Don't have Telegram yet? Try it now!
https://advocatemmmohan.com/2017/11/23/examination-of-witness-to-prove-sale-deed-is-not-compulsory-it-is-for-the-reasons-that-firstly-the-execution-of-the-sale-deed-does-not-need-any-attesting-witness-like-the-gift-deed-which-requires/
SUIT FOR POSSESSION – DEFENCE AGREEMENT OF SALE – LONG STANDING POSSESSION BY CONSTRUCTING BUILDING- SUIT DISMISSED – 1. SUIT IS HIT BY SOCIETY ACT 2.NON-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS OF SALE DEED 3. ADVERSEPOSSESSION – APPEAL – REVERSED FIRST AND THIRD POINTS BUT DISMISSED ON SECOND POINT – HIGHCOURT – REVERSED THE FINDING OF APPEALLANT COURT ON SECOND POINT ALSO AND DECREED THE SUIT- APEX COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF HIGH COURT AND HLED THAT WITNESS IS NOT COMPULOSRY TO EXAMINE FOR PROVING SALE DEED- CLAIMED TITLE UNDER AGREEMENT OF SALE – NO BETTER TITLE THAN THE PLAINTIFF – NO ADVERSEPOSSESSION – PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR POSSESSION examination of witness to prove sale deed is not compulsory - It is for the reasons that, firstly, the execution of the sale deed does not need any attesting witness like the gift deed, which requires at least two attesting witnesses at the time of its execution as per Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and Secondly, Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the examination of the attesting witness to prove the execution of the document, does not apply to sale deed, which is 1 governed by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not in dispute that the appellant (defendant) in this case did not dispute the respondent's vendor’s (Housing Society) title. On the other hand, she, in clear terms, admitted their title in her written statement. It is also not in dispute that the respondent entered in witness box and proved its execution and further did not raise any objection when the sale deed was being exhibited in evidence and indeed, rightly for want of any legal basis. 22) In the light of these admitted facts, we are of the view that the sale deed dated 29.12.1981 was duly proved by the respondent and was, therefore, rightly relied on by the High Court for passing a decree of possession against the appellant. It was, in our opinion, a clear case where the respondent had a better title of the suit land as against the 1 appellant, who had no title to the suit land. All that the appellant had was a plea of adverse possession which was not held proved