Unchallenged registered sale deed recitals prevail over unsubstantiated allegations of misrepresentation and criminal convictions subsequently set aside.

The Plaintiff/Appellant claimed absolute ownership of 1.50 acres in S.No.112/3, having purchased the southern 75 cents via sale deed (Ex.A9) and claiming the northern 75 cents via oral gift referenced in the same deed from Defendants 1-3.

The Plaintiff’s mother later released her share to him (Ex.A10).

The Defendant 5, a government servant, claimed the northern portion through a subsequent assignment/sale (Ex.B6) from the fourth defendant (power agent), asserting he was a cultivating tenant.

The Trial and First Appellate Courts dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit, primarily because the Will (Ex.A1) of the Plaintiff's predecessor appeared to have an interpolated survey number and the Plaintiff had been convicted in a related criminal case for forgery.

During the Second Appeal, the Plaintiff provided evidence of his acquittal by the High Court and Supreme Court.

1. Whether the Courts erred in not granting a decree for the southern half of the property as per the unchallenged sale deed (Ex.A9).

2. Whether the appellate court’s finding that the sale deed (Ex.A9) was invalid is tenable when it was never challenged or set aside.

3. Whether the lower courts' reliance on a criminal conviction was legally infirm following the Plaintiff's acquittal.

4. Whether the finding regarding the failure to prove the Will was infirm given the surrounding evidence of title.

5. Whether Defendant 5 could be declared a cultivating tenant despite being a Government Servant.

The Court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, clarifying that the validity of a sale of immovable property depends on a registered instrument and not necessarily on the immediate delivery of possession.

It invoked Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the presumption of the correctness of official acts and the drawing of adverse inferences against a party (Defendant 4) who fails to testify despite filing a written statement.

The Court relied on Iswar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera regarding adverse inference.

The Court relied on Yogendra Prasad Singh v. Ram Bachan Devi regarding the significance of recitals in a registered sale deed.

The High Court found that the lower courts erroneously ignored the registered sale deed (Ex.A9), which remained unchallenged by the original owners (Defendants 1-3) or their agent (Defendant 4).

The Court noted that Defendant 4 failed to enter the witness box to prove his allegations of "misrepresentation," warranting an adverse inference.

Regarding the "oral gift" of the northern half, the Court found it was explicitly mentioned in the recitals of the Plaintiff’s 2002 sale deed and supported by long-term possession, revenue mutation (Ex.A14), and a mortgage executed by the Plaintiff (Ex.A11).

The Court determined that the interpolation in the Will was immaterial because the Plaintiff’s title was independently proved through the sale deed and subsequent conduct.

Crucially, the Court held that the lower courts’ primary justification for dismissal—the criminal conviction—was erased by the Plaintiff’s subsequent acquittal by the High Court and Supreme Court (Ex.A30, Ex.A31).

The Court held that the Plaintiff established valid title and possession. The Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, allowing the Second Appeal and granting the decree for declaration and permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Court declined to rule on the cultivating tenancy status of the Fifth Defendant (Issue 5), finding it unnecessary as the Plaintiff’s ownership title superseded such claims.