Civil Suit No. 6 of 2008 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.304 of 2019 …………..(A) R.S.A. No.305 of 2019…………..(B) & R.S.A. No.306 of 2019…………..(C) In the matter of Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the judgment dated 14.08.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam in R.F.A. No.06 of 2018, R.F.A. No.07 of 2018 & R.F.A. No.08 of 2018 confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2017 & 11.12.2017 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit Nos.6 of 2008, 35 of 2008 & 36 of 2008 respectively. ---- RSA No.304 of 2019 & RSA No.305 of 2019 Smt. Anita Senapati …. Appellant -versus- Konchada Deepak Kumar Senapati …. Respondent RSA No.306 of 2019 Sri Mrutyunjaya Senapati …. Appellant -versus- Konchada Deepak Kumar Senapati …. Respondent Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): Page 1 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 For Appellant- For Respondents - Mr. P. K. Rath Sr. Advocate Mr. S. S. Rao Sr. Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DATE OF HEARING :15.03.2024:: DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.04.2024 D.Dash,J. Since all these three Appeals under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), arise out of the common judgments and decrees, passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam at Berhampur in R.F.A. Nos.06 of 2018, 07 of 2018 & 08 of 2018, those were heard together for their disposal by these common judgment followed by the decrees. The Appellant of the Appeals as at ‘A’ and ‘B’ as the Plaintiff had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.06 of 2018), The Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.35 of 2008) against the Appellant of the Appeal at ‘A’ & ‘B’ and also the suit (Civil Suit No.36 of 2008) against the Appellant of the Appeal as at ‘C’, who happens to be the husband of the Appellant of the Appeal as at ‘A’ & ‘B’. The three suits being analogously tried and disposed of, the result
Legal Reasoning
pronounced by the Trial Court are as follows:- (i) C.S. No.06 of 2008:- Dismissed (ii) C.S. No.35 of 2008:- Decreed (iii) C.S. No.36 of 2008:- Decreed The Appellant of the Appeals as at ‘A’ & ‘B’, who is the Plaintiff of C.S. No.06 of 2008 and the Defendant in the Civil Suit No.35 of 2008 was R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 2 of 19 directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit house to the Respondent No.1, who is the Plaintiff therein and the Defendant in the suit i.e. Civil Suit No.06 of 2008. The Appellant of the Appeal as at ‘C’, who was the Defendant in Civil Suit No.36 of 2008 has been directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit house to the Respondent No.1, who is the Plaintiff in the Civil Suit No.35 of 2008 & 36 of 2008 and the Defendant in the Civil Suit No.6 of 2008. The above Appellant of the Appeal as at ‘A’ & ‘B’ being non-suited in her suit (Civil Suit No.06 of 2008) and having suffered from the decree passed by the Trial Court in C.S. No.35 of 2008, carried two Appeals under section 96 of the Code, which stood numbered as RFA No.06 of 2018, RFA No.07 of 2018. The Appellant of the Appeal as at ‘C’ being under the sufferance of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.36 of 2008 carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code which was numbered as RSA No.08 of 2018. All these three First Appeals being heard together by the common judgment followed by the decrees, the First Appellate Court has dismissed all the three and thereby the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court in all the three suits (Civil Suit No.06 of 2008, Civil Suit No.35 of 2008 & Civil Suit No.36 of 2008) have been confirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter referred to as per their position assigned in Civil Suit No.06 of 2008. 3. a) The Plaintiff (Anita Senapati) states to be the absolute owner of a four storied house standing over the land under Municipal Assessment No.9065, 9066, 9068 and 9069 situated in Ward No.13 under Berhampur Municipal Corporation. The building measures 37 feet 6 inch (South to Page 3 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 North), 36 feet (East to West) having an area of Ac 0.025 decimal. The building over the land is situated on the western row of Kampa Street of Berhampur Town better described in the schedule of the plaint. The Plaintiff (Anita) had purchased a portion of the suit house measuring Ac0.017 decimal having 270 square feet terraced roof in the ground floor, 12 square feet terraced in the first floor by Registered Sale Deed dated 11.12.1996 for valuable consideration. On that very day, the Plaintiff (Anita) also purchased another house standing over the land measuring Ac0.008 decimal under Municipal Assessment No.9065, having 168 square feet of straw house vide Registered Sale Deed. The Plaintiff (Anita) took possession of both the houses on the date of purchase and from that date onwards remained in possession as the owner exercising all the rights as such. (b) After purchase, Plaintiff (Anita) demolished the straw house and constructed a new house in the ground and first floor in continuance and joining the house, which she had purchased adjoining that straw roofed house. The Plaintiff (Anita) then proposed to have the second floor over the existing first floor. She applied to the authorities and on getting the permission, she completed the construction of the second floor of the building in the year 1999. For the purpose she (Anita) had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from Orissa Rural Housing & Development Corporation (ORHDC) and it had been sanctioned on 22.02.1999. The Plaintiff (Anita) thereafter constructed 3rd floor of the building over the existing second floor. Electric connection to the entire building was taken and the building had all the fittings wherever so needed according to the requirement. The Plaintiff (Anita) had also taken water connection. The second floor of the building is having marvel floor and was well furnished and decorated. The roof top is R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 4 of 19 having fabricated fencing. The Plaintiff (Anita) had also fixed some accessories costing about Rs.47,00,000/-. (c) In the year 1999, the construction of the building with four storied was completed. The Plaintiff was residing with her husband (Mrutyunjay) at Hanuman Bazar and then at Giri Market, opposite to the Prakasham hall and when the suit building was completed, they shifted. The Plaintiff (Anita) started business in the name and style of “Bharati Enterprises” in the southern part of the building. The husband of the Plaintiff (Mrutyunjay) shifted his business running in the name of “Krishna Trading Company” to the northern part of the ground floor of the building in that very year 1999. The entire ground floor thus remained under the occupation of the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) for running their business. The first floor of the building was used by the Plaintiff as their residence where she and her family members resided. The second floor and third floor of the building were used as go-down. (d) The suit building thus remained in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff (Anita) as its owner. As ill-luck would have it, the Plaintiff (Anita) sustained heavy loss in her business and got trapped in financial crisis. In order to tide over the situation, the Plaintiff (Anita) approached the Defendant (Konchada Deepak Kumar Senapati-KDK) one of her distant relatives for some financial assistance. The Defendant (KDK) came forward to provide help in giving a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Defendant assured to advance that sum as loan upon execution of a simple promissory note. But subsequently he changed his mind and denied to accommodate the Plaintiff with said financial assistance in that way. The Defendant (KDK) then insisted upon the Plaintiff to execute a formal sale deed in respect of the suit property so that he would advance a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Plaintiff Page 5 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 (Anita) then was asked to pay interest of Rs.12,00,000/- every month and the sale deed would be released/cancelled after payment of the loan amount with interest. The Plaintiff (Anita) though was not willing to execute the sale deed merely for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, the Defendant (KDK) made her and her husband believe that they would continue to occupy the building and run their business therein even after the said sale deed which he assured would be a nominal one and just as security for the loan amount. The Plaintiff (Anita) being an innocent lady, believed the sugar quoted words of the Defendant and with a a belief that the Defendant (KDK), who is her relative would never cheat her in any manner. So, she agreed upon the proposal. The Defendant (KDK) advanced a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- only as the first installment in the month of February, 2004 and after execution of the simple promissory note by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff utilized the loan amount for repayment of the bank loan on 20.02.2004 with the ORHDC and released the documents of her house deposited therein. No sooner the Plaintiff (Anita) got those original documents of the suit building on 20.02.2004, the Defendant (KDK) demanded said documents from her stating that said documents would be kept by him as security for the said loan which he has advanced to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff without any hesitation gave the original documents of the suit building to the Defendants on the very day when she got those released from ORHDC. (e) On 15.03.2004, the Defendant (KDK) came to the residence of the Plaintiff carrying the document typed over stamp papers and nomenclatured as sale deed which was antedated as 10.03.2004. He also came with two pay orders one of Rs.4,00,000/- and another of Rs.4,25,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank. The Defendant (KDK) then requested the Plaintiff (Anita) to execute and register the sale deed. The Plaintiff (Anita) had no occasion to know the Page 6 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 contents of the deed which were also not written under her instruction. The Plaintiff (Anita), however, found the valuation of the suit building to have been quoted of Rs.8,25,000/- and that the suit building has been described as slab house valuation of which had been shown as Rs.6,49,500/-. Similarly in Form-B, who is required to be annexed to the sale deed, in its relevant column as to the details of structure, it was stated as slab house with ordinary flooring with existing ground floor. When the Plaintiff (Anita) asked about all these mismatches, the Defendant (KDK) told that since the sale deed was a nominal one, not intended to be acted upon and was taken as a security for the loan advanced by him, she (Anita) need not be worried. It was further stated by the Defendant (KDK) that if the description of the suit house would be given in the sale deed with all such actual facts and figures stating four storied building having other fittings and fixtures, unnecessarily huge amount of stamp duty and registration fees would be charged and paid. So the Plaintiff (Anita) being assured that she would be getting back the sale deed after repayment of the loan amount, she was told not to be worried for that. In good faith and reposing confidence upon the Defendant (KDK), the Plaintiff (Anita) executed the sale deed and admitted its execution before the Sub-Registrar where it was registered. But she continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and building, there was no delivery of possession of the same to the Defendant (KDK) pursuant to the said sale deed. (f) When the matter stood thus to the astonishment of the Plaintiff (Anita), the Defendant (KDK) on 28.04.2004 again came to the house of the Plaintiff (Anita) with two lease deeds. The first one is for the lease of the first and second floor of the suit building in favour of the Plaintiff (Anita) for a period of three years with effect from 20.03.2004 on payment of Rs.5000/- as rent Page 7 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 for the first year and Rs.5500/- per month in the second year and Rs.6000 per month for the third year with further condition of payment of electricity, water and other charges etc. as per actual; the other lease deed was in respect of the ground floor of the suit building in favour of the husband of the Plaintiff (Anita), namely, Mrutyunjay for a period of three years with effect from 20.03.2004 on a rent of Rs.5000/- per month for the entire ground floor of the suit building for the first year Rs.5500/- for the second year and Rs.6000/- for the third year with the same condition as to the payment of electricity charges etc. The Defendant (KDK) then asked the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) to sign on those lease deeds and get those registered. The Defendant (KDK) threatened them that in the event they did would not do so, they would be driven out of the suit building based on the executed and registered sale deed. The Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) finding no alternative, had to execute and register those two lease deeds. These lease deeds are also just on pen and paper and without any such arrangement between the parties. Be that as it may, the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband continued to occupy the said house and run their business peacefully by going on making payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interest for the first year and Rs.11,000/- in the subsequent years till March, 2007 to the Defendant (KDK). Although, the lease deeds had come into being on 20.03.2004, those were given to the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) on 28.04.2004 for having their ante dated signature on the same and those were registered on 28.04.2004. These deeds are said to be just in order to relate to the purpose and serve the oblique and mischievous aim and as such void. R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 8 of 19 The Defendant (KDK) having his eyes over the suit building, taking advantage of the simplicity and being in dire need of the money managed to snatch away all those documents using sugar quoted words. (g) The Plaintiff (Anita) then wanted to get the nominal sale deed in favour of Defendant cancelled, so that she would sale the suit building in open market at the prevailing market price and repay the loan amount of the Defendant (KDK). When in that direction she started the negotiation with others which was in the month of March, 2007, the fact was intimated to the Defendant (KDK). At this, the Defendant (KDK) threatened the Plaintiff (Anita) that she would not be allowed to sale suit land and building in view of the sale already made to the Defendant (KDK). Finding said attitude of the Defendant (KDK), the Plaintiff (Anita) stopped payment of Rs.11,000/- from the Month of April, 2007 which she was paying to the Defendant (KDK) towards interest. Since then the Defendant made all such attempts to evict the Plaintiff (Anita), her husband (Mrutyunjay) and other family members from the suit building at any cost and went on giving threat directly and also through the engaged anti-socials. When the matter stood thus, the Defendant (KDK) issued notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 through his advocate on 10.12.2007 stating all such falsehood asking the Plaintiff to vacate the suit building by 19.01.2008. The Defendant (KDK) then threatened to institute civil and criminal cases. In such situation, the Plaintiff filed the suit (Civil Suit No.6 of 2008). 4. The Defendant in his written statement while admitting the case of the Plaintiff to have purchased the suit property under two sale deed and thereafter her possession and going ahead with the construction of the suit house, however, has been denying the claim of the Plaintiff as regards the expenses met for the electricity connection with the construction of the Page 9 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 second and third floor over the same. It is also denied that the Plaintiff had affixed certain luxury attachments such as marbles and sanitary items in the suit house worth of Rs.7,00,00/-. The Defendant stated that in course of time, the Plaintiff and her husband while running their business became financially weak and got overloaded with loan dues. So, in order to meet the situation, they intended to sale the suit property. The proposal having come to the Defendant (KDK), he agreed to the same. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (Anita) sold the suit property to the Defendant (KDK) by executing registered sale deed on 15.03.2004. Pursuant to the said sale, the Plaintiff (Anita) delivered possession of the suit house to the Defendant (KDK). Thereafter the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) requested the Defendant (KDK) to induct them as tenants in the suit house on proper execution of the lease deeds. The Defendant (KDK) denied the case of the Plaintiff (Anita) as regards his providing financial support of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs.12000/- per month to the Plaintiff (Anita). It is further stated that the Defendant (KDK) had paid the consideration fixed for purchasing the suit house. The Plaintiff (Anita), taking advantage of the possession of the suit house remaining as before with them, it is stated that the Plaintiff (Anita) now in order to deprive the Defendant (KDK) is taking a plea that the sale deed was a nominal one, created for the purpose of securing the payment of loan of Rs.12,00,000/- given by the Defendant (KDK) to the Plaintiff (Anita). The Defendant (KDK) stated that the sale deed was prepared on 15.03.2004 in presence of the Plaintiff (Anita), her husband (Mrutyunjay), the Defendant (KDK) and one Jagadish Acharya. The deed was duly registered after the Plaintiff (Anita) admitted the execution of the instrument and receipt of the consideration before the Sub-Registrar. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (Anita), Page 10 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 sold the total suit land with the building to the Defendant (KDK) for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the same. The Defendant (KDK) asserts to have acquired right over the suit property by virtue of said purchase. He (KDK) states to have never lent money to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- to the Plaintiff (Anita) as loan. It is stated that the Plaintiff is an independent lady running her own business and she was fully aware of the transaction which she made herself. She admitted the sale of the suit property and her induction as a tenant by executing the documents including the deeds of lease. Mrutyunjay. The husband of the Plaintiff (Anita) also entered into another lease deed on the same day. The Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) being the tenants under the Defendant (KDK) were paying monthly rent to the Defendant (KDK) for their occupation of the suit property. However, when they did not pay the rent from the month of April, 2007, the Defendant (KDK) sent notice under section 106 of the T.P Act terminating their tenancy. It was, therefore, the Plaintiff and her husband came forward with an allegation with such sale deed and lease deeds were nominal and sham. Since the Plaintiff, her husband did not vacate the suit house after termination of the tenancy as expresses in the notice, two suits were filed by the Defendant (KDK) for eviction of the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) which stood numbered as C.S. No.6 OF 2008 & C.S. No.35 OF 2008 respectively wherein this Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) have been arraigned as the Defendants. 5. In those two suits, the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) submitted their written statements in the line of what have been stated in the plaint filed by the Plaintiff (Anita) in C.S. No.6 OF 2008. The Defendant (KDK) also claimed house rent and damage from the Plaintiff and her R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 11 of 19 husband. All the three suits being tried analogously, the following issues were framed:- i. Is there any cause of action for CS 6/2008, CS 35/2008 and CS 36/2008? ii. Whether CS 6/2008, CS 35/2008 and CS 36/2008 are barred by limitation? iii. Whether registered sale deed no.1390 dated 15.03.2004, executed in favour of the defendant of CS 6/2008 is a nominal and sham deed and is invalid? iv. Whether the plaintiff of CS 6/2008 is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant? v. Whether the defendant of CS 35/2008 duly executed registered lease deed no.2239 dated 20.03.2004 in favour of K. Deepak Senapaty? vi. Whether the defendant of CS 36/2008 duly executed registered lease deed no.2240 dated 20.03.2004 in favour of K. Deepak Senapaty? vii. Whether K. Deepak Senapaty obtained registered lease deed no.2239 and 2240 dated 20.03.2004 fraudulently and by coercing Anita Senapaty and Mrutyunjay Senapati respectively? viii. Whether Anita Senapaty and Mrutyunjay Senapati were tenants under K. Deepak Senapaty in the suit premises of CS 35/2008 and CS 36/2008 respectively? R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 12 of 19 ix. To what relief(s) plaintiff of CS 6/2008, CS 35/2008 and CS 36/2008 are entitled? 6. The Trial Court first of all took up issue no.(ii) and (iii) for decision and rightly so and those are interlinked. On examination of the evidence and their evaluation, the Trial Court held that the suit filed by the Plaintiff (Anita) for declaration of the sale deed and lease deeds as barred by limitation. Then coming to the merit again on examination of evidence and their evaluation, the Trial Court held the sale deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant marked as Ext.V/12 as valid and not nominal and sham as claimed by the Plaintiff (Anita). With these findings, the other issues were also decided against the Plaintiff (Anita) and in favour of the Defendant (KDK) ultimately, the following order has been passed. The Plaintiff then being non-suited by the Trial Court in (C.S. No.6 of 2008) and being under the sufferance of judgment and decree passed in C.S. No.36 of 2008 in granting relief to the Defendant (KDK) in his suit i.e. C.S. No.35 of 2008, she (P.W.1) filed two First Appeals under section 96 of the Code i.e. RFA No.6 of 2018 and RFA No. 7 of 2018. The husband of the Plaintiff (Anita) being under the sufferance of judgment and decree passed in favour of the Defendant (KDK) in C.S. No.36 of 2008 filed by him also carried another First Appeal i.e. RFA No.8 of 2018. All the three appeals being heard together have been disposed of by the common judgment followed by the decrees. The First Appellate Court after examination of the evidence and their independent assessment at its level has found no reason/justification to record views contrary to those recorded by the Trial Court. Accordingly, all the three Appeals have been dismissed. Hence the Plaintiff (Anita) when has filed two Second Appeals, her husband also filed another Second Appeal. All R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 13 of 19 those were heard together and have been admitted to answer the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether the sale in question ought to have been held to have been vitiated in view of the availability of two more floors besides the 1st and 2nd floor in the building as it contained the condition that in case of any construction beyond the description given in the sale deed exists, the sale would be ineffective and inoperative?” 7. Mr. P. K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff) giving much stress upon the description of the property in the sale deed Ext.G executed by Plaintiff (Anita) in favour of the Defendant (KDK) as also the declaration in Form ‘B’ annexed to the sale deed contended that all those descriptions being not the actual description of the property as it stands in the field, it gives a clear indication that the sale deed was a nominal and sham one and the valuation of the property in question thus had not been so given as the market value required to be set forth in the instrument. Taking a cue from the above, he further placed that had it been the intention of the Plaintiff (Anita) to sale away the property to the Defendant (KDK), there was no reason on her part to suppress anything as regards the description of the property and thus not to set forth the true market value of the land wholly detriment to her interest. He, therefore, submitted that the case of the Plaintiff (Anita) that such document was executed by her upon the insistance of the Defendant (KDK) to secure the money which he had lent to her in order to tide over the difficulty in the financial front that she was facing in view of the pressure from the side of the lenders derives full support. Further inviting the attention to the declaration in Form-B as regards the age description of the structure standing over the suit land and the valuation put forth towards the same which according to him is nominal, he submitted that it being the Page 14 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 mandate that such declaration if found to be false would lead to cancellation of the sale deed; the sale deed is liable to be cancelled and the Defendant (KDK) having not taken due care of in getting the detail description of the structure of the property mentioned in the said declaration in Form-B, he has to suffer being not clothed with the title over the suit land and structure which are the subject matter of that instrument.
Legal Reasoning
8. Mr. S. S. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent (Defendant) submitted all in favour of the finding returned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. According to him, the story projected by the Plaintiff (Anita) is a cock and bull one. He submitted that the Plaintiff (Anita) here not only had executed the sale deed which she admitted to be in relation to the suit land and the structure sanding over the same but also for her and her husband’s subsequent occupation of the property have entered into two deeds of lease with the Defendant (KDK) that to separately on certain terms and conditions and having accepted thereby, the ownership of the Defendant (KDK) and his position as the landlord, the claim/case of the Plaintiff (Anita) projected in the plaint is nothing but an afterthought in order to get back the property at any cost by seeking annulment of the sale deed on such false grounds. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. I have also perused the plaint and written statement and have travelled through the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the parties; more particularly the impugned deed of sale and the two connected deeds of lease. 10. The Plaintiff (Anita) is a literate lady and on her own saying was engaged in running business and for the purpose had taken loan from the Page 15 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Bank. It is also her case that she was living with her husband (Mrutyunjay) who too was involved in business. Both appear to be quite well conversant with all such affairs relating to execution of document being literate and signing in English. So for the Plaintiff (Anita) to say that she did not know the details of the contents of the sale deed and just put her signature and admitted it execution before the Sub-Registrar either at the dictation/direction of the Defendant (KDK) or in a hurry to get the money from the Defendant (KDK) is not prima facie acceptable. The property in question being in the town of Berhampur, the Plaintiff (Anita) with the background as already stated cannot be said to have simply done everything being wholly ignorant about the consequences of all said actions, when there is absolutely no indication about any of such arrangement which the Plaintiff (Anita) claims to have made with the Defendant (KDK) that the document was simply nominal and sham one with a view to secure the money being provided by the Defendant (KDK) for her to tide over the situation in making the payment of the outstanding loan dues. With all these surrounding circumstances, the burden of proof heavily lies upon the Plaintiff to establish that said sale deed in relation to the suit property was nominal and sham one. 11. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court having gone for an extensive examination of the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the parties and appreciating the same in the backdrop of the rival pleadings have concurrently found that the Plaintiff (Anita) has failed to establish her projected case that the sale deed in question is a nominal and sham one. 12. Even if it is accepted for a moment that the description of the property especially relating to the structure standing over the land had not been correctly given/shown in the said sale deed, that itself would not be enough to conclude that the Plaintiff (Anita) discharged the burden of proof resting Page 16 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 on her shoulder in showing the nature of the sale deed to be nominal and sham one. When the description of the property in question is not correctly given in the sale deed, the Plaintiff (Anita) is very much a party to the same and as provided in section 47-A of the Stamp Act, (Odisha Amendment), it was her duty to correctly give such description setting forth the true market value of the same. The Plaintiff being a party to the said act of suppression if we made say so, as to the subject matter of the property involved in the transaction from that her intention that she had executed that as a nominal and shame document gets countered. 13. Be that as it may, the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) have not halted after the registered sale deed came into being. They have next entered into the deeds of lease with the Defendant (KDK) who is the vendee of the very sale deed executed by the Plaintiff (Anita) which states to be nominal and sham one. Those two deeds of lease have also been registered. The Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) by executing those deeds of lease have accepted the Defendant (KDK) to be the owner of the suit property which was very much the subject matter of the sale deed executed by the Plaintiff (Anita). By those lease deed they have also accepted their occupation as the lessees under the Defendant (KDK) on certain terms and conditions. The execution of these lease deeds provides clear indication running against the claim/case of the Plaintiff (Anita) that the sale deed which she executed was a nominal and sham one. Rather by such lease deeds, the Plaintiff (Anita) and her husband (Mrutyunjay) admitted of having executed the sale deed in favour of the Defendant (KDK) for valuable consideration. They have fortified the earlier transaction of sale of the suit property taking place between the Plaintiff (Anita) and the Defendant (KDK). R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 17 of 19 14. Much is said on the suit property which includes the building to have not been properly described in the sale deed as well as in Form-B which is a part of the sale deed. The Form of declaration is provided in terms of section 47-A of the Stamp Act, (Odisha Amendment). The property involved in the document is no doubt required to be properly described and the very purpose of that submission of Form B is to see that the proper market value of the same is set forth therein to enable the Registering Authority to arrive at a satisfaction on that score before registering the same or else to take action for said act of undervaluing the property in order to evade the stamp duty and the registration fees against the parties. It be stated at this stage that in so far as the deed of sale is concerned, the registration has been done by the Registering Authority arriving at a satisfaction that the market value of the property involved in the transaction had been correctly set forth, warranting no action for proceeding against the Plaintiff (Anita) and the Defendant (KDK) for having under valued property to evade the stamp duty and avoid proper registration fees. In this connection, to provide handle to the Registering Authority in arriving at a satisfaction as to the market value of the property, being so authorized by the State Government, the Inspector General of Registration (IGR) issued the guidelines from time to time. The declaration in Form-B as regards the valuation of the structure standing over the land which is also the subject matter of the transaction is one of such guidelines that the vendor has to provide the same. Although, it is mentioned in the said Form-B that if the description given therein as to the house or structure if at a later stage found to be on a lesser side and excess structure of the house is detected, the document would be cancelled; that is the matter clearly between the State and the parties to the document but not a matter between the parties interse. The expression that the document would be invalid in that event cannot be equated with the document being void. But its Page 18 of 19 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 registration would be under suspension till payment of the deficit stamp duty and registration fees insofar as the valuation of the detected excess house property/structure is concerned. So even if it is said for a moment that the structure standing over the suit land had not been correctly described in the sale deed as well as in Form-B that would have no impact on the passing of the title in respect of the property involved in the transaction from the hands of the vendor in favour of the vendee here in the case, from the hands of the Plaintiff (Anita) to the Defendant (KDK) and in the event of such act of the mischief, it is only that at the behest of the State, the effect of said deed would take a halt till the matter in respect of the proper description of the suit property, its market value and payment of proper stamp duty and registration fees are decided. 15. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law is answered against the Plaintiff (Anita) as well as her husband (Mrutyunjay) which in turn leads to confirm the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial court as well as the First Appellate Court. 16. Resultantly, the Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to cost. (D. Dash), Judge. Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-Apr-2024 18:14:49 R.S.A. No.304, 305 & 306 of 2019 Page 19 of 19