1 2026:CGHC:22716 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 713 of 2003 1 - Deenanath (Dead) Through Lrs. - Nil. 1.1 - (A). Om Prakash Gupta S/o Late Deena Nath Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Manpur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B). Vijay Gupta S/o Late Umashankar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Manpur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (C). Mohan Lal Gupta S/o Late Deena Nath Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Manpur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 1.4 - (Deleted) Jaiwant Gupta (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-04-2025 And 07-05-2025. 1.4.1 - (D)(I) Smt. Bindawati W/o Late Shri Umashanker Gupta Aged About 55 Years Residents Of Village Manpur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)(As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-04-2025 And 07- 05-2025) 1.4.2 - (D)(Ii) Sonesh Gupta S/o Late Shri Umashanker Gupta Aged About 29 Years Residents Of Village Manpur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)(As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-04-2025 And 07- 05-2025) 1.5 - (E). Leelawati W/o Krishna Chand Gupta Aged About 42 Years D/o Late Deena Nath Gupta, R/o Bargidih, P.S. Batouli, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.6 - (F). Devendri W/o Rajendra Gupta Aged About 30 Years D/o Late Deena Nath Gupta, R/o Village Kerta, P.S. Pratappur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants 2 versus 1 - Durga Prasad S/o Rambriksha Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Pataradih, Tahsil Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Kashinath Yadav S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Khaliba, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13.5.2026 1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ defendant under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2002 dated 12.11.2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2000 dated 28.9.2001 were set aside. 2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 30.4.2004 on following substantial question of law :-  Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court on the point that the sale-deed dated 17.10.1986, executed in favour of the appellant Deenanath was not genuine ? 3) The plaintiff namely Durga Prasad instituted a civil suit seeking therein declaration of title and permanent injunction. The relief of 3 declaration was sought to the effect that sale deed dated 17.10.1986 executed by Ghurbigani Bai be declared null and void inter-alia on the ground that suit property was exclusive property of Ram Prasad, the uncle of the plaintiff who was married to Ghurbigani Bai and was survived by three daughters. Plaintiff pleaded that during lifetime, Ghurbigani Bai executed will-deed in his favor on 10.10.1986 in presence of two attesting witnesses namely Jadnath and Ramkailash. He further pleaded that Ghurbigani Bai died ten years prior to filing of civil suit but the suit property was in his possession and when the children of plaintiff became major, he approached the defendant, who was cultivating the property on his dictation. Plaintiff also pleaded that the defendant refused to hand over the property and stated that suit property was sold by Ghurbigani Bai to defendant through registered sale-deed dated 17.10.1986. It was also pleaded that Ghurbigani Bai never executed any sale-deed in favor of defendant and hence the suit claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiff. 4) The original defendant namely Deenanath filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendant stated that he carried out the last rites of Ghurbigani Bai, who executed a registered sale-deed in his favor on 17.10.1986 in presence of witnesses. Defendant further stated that he sold part of the suit property to Vishwanath Prasad Gupta in the year 1995. 4 5) Learned trial court framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the sale-deed dated 17.10.1986 being a registered document is admissible in evidence and its genuineness cannot be doubted and plaintiff failed to prove the said document to be a forged one. Plaintiff preferred first appeal and learned first appellate court decreed the suit holding that sale-deed appears to be suspicious as the defendant failed to establish that Ghurbigani Bai was in dire need of money and factum of payment of consideration to Ghurbigani Bai in presence of witnesses remains unproved. 6) Ms. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submits that defendant examined himself as (DW1) and Birkeshwar Prasad Gupta as (DW/2), who was one of attesting witness to sale-deed dated 17.10.1986 and he proved due execution of sale-deed and payment of consideration to Ghurbigani Bai. She further submits that as sale-deed is a registered document, learned first appellate court ought to have considered its validity and veracity. She prays to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate court. 7) There is no representation on behalf of respondent/ plaintiff despite service of notice. 8) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5 9) A careful perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial court would reveal that will-deed dated 10.10.1986 was found to be proved as plaintiff examined its attesting witnesses and at the same, it was held that the sale-deed dated 17.10.1986 is not a forged document and is not an outcome of fraud. However, learned first appellate court reversed the findings arrived at by learned trial court with regard to execution of sale-deed only on the ground that consideration was not transferred to Ghurbigani Bai in presence of witnesses and the defendant failed to establish that Ghurbigani Bai was in dire need of money. 10) Admittedly, sale-deed dated 17.10.1986 is a registered document which states that suit property was purchased by the defendant in presence of Birkeshwar Prasad Gupta as one of the attesting witnesses. This witness categorically deposed that Ghurbigani Bai agreed to alienate her property in consideration of Rs. 16,500/- and she admitted this fact before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of sale-deed. This witness further deposed that Ghurbigani Bai put her thumb impression on the aforestated document in the office of Sub-Registrar in his presence. 11) In cross-examination, no suggestion was put by the plaintiff with regard genuineness of sale-deed and evidence with regard to due execution of sale-deed and payment of consideration remained un-rebutted. Learned first appellate court reversed the findings arrived at by learned trial court on the ground that defendant could 6 not establish payment of consideration to Ghurbigani Bai and her dire need to alienate the suit property. 12) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hemalatha (D) by Lrs. vs. Tukaram (D) by Lrs. and Ors.1, held that a registered sale-deed carries a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is a solemn act imparting a high degree of sanctity to the document; therefore, courts must not lightly or casually declare it a "sham". It is also held that the mere usage of words like fraud is not sufficient and there must be clear pleadings and convincing averments to establish the factum of a sham transaction. Relevant paragraphs 31, 34 & 35 read as under :- “31. It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a “sham”. Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353 1, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs. and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727 2, and Rattan Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300 3, this Court “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption……” “16. Sale deed dated 21-12-1970 in favour of Jamila Begum is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a 1. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 79 7 presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law..….” “ 33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered……” reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title. 34. The person alleging that a registered Deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. This Court is of the view that the test akin to a test under Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable to such a pleading and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action would not be permitted and a clear right to sue would have to be shown in the plaint.] 35. As pointed out by this Court in I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 70, the ritual of repeating a word like ‘fraud’ or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unraveled and exposed by the Court at the nascent stage of litigation without waiting for a full trial. Mere suspicion or nebulous averments without material particulars would not be sufficient to dislodge the presumption under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” 13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamila Begum (dead) though Legal Representatives Versus Shami Mohd. (dead) through Legal Representatives2 held that the court of first appeal has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the 2. (2019) 2 SCC 727 8 trial court but when the court of first appeal takes a different view, the judgment of the first appellate court must show the conscious application of mind and record its findings based on the evidence adduced by the parties and the judgment must record the reasons as to why the first appellate court differs from the judgment of trial court. Relevant paragraph 39 reads as under :- 39. The court of first appeal has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. When the court of first appeal takes a different view, the judgment of the first appellate court must show the conscious application of mind and record its findings based on the evidence adduced by the parties and the judgment must record the reasons as to why the first appellate court differs from the judgment of the trial court. In this case, the judgment of the lower appellate court has not answered all the points arising for determination and the evidence adduced thereon. Likewise, the High Court has not recorded any finding either on fact or on law. The High Court proceeded on the footing as if the suit was a simple suit for redemption of mortgage. Without appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties and sale deed dated 21- 12-1970, the High Court erred in ordering the redemption of mortgage and delivery of possession. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the present case, the contents of the sale deed were duly proved by the defendant through the examination of an attesting witness. Conversely, the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that the sale deed was a "sham" document or the product of fraud. Therefore, the sale deed must prevail over the will deed executed in favor of the plaintiff. Notably, however, the learned first appellate court reversed the trial court's findings 9 without evaluating the evidence presented by the parties or assigning any reasons for its reversal concerning the execution of the sale deed. Hence, the findings of the first appellate court are, in my opinion, patently perverse. 14) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court are not sustainable in the eyes of law and hereby set aside. Accordingly, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court are restored. 15) In result, the substantial question of law in answered in affirmative in favor of the appellant/ defendant and this second appeal is allowed. 16) A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.20 16:27:56 +0530 10 SA No. 713 of 2003 Head Note Order XLI Rule 33 – The first appellate court while reversing the findings of the trial court must show conscious application of mind and record its findings based on the evidence and must record the reasons.