
Ext.K after its registration and thereafter, presented before
the Consolidation Authority and managed to obtain the RoR
i.e. Ext.F, a correction/interpolation, which was detected
later.
7.1 . Admittedly, Ext.F is the Consolidation RoR prepared
and published and according to respondent, any such sale
with fragmentation is prohibited under Section 34 of the
OCH & PFL Act and therefore, the subsequent sale deeds in
favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 are without the sanction of
law and hence, not only the sale deeds under Exts. B & D,
but also the RoRs i.e. Exts. A & C are liable to be declared
void. But, having regard to the fact that the original sale
deed has been executed by the respondent and the same is
subject of challenge on the ground that fraud was played
upon by defendant No.3 at the time of its execution
including such other properties therein, alienation of which
is never intended, this Court is of the view that learned
courts below did not fundamentally err in arriving at a
decision that the deeds are liable to be declared void as the
appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof to
Page 12 of 22

establish that such sale of the schedule properties
additionally with necessary correction/interpolation therein
was within the knowledge of the respondent.
8 . In case of a transaction by a Paradahnashin or illiterate
lady, the person setting up the validity of the sale deed is to
prove that she understood the nature and effect of the
transaction. In Narayan Mishra & two others Vrs.
Champa Dibya (dead) and after her Bhabani Dei and
two others 1985 (II) OLR 417 , it has been held that the
person transacting with a Paradahnashin illiterate lady shall
have the burden to discharge to show that the instrument
alleged to have been executed was understood and
explained so as to satisfy that she had understood the nature
and effect of her act in the alienation of the property. Even
though P.Ws.1 & 2 had been to the office of the Sub-
Registrar for execution of the sale deed since it is under the
impression that a portion of the schedule ‘A’ property would
be sold and thereafter, with the correction/interpolation,
necessary change was brought in with respect to plot
No.868 and according to her, it was not within her
knowledge, in such a situation, it is for the appellants to
discharge the onus denying the fraud. The appellants were
to establish that P.W.1 was having full knowledge about the
transaction vis-à-vis the schedule property and it was not
confined to Ac.0.28 decimals of land situate adjoining to the
L.I. Point.
9 . Furthermore, this Court finds that defendant No.1 never
entered into the witness box and therefore, according to Mr.
Page 13 of 22

Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Pradhan,
learned counsel, adverse inference shall have to be drawn in
view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act and in that
connection, cited a decision of the Apex Court in
Vidhyadhar Vrs. Mankikrao and another AIR 1999 SC
1441 . Having regard to the totality of the evidence received
in the suit and since a concurrent finding has been rendered
by the learned courts below with regard to the
correction/interpolation carried out in the sale deed with
regard to the alleged plot and it was not within the
knowledge of the respondent though received notice in
Objection Case No. 6549 of 2002 and that she had been to
the Sub-Registrar Office along with P.W.2, the burden of
proof to establish that any such correction in the sale deed
i.e. Ext.K was within her knowledge, this Court is inclined
to hold that the learned courts below have not fundamentally
erred to hold that the sale deed executed in favour of
defendant No.1 and other defendants subsequent thereto are
liable to be declared invalid.
10 . Considering the plea of the respondent and defence by
appellant No.1 in particular, it has also to be examined
whether all the sale deeds are to be declared void. Under the
Indian law, the subsequent transactions may be declared
invalid with the original sale deed subjected to a material
alteration, such as, unauthorized overwriting without the
consent and knowledge of the vendor. Even when the intent
to sell is not entirely ruled out, the unauthorized changes
made by way of alteration of a legal document triggers
Page 14 of 22

specific statutory protection. Under the law of contract and
conveyancing, any alteration whether by erasure,
overwriting, or interpolation made in a material part of a
deed after its execution without the consent of the vendor
renders the transaction invalid from the very inception. A
change is material if it varies the legal effect, rights or
liabilities of the parties originally expressed in the deed. As
recognized under law, the effect of making the material
alteration without the consent or knowledge of the vendor is
equivalent to cancelling the deed entirely. A Court is to
apply the doctrine of material alteration under such
circumstances by considering the legal effect of a
transaction questioned on such ground.
11 . The vendee cannot pass a better title to the subsequent
purchasers than he lawfully possessed in view of the
maxim- nemo dat quod non habet . If the original deed found
to be void due to fraudulent overwriting, the vendee never
legally acquired the mutated rights and consequently, all
subsequent sale deeds executed over a period of time by that
vendee relying on the tampered original title deed become
legally unsustainable and may be declared null and void. In
such a situation, it has been consistently held by the Apex
Court that any unilateral changes made to a sale deed after
its execution without the explicit knowledge and consent of
the affected parties are completely invalid and must be
ignored. A party cannot take the chance of committing a
fraud or altering a deed to their disadvantage without risking
the complete invalidation of the document once the
Page 15 of 22

tampering is exposed. To nullify such documents, the
aggrieved vendor or his legal heirs must have to take
recourse to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The
effect of subsequent sale deed is entirely to be examined
independent of the legality of the original transaction
effected by the vendee alleged by way of manipulation or
fraud. However, the law is that even if the core intent to sell
the properties is not entirely ruled out, the subsequent
transactions executed over a period of time are highly
vulnerable and hence, susceptible to challenge. As earlier
discussed, the principle of maxim (supra) is to remind that a
person cannot transfer a better title than he is possessed of
and if the parent deed becomes void due to fraudulent or
unauthorized material alteration, the vendee’s legal title on
that specific document becomes defective or non-existent.
The law is well settled that if the overwriting changes the
very identity or scope of the property unlawfully, the
transfer of that excess/altered right is a nullity.
Consequently, any subsequent sale deed executed by the
vendee to a third party can be legally declared void.
12 . In a given case of multi-layered transaction, a Court is
to evaluate the instrument itself; prejudice caused to the
vendor and the remedy. In case, any such overwriting is
alleged, in view of the Apex Court’s decision and
observations made in Syed Basheer Ahmed and others
Vrs. State of Telangana in Writ Petition No.15108 of 2020
th
date 27 April, 2026, a Court can inspect documents to
detect clear interpolations without strictly requiring forensic
Page 16 of 22

examination. In the case at hand, overwriting is admitted by
the parties in respect of one of the plots and the defence to
justify the same is that such alteration was made with the
knowledge and consent of respondent and P.W.2. However,
in the manner overwritings are taken care of by the
Registering Authority has not been carried out, hence, the
learned courts below reached at a conclusion that the
alteration is without the consent of the vendor and reference
has been made to Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908.
What is the nature of interpolation and whether it is to
invalidate the entirety of the transaction and even the
subsequent alienation is a matter to be scrutinized. If the
unauthorized overwriting offers rights to the prejudice of the
vendor like in snatching away more land than intended to be
sold, onus is to lie heavily in favour of protecting his
original rights and in such a situation, the instrument and
chain of sale deeds executed subsequently may be declared
as null and void.
12.1 . A distinction between void and voidable documents
shall have to be borne in mind. When a vendor signed a
document for the property to be one which he intended but
found to be entirely different, such as, inclusion of
additional plots etc., the legal doctrine of non est factum
would apply. Unilateral correction/interpolation is normally
considered fatal to a transaction. The corrections carried out
in an instrument not in accordance with law strongly
supports the vendor’s claim. The Apex Court in Kanwar
Raj Singh (D) through LRs Vrs. Gejo (D) through LRs
Page 17 of 22

and others in Civil Appeal No.9098 of 2013 has ruled that
one-sided alterations or interpolations in a sale deed without
the knowledge or consent of the executing party are invalid.
A Registered deed cannot be altered secretly once an
execution is complete. Illegal corrections serve as strong
evidence of fraud, tampering and a lack of consensus ad
idem .
13 . In the case of the appellants, the alleged transaction is of
the year 2001 and the subsequent sale deeds were executed
thereafter and as it is pleaded on record that the respondent
did acquire knowledge about the manipulation/fraud in the
year 2020. A challenge to the delay in the institution of the
suit was received by the learned courts below from the side
of the appellants but as earlier stated, the same stood
rejected for the fact that the fraud was discovered long after
execution and the limitation begins from the date of the
fraud or mistake when first detected by the vendor or the
aggrieved party and not from the date of registration. This
Court reiterates that, the learned courts below rightly held
that the limitation is to run from the date when
manipulation/fraud was discovered by the respondent, who
is though not a pardanashin lady and possessed of some
education and was attended by her son at the time of alleged
transaction. The appellants plead that respondent is not
illiterate and her son examined as P.W.2 is well qualified
but considering the nature of allegations and evidence on
record, it is made to reveal that there has been discrepancy
in the original sale deed and Ext.2 with regard to Plot
Page 18 of 22

No.868. It is pleaded that the said plot was wrongly
mentioned in the sale deed as Plot No.368 and correction
was carried out with the knowledge of P.W.2. But as
discussed before, such correction was carried out by way of
an overwriting which did not receive the initial of the
respondent and in terms of Section 20 of the Registration
Relief Act, 1908. From the evidence received, it is also
made to reveal that the respondent as P.W.1 pleaded and
deposed that additional plots were included in the sale deed,
sale of which was never intended. In fact, the testimony of
P.W.1 receives corroboration from one of the subsequent
purchasers examined as D.W.3. This Court further finds that
there is no clear evidence with regard to the plots said to
have been sold under Ext.K to which consideration money
was paid to P.W.1. Apart from the alteration made to the
plot allegedly without the consent and knowledge of P.W.1,
there has been no decision by the learned courts below as to
which of the plots have been alienated by respondent while
concluding that two or three other plots were secretly shown
to have been disposed of by way of sale. The claim of the
respondent is that she intended to part with some portion of
the landed property purchased under Ext.1 and it was in
respect of the land situate near the LI point, which is also
admitted by one of the defendants. The record reveals that
appellant No.1 did not examine herself instead it was her
husband and as such, she is claimed to be a lame-lender.
Nevertheless, the learned courts below on being satisfied
that Plot No.868 was not sold and instead Plot No.368
shown to have been disposed of under Ext.2 believed the
Page 19 of 22

version of P.W.1 and held that not only the original
transaction but also the subsequent deeds are to be declared
void. The sale deeds are registered documents and hence,
law initially presumes it to be genuine and the burden of
proof is heavily on the vendor to establish fraud or lack of
intention to serve specific fraud and the illegality of the
subsequent corrections through cogent evidence. In the case
of the respondent, the intention is revealed from the
evidence received even admitted by one of the subsequent
purchasers only to dispose of the land near the LI Point and
there has also been clear overwriting or alteration of a
particular plot in the sale deed which was found absent in
Ext.2. If there was an innocent error or wrong in respect of a
plot in the sale deed with necessary correction carried out, it
should receive the concurrence of the vendor or the
aggrieved party and shall have to be accomplished
according to law, But herein, it is not established that such
correction to a plot in the sale deed was with the consent
P.W.1, who outrightly denied the same and also P.W.2.
14 . Carrying out correction or modification in a registered
sale deed without following due legal process is illegal. An
unauthorized alteration can render the entire document
unenforceable. But when the transaction is not entirely ruled
out meaning thereby that there was genuine intention to sell
some plots but not the disputed ones, in the considered view
of the Court, principle of severability may be invoked,
whereby, while exercising powers under Section 31 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, a part of the sale deed may be
Page 20 of 22

cancelled while leaving the undisputed portion of the sale
intact and at times, subsequent vendors, who are buyers
without knowing of the mischief of the original vendor face
significant risk, as a person cannot transfer a better title than
possessed of, acquired the properties in good faith, paid the
full market price and have no knowledge or notice of the
fraud or the original vendors’ claim and they can plead
protection as bonefide purchasers and on being successful, a
Court while protecting such rights may direct the original
vendor to seek financial damages from the fraudulent first
buyer instead of recovery of the land illegally alienated. If
the title is entirely void and the subsequent vendees lose the
property either entirely or partially, a sale deed may be
declared void. Where it is not in denial that there was no any
transaction or the alienation is not ruled out at all, the Courts
may declare partial validity when the transaction is not
entirely ruled out. In such a case, the Courts do not have to
throw out the whole deed. The said aspect has not been
looked into by the learned courts below while unanimously
reaching at a conclusion that the suit is maintainable and
that correction in respect of Plot No.868 in the original sale
deed was unilateral perhaps may be for the reason that the
subsequent buyers are none other than the brothers of
defendant No.1 and one of them was directly dealing with
the respondent and was primarily instrumental in the
execution of the sale deed i.e.Ext.2, hence, are no outsiders.
This Court is of the same view that suit is in time since the
respondent claimed knowledge about the manipulation/fraud
in 2020 and instituted it within three years in terms of
Page 21 of 22

Article 59 of the Limitation Act and that the
correction/manipulation was clear and evident to the naked
eye and such overwriting was carried out not in accordance
with law. Furthermore, it not discernible from the record
that any independent defence was taken by defendant Nos.2
in particular, to claim innocence and ignorance about the
alleged wrong/mischief in the transaction of 2001 and
hence, there is no decision in that regard and therefore, this
Court is inclined to hold that partial validity or otherwise
when the alleged transaction is not entirely ruled out could
not be considered and therefore, it cannot be concluded
either that such an aspect of the matter had escaped attention
of the learned courts below. Having said that, the inevitable
conclusion would be that there lies no ground or any
justification for this Court to intervene and take a different
view than the one expressed by the leaned courts below.
15 . As a consequence, for the reasons discussed
hereinabove, the substantial questions of law formulated by
this Court stand answered against the appellants.
16 . In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.


(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok/Tudu

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 03-Nov-2026 19:00:07
Page 22 of 22