It does not require the presence of the both parties to a deed of sale

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 2nd February 2020 

H.P.Puttaswamy vs Thimmamma (Civil appeal no. 3975 of 2010)

Facts of the case: 

1. Question of necessity of presence of a purchaser of immovable property before the authority under the Registration Act, 1908 at the time of effecting registration of a deed of conveyance. In the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff claimed declaration of himself as the lawful owner in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. This suit was instituted on 31st March 1989 and was registered as Original Suit No.132 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Malavalli. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction INDU MARWAH. 
2. Defendants restraining appellants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property and enjoyment thereof. The property in question comprises of approximately 4500 square ft. of land in a village by the name of Hittanahalli Koppalu in Malavallu Taluk in the State of Karnataka. 
3. The plaintiffs case before the Trial court was that this property was allotted to one Gende Veeregowdana Nathegowda under a village shifting scheme. In the suit, the plaintiff contended that he had come in possession of the subject property initially as a tenant and subsequently as the purchaser thereof. He has run a case before the Trial Court that he has been in possession of the suit property for about twenty years prior to filing of the suit. 
4. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are legal representatives of one Manchegowda (since deceased), who contested the claim of ownership of the plaintiff over the subject− property. Respondents 2 (a) to 2 (f) have been disputed plaintiff’s possession of the said property and they claim to be the actual owners of the property through their predecessors. 
5. There have been litigations in the past over the same property and among the same set of parties or their predecessors in years between 1971 to 1989. 

Judgment:

1. The Trial Court proceeded on the basis that the sale deed through which the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the property was valid. It has been observed by the Supreme Court from judgment of Trial Court that plaintiff had proved the sale deed in the course of trial. The claim of cancellation of the allotment of the suit property in favour of Madegowdas predecessor and subsequent allotment in favour of Manchegowda was not believed by Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The appeal filed by legal representatives of Manchegowda under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code; the appellate court held that presence of the purchaser is not required when the document is presented for registration before the Sub−Registrar. 
2. On the question of possession of the suit property asserted by the second set of defendants, however, the High Court held: Coming to the possession aspect of the case, though the learned counsel for the appellants referred to the evidence of D.W.4 to submit that the plaintiff was thrown out of the suit property by the police and the panchayat members, yet the evidence of the said witness will have to be assessed in the light of the other evidence on record and more particularly, the evidence of the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, has denied all the suggestions put to him and has reiterated that he has been in possession of the suit property from a very long time and right from the agreement of sale. Considering the overall evidence placed on record, the trial court has held that the possession has been with as plaintiff and the lower appellate court also concurred with the trial court. As such, said finding, being a concurrent finding of fact of the courts below and also not appearing to be either a perverse finding of a finding based on no evidence, in so far as the conclusion reached by the trial court as regards the plaintiff being in possession of the suit property is concerned. 

 It has been held by the Supreme Court that under section 32 of the Registrations Act, 1908 does not require the presence of the both parties to a deed of sale when the same is presented for the registration.