A registered sale deed cannot be brushed aside merely because an attesting witness provides slightly different personal details decades after the document was executed, the Supreme Court has held, reaffirming the strong legal presumption attached to registered property transactions.
A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria overturned findings of consolidation authorities and the High Court that had refused to acknowledge the appellants’ ownership claim over agricultural land. The lower forums had expressed doubts about the sale deed after noticing a discrepancy in the description of one attesting witness.
The witness was identified in the certified copy of the 1957 sale deed as “Baru, resident of Nihandpur Suthari.” However, while testifying nearly forty years later, he introduced himself as “Baru, son of Nathu, resident of Nasirpur Kalan.” The authorities treated the variation as a factor casting suspicion on the transaction.
The Supreme Court found that approach legally unsustainable.
Writing for the Bench, Justice Mishra observed that attestation is not a statutory requirement for the validity of a sale deed. Unlike wills or gift deeds, whose legal effectiveness depends on proper attestation, a sale deed derives its force from execution and registration. Therefore, minor inconsistencies concerning an attesting witness cannot, by themselves, undermine a registered instrument that otherwise enjoys a presumption of authenticity.
The Court emphasized that a registered sale deed carries a substantial presumption of validity and genuineness. When the document itself is not alleged to be forged or fabricated, insignificant variations in witness particulars recorded decades later cannot be elevated into grounds for rejecting the transaction.
Referring to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the witness had deposed many years after the execution of the deed, making such discrepancies neither unusual nor sufficient to discredit the document. The certified copy of the registered deed continued to enjoy the statutory presumption attached to registered records.
The dispute revolved around agricultural land in Haridwar purchased through a registered sale deed dated June 4, 1957. The purchasers claimed continuous possession and sought mutation of their names in revenue records. Their claim was rejected during consolidation proceedings on two grounds: first, that execution of the sale deed had not been proved; and second, that the transfer allegedly violated Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which imposed limits on land transfers.
The Supreme Court disagreed on both counts.
Examining the law as it stood in 1957, the Bench held that a transfer made in breach of Section 154 was not void from the outset. Under the then-existing legal framework, such a transaction was merely voidable and could expose the transferee to ejectment proceedings initiated by the Gaon Sabha. Since no such proceedings were commenced within the prescribed limitation period, the transfer could not later be treated as non-existent.
The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation, reiterating that transfers offending Section 154 under the pre-amendment regime were not void ab initio. It further clarified that legislative amendments introduced in 1981, which made such transfers void and provided for vesting of land in the State, could not be applied retrospectively to a transaction executed nearly a quarter-century earlier.
Addressing the powers of consolidation authorities, the Bench reiterated that such authorities may disregard a document only when it is inherently void. Where a document is merely voidable and has not been set aside through appropriate legal proceedings, it continues to have legal effect and must be given due recognition.
With these findings, the Supreme Court restored the appellants’ claim and reinforced the principle that registered sale deeds cannot be invalidated on the basis of trivial inconsistencies that do not strike at the core of the transaction’s authenticity.