Manish Pitale JUDGMENT
Manish Pitale, J.
1. An interesting question arises in this appeal is, as to whether a registered sale deed which does not bear signature of the vendor at the place where his name is written as the vendor, but bears his signatures in places where corrections are made in the text of the sale deed and it also bears signature on the reverse of the last page along with his thumb impression, acknowledging receipt of balance consideration, before the Registrar, can be said to be a valid sale deed or it has to be discarded only because signature of the vendor is absent at the place where his name is written as the vendor.
2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Court of District Judge, Wardha (appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2009, whereby the appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha (trial Court).
3. The suit property in the present case is 1.21 HR of land from out of 5.20 HR in field Survey No. 38 at mouza Khairy, P.H. No. 7, tahsil Seloo, district Wardha. The respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 501 of 2002, before the trial Court on 16.11.2002, claiming that registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999 (Exh. 35) had been executed fraudulently by the appellant (defendant No. 1) in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (defendant Nos. 2 to 5 before the trial Court). It was the case of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) that he had never executed the aforesaid sale deed, although it was a registered document and this, according to him, was evident from the fact that the sale deed did not bear his signature at the place where his name was written as the vendor. He also denied his signatures found at other places in the said sale deed. The respondent No. 1 claimed that on the basis of such fraudulently executed sale deed, the appellant had got the suit field mutated in his name on 12.02.1999 and when he came to know about this, he got a notice published on 31.05.2001 in the daily "Lokmat", denying execution of the aforesaid sale deed. Thereafter, on 14.12.2001, the respondent No. 1 lodged a report in the Police Station at Seloo, but no action was taken by the Police. As a result, he was constrained to file the aforesaid suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The respondent No. 1 also prayed for cancellation of the mutation entry made in favour of the appellant and he also claimed a decree for restoration of possession of the suit field.
4. The appellant appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement, denying the claim made by the respondent No. 1. It was denied that the cause of action for the respondent No. 1 was triggered when the appellant allegedly took forcible possession of the suit field after mutation entries were made on 12.02.1999. It was pointed out that there was an agreement to sale entered into between the parties, in pursuance of which the registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999 was executed and that merely because signature of the respondent No. 1 was not found at the place in the sale deed where his name was written as vendor, it could not be said that the sale deed was fraudulently executed. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid registered sale deed had signatures of the respondent No. 1 at places where corrections were made and that his signature and thumb impression was taken on the reverse of the last page in the presence of the Registrar, acknowledging receipt of balance amount of consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. It was further contended that the witnesses to the sale deed had appeared before the Court and deposed in support of execution of the sale deed. In the face of these facts, it was contended that the suit was without any merit and that it deserved to be dismissed.
5. Upon completion of pleadings and recording of evidence, the trial Court passed its judgment and order dated 30.10.20........