High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
Page 1 of 12 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:41961 AFR FA No. 109 of 2016 Reserved on : 17.06.2025 Delivered on : 20.08.2025 Bharat Sahu S/o Bharosa Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nangar Kohra, Police Station And Post Chichola, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ..............Defendant No. 1. versus ... Appellant 1 - Geeta Bai Wd/o Late Mahettar, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nangar Kohra, Police Station And Post Chichola, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anusuiya Bai W/o Kanglu Yadav, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gendatola, Police Station And Post Chhuriya, Tahsil Chhuriya, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lachchhiram S/o Late Mahettar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Nangar Kohra, Police Station And Post Chichola, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mangalin Bai D/o Late Mahettar, W/o Brijlal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Peritola, Police Station And Post Chhuriya, Tahsil Chhuriya, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shakun Bai D/o Late Mahettar, W/o Khorbahra Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Tilairawar, Tahsil Dongargaon, Police Station And Post Dongargaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dukhiya Bai D/o Late Mahettar, W/o Ramji Yadav, Aged About 42 Years R/o Badhiyatola, Police Station, Post And Tahsil Chhuriya, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sukhiya Bai D/o Late Mahettar, W/o Peetam Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jatkanhar, Police Station, Post And Tahsil Dongargarh, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 8 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate. For Resp. No. 1 to 7 : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 14:29:25 +0530
Legal Reasoning
would further submit that Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Bodhiram Yadav (Dead) Through Lrs. V. Gurusharan Singh Bhatiya & Another [FA No. 107 of 2016] has considered the issue and held that a registered deed of sale carries presumption that the transaction was genuine one. If execution of the sale-deed is proved, onus of proving that the sale-deed was not executed and it was a sham transaction, lies upon the defendant. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court would submit that the trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has recorded its finding that no money was given to the plaintiff and fraud has been committed as for insurance purpose, the documentation was prepared, accordingly it has recorded the finding that fraud has been committed, thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 17. From submissions made by the parties, the Point emerged for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that the fraud has been committed by the defendant, suffers from perversity, illegality warranting interference by this Court? 18. To appreciate this point, it is expedient for this Court to go through the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which defines Page 8 of 12 ‘Fraud’ and reads as under:- “17. 'Fraud' defined.—'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:— (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.” 19. The plaintiffs in their pleadings have taken specific stand that the defendant to execute the insurance has put his thumb impression wherein he has executed the sale-deed and no amount of sale consideration has been paid. This pleading was duly proved by examining the plaintiffs witnesses and no cross-examination to rebut the said allegations were made by the defendant. Even no source of money was proved by the defendant that from where he has paid the amount to justify his action that after payment of sale consideration the sale-deed has been executed by the plaintiff. In the evidence, the defendant witness Sushil Sahu (DW-1) has categorically stated that when he has given money at that time no one was present there. He has also submitted an affidavit (Ex. P/6) denying the factum of payment of sale consideration to the plaintiff and also admitted his signature in the said affidavit still no step has been taken by the defendant to rebut the said allegation which clearly demonstrates that the fraud has been committed by the defendant, therefore, the trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that no money transaction has taken place between Page 9 of 12 the parties, thus, the fraud has been committed by the defendant to execute the sale-deed. It is well settled position of law that fraud vitiates everything. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and other connected cases has held as under:- “a. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh [(2000) 3 SCC 581], this Court reiterated that fraud unravels everything: 3. “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that “no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything” (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)] ). b. In Srisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] , it was held: 20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury…….. c. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 4 SCC 221, this Court held: 21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” 22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order—by the first court or by the final court—has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 23. *** 24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it Page 10 of 12 might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was “mistaken”, it might be shown that it was “misled”. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment. 25. It has been said : fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). d. The judgment by Denning, L.J. in Lazarus Estates Ltd. (supra), which has since been quoted with approval by this Court in a catena of decisions including Nidhi Kaim (supra), asserted intolerance for fraud in legal proceedings in the following words: No court … will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. […] Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever…. …… …… 85. In Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab [(2011) 12 SCC 588] this Court held that: 17. It is a settled legal proposition that where a person gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law as fraud unravels everything. “Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law.” It is trite that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. Fraud and deception are synonymous. “Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine.” An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. [Vide Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383, para 34.] 18. However, the question does arise as to whether it is permissible for a party to treat the judgment and order as null and void without getting it set aside from the competent court. The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. [Vide State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth [ (1996 1 SCC 435] and Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. [(1997) 3 SCC 443]. 20. Thus, the submission made by learned counsel for the defendant that the principle of law that the sale-deed carries presumption, is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the presumption is rebuttable which has been rebutted by recording cogent and sufficient evidence by the plaintiff. Page 11 of 12 21. Further submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the trial Court has committed illegality in shifting the burden upon the defendant as it is for the plaintiff to plead and prove about the fraud committed by the defendant which he miserably failed to do, therefore, declaring the sale-deed as null and void is illegality, is being considered by this Court. The plaintiffs in categorical terms have discharged their burden by adducing evidence that no sale consideration has been paid and even witness Sushil Sahu (DW-1) whose affidavit is already on record has specifically denied about sale consideration which has not been rebutted by the defendant. Even no application was moved for permission to cross-examine this witness. This clearly establishes that the plaintiff has discharged his burden, therefore, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the same which he has not rebutted by adducing cogent evidence. Only self surviving statement does not dilute the evidence and circumstances which clearly establishes that the fraud has been committed by the defendant as there was sufficient evidence placed on record by the plaintiff to prove that fraud has been committed. The defendant has pleaded that he has paid the amount and this fact is within his knowledge but no such evidence has been brought on record to prove the factum of payment of sale consideration. Thus, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in shifting the burden upon the defendant, therefore, the submission made by defendant deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 22. So far as judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to case of Dahiben Vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali & Page 12 of 12 Others [2020 (7) SCC 366] is concerned, the same is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as the issue is not that part payment has been paid or full payment has been made. The issue in the case is whether the sale-deed has been executed by committing fraud or not, therefore, this judgment is not applicable in the present facts of the case. 23. Accordingly, the Point determined by this Court is answered against the appellants/defendants and in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs that the sale-deed has been executed by the defendant by committing fraud with the plaintiff and the finding of fraud recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants any interference by this Court. 24. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika / Arun
Arguments
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (CAV Judgement) Page 2 of 12 1. This is defendant’s first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2007 by which learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared the sale-deed executed on 23.05.2007 as null and void. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2007. 3. Brief facts as reflected from plaint averments are that:- (A) The original plaintiff Mahettar S/o Ramnath (who died during pendency of the suit and accordingly, the legal representatives of the plaintiff were brought on record), filed a suit for declaration of sale-deed dated 23.05.2007 as null and void mainly contending that plaintiff was having title and possession of the suit property situated at Village Naagar Kohra Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon bearing Khasra No. 463 area 3.33 acre (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). The suit property is valuable land and for the last so many years, the defendant with permission of plaintiff, is manufacturing bricks on the suit property with a condition that the land will be developed for utilizing for agricultural purposes. It is also case of the plaintiff that on 23.05.2007, the defendant with intention to commit fraud, asked him for execution of thumb impression on some documents for the purpose of insurance, goods manufactured by him i.e. raw bricks which may be caused damage due to rain. Since the plaintiff was uneducated and believing on defendant has put signature and wherever the defendant had asked him to go, he had gone with him. It has also been contended that the defendant has executed the sale-deed without any sale consideration. Page 3 of 12 (B) It is also case of the plaintiff that against the fraud committed by the defendant, he has preferred a complaint before the Police Station but no action has been taken by the authorities which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for declaring the sale-deed dated 23.05.2007 as null and void and also prayed for restraining the defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit property. 4. Defendant No. 1 has filed written submission denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that he is manufacturing bricks with consent of the plaintiff on the suit property and denied that the land is valuable land or by committing fraud he took signature of plaintiff and executed the sale-deed. It has also been contended that the plaintiff voluntarily got the desired documents for sale of the suit property from the Halka Patwari and he himself came with the people of Nagar Kohara and after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs. 1 lac., got the sale-deed registered in his name. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has paid Rs. 1 lac. for purchase of property, thereafter the sale-deed has been executed and the complaint made by the plaintiff is false and fabricated, therefore, no action has been taken by the authorities. It has also been contended that he moved an application for mutation of his name in the suit property before Tahsildar Chhuriya which has been rejected, therefore, he preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dongargaon which is pending consideration. It has also been contended that the plaintiff was required some financial assistance, therefore, he has sold the suit property and would pray for dismissal of the suit. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence and pleadings of the parties, has framed as many as four issues which are as under:- Page 4 of 12 “1- D;k izfroknh }kjk "kM+;a= iwoZd fcuk izfrQy fn;s oknh dks /kks[kk nsdj fodz; i= fnukad 23-5-07 dk fu"iknu djk;k x;k \ 2- D;k oknh }kjk okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu fd;k x;k gS \ 3- D;k oknh }kjk mfpr U;k;’kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gS \ 4- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; \” 6. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined Lachchhi Ram (PW-1), Narayan (PW-2), Isharram (PW-3) and exhibited documents namely sale-deed dated 23.05.2007 (Ex. P/1), Map (Ex. P/2), Khasra Panchshala (Ex. P/3), Objection raised by the plaintiff before Tahsildar (Ex. P/4 & P/5), affidavit of Sushil Sahu (Ex. P/6). 7. The defendant to substantiate his case has examined Sushil Sahu (DW-1), Domar Singh (DW-2) & Bharat Sahu (DW-3) and exhibited documents namely sale-deed (Ex. D/1). 8. Lachhiram (PW-1) who is son of the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. has supported the case of the plaintiff and in the cross-examination, he has denied that his father has taken entire sale consideration from Bharat and sold the suit property. 9. Narayan (PW-2) was also examined who in examination-in-chief by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. supported case of the plaintiff and in the cross-examination has stated that the defendant has constructed bricks manufacture plant in their land and he has taken the land on lease. He has also stated that his grandfather (Mahettar) used to pay Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month to the defendant. He has also stated that his grandfather Mahettar has done some documentation work with Sarpanch for manufacturing of bricks. He has stated that on 23.05.2007 when his grandfather went to Page 5 of 12 Rajnandgaon at that time he was doing labour work then and his grandfather told him that they have to go for insurance and at 11-12 12.00 p.m., they left for Rajnandgaon. He has admitted that he has studied upto Class 10th and his grandfather has asked him to sit in front of the Registrar Office and on that day, Sushil and Domar were also present. He has also admitted that after completing all formalities, his grandfather came out and they came back. Ishwarram (PW-3) has also supported the case of the plaintiff and denied that after selling the property by the plaintiff, the defendant is in possession of the said property. 10. Sushil Sahu (DW-1) has been examined by way of affidavit as provided under Section 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. wherein he has reiterated the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement. This witness was extensively cross-examined by the plaintiff and he has admitted his signature in Ex. P/6 (which is an affidavit of Sushil Sahu). He has also admitted that he has read examination-in-chief submitted by way of affidavit before this Court and he is 10 th class failure. In the Ex.P/6, he has specifically mentioned that the defendant has done the documentation which is for insurance only. He has also admitted that the money has not been given to Mehattar before Registrar and Bharat has committed fraud with him. Since Bharat has criminal antecedent, therefore, under pressure, he has put his signature. 11. Domar Singh (DW-2) has filed examined by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. wherein he has supported the case of the defendant but this witness was not subjected to cross- examination and submitted an affidavit on 14.05.2014 but the said witness has not turned up for further cross-examination. 12. Bharat Sahu/defendant (DW-3) in his examination-in-chief by way of Page 6 of 12 affidavit as provided under Section 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. has reiterated the stand taken in the written statement by him and in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has collected the fund after sale of paddy but no receipt of sale of paddy has been placed on record. He has also stated that he has given bundle of Rs. 500/- notes to the plaintiff in his house and at that time, no one was present in the house. He has also admitted that mutation proceedings were also rejected by the Tahsildar Chhuriya against which he has preferred an appeal which is pending consideration. 13. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has decreed the suit of the plaintiff by recording its finding that the attesting witness of the sale-deed has given affidavit that amount for sale consideration has not been paid, no justifiable reason has been assigned for selling of the suit property and the suit property is in possession of deceased plaintiff’s family members, accordingly, it has recorded its finding in affirmative while deciding Issue No. 1 that the sale-deed has been executed without sale consideration by committing fraud with the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even if the sale consideration has not been paid still the sale-deed cannot be declared as null and void in view of the provisions of Contract Act. He would further submit that the trial Court has committed illegality in declaring the sale-deed as null and void on the count of non-payment of sale consideration. He would further submit that since the plaintiff has taken Page 7 of 12 a plea of fraud, therefore, it is incumbent upon him to plead and prove the same but the learned trial Court has shifted the burden upon the defendant which is against the law of evidence, therefore, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be set-aside. He