Orissa HC Upholds Cancellation Of Land Sale Deeds After Finding Overwriting Added Plots Beyond What The Woman Agreed To Sell

The respondent challenged a 2001 registered sale deed, alleging that she intended to sell only Ac.0.28 dec. of land near an L.I. Point, but that additional plots were included through an unauthorised alteration after execution.

She sought cancellation of that deed and two subsequent sale deeds executed in 2016, along with the related mutation records.

The appellants denied fraud and contended, among other things, that the respondent knew of the transaction through consolidation proceedings initiated in 2002 and that the suit was time-barred.

The trial court decreed the suit, declaring the deeds invalid and directing the defendants to vacate; the first appellate court affirmed. The appellants brought this second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a three-year period to seek cancellation or setting aside of an instrument, running from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to that relief first become known; the Court relied on Ningawwa v. Byrappa for the proposition that limitation in a fraud-based challenge runs from discovery of the fraud.

The Court applied the principle that a person dealing with a pardanashin or illiterate woman must establish that she understood the nature and effect of the transaction, relying on Narayan Mishra v. Champa Dibya.

It also invoked Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao concerning adverse inference where a party does not enter the witness box.

Section 20 of the Registration Act, 1908 was discussed in relation to alterations in a document presented for registration; the Court stated that an alteration required the parties’ consent and compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a person may seek cancellation of an instrument; the judgment also discussed material alteration, non est factum, and the principle nemo dat quod non habet in considering the effect of an altered title on subsequent transfers.

Section 34 of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act was raised in relation to fragmentation, but the decision principally rested on the alleged fraud and alteration.

The Court held that service of notice in the 2002 consolidation objection case did not, by itself, establish that the respondent knew that additional plots had been inserted into the sale deed; it accepted her evidence that she discovered the alleged fraud in February 2020 and found the suit brought within three years thereafter.

The record showed an alteration from Plot No. 368 to Plot No. 868, while the boundary description was not correspondingly changed; the respondent denied consenting to the alteration, and the Court found the appellants had not established her knowledge or consent.

It further considered the respondent’s limited intended sale, supporting evidence from a subsequent purchaser, and the failure of defendant No. 1 to testify.

Although the Court discussed severability and the possibility of protecting an innocent subsequent purchaser, it found no adequate independent defence of innocence by the subsequent purchasers and no basis on the record to disturb the concurrent findings declaring the deeds invalid.

The concurrent decree declaring the 2001 sale deed and the two subsequent sale deeds invalid, cancelling them, directing the defendants to vacate, and permanently restraining them from entering the property was left undisturbed.