Holding

In construing a sale deed, the vendor's words identifying the property cannot be ignored; any ambiguity must be disregarded, and the vendor's intention to transfer the entire building is effective despite an erroneous area description.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a sale deed executed by Churu Ram in 1976, which described the transfer of a two‑storeyed building called 'Anand Bhavan' situated on 4 biswas of land, while the actual building occupied 7 biswas. The appellant, Ishwari Devi, claimed ownership of the entire building based on the deed and the 1970‑71 Jamabandi, whereas the respondent, Sarla Devi, relied on a later revenue entry showing 3 biswas in a different Khasra and a power of attorney sale. The lower courts held that the later entry validated the respondent's claim, but the Supreme Court ruled that the vendor's explicit words in the deed cannot be ignored and any ambiguity must be disregarded. Consequently, the deed transferred the whole building to the appellant despite the erroneous area description. The Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, dismissed the suit for declaration and injunction, and awarded costs to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether the sale deed transferred only the 4 biswas of land specified in the deed or the entire two‑storeyed building occupying 7 biswas.
Whether an erroneous description of the area in the sale deed affects the title of the vendee.
Whether revenue records (Jamabandi) and a later entry of 3 biswas in a different Khasra can override the terms of the sale deed.
Whether the subsequent sale of the 3 biswas to the respondent is valid in view of the original deed.

Legislation cited

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Subjects

sale deedinterpretationTransfer of Property Actproperty identificationambiguityrevenue recordsJamabandititleownership

Judgment

SMT. ISHWARI DEVI A
v.
SMT. SARLA DEVI AND ORS.

DECEMBER 14, 1994

[R.M. SARAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Sale Deed-Interpretation of-Words
used by Vendor cannot be ignored on presumption-Where in a deed
property has been specifically identified by the vendor ambiguity or
inconsistency arising out of it has to be disregarded
c
C executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant. The recitals
stated that (i) the vendor was transferring 4 biswas of land, in Khasra
1 No. 613, over which a two storey building called 'Anand Bhi:tvan' was
built in four set of flats, in favour of vendee completely and
permanently; and (ii) the possession of the property- one set of which
was with the husband of the appellant- vendee, AC, and the rest of D
three sets with other tenants viz., SR, SL and BR- has been handed
over to the appellant-vendee. In 1979 the appellant filed a suit for
eviction of SR who contested the appellant's ownership. Therefore, in
order to prove her title the appellant relied on the sale deed as well as
on a revenue extract viz. Jamabandi entry of 1970-71. On this revenue-. E
entry SR claimed that the area of Anand Bhavan was 7 biswas out of
which 4 biswas was transferred in favour of the appellant-vendee. The.
Rent Control Officer held that the claim was based on misapprehension
as the details of 4 biswas mentioned in the Khasra was added up to
submit that total area was 7 biswas and allowed the evictio~ application
only to the extent that SR was in arrears from December 1976 to F
August 1979.

Since SR was probably aware that total area over which the build-
ing was standing was 7 biswas he got 3 biswas entered in the
Jamabandi record in 1980-81 in the name of the vendor, C, over
Khasra No. 491. He also got an ex parte report from the Kanungo that G
Anand Bhavan was situated in two plots. On the basis of 1980-81
Jamabandi entry SR obtained a power of attorney from the sons of the
vendor and as power of attorney he sold 3 biswas of land to his
daughter-in-law, respondent No. 1. In 1987 the appellant filed another
eviction petition against SR which was contested and the ownership of
the flat was claimed with respondent. The Rent Control Officer allowed H
583
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A the application and commented adversely against SR. Thereafter, the
respondent filed a suit for declaration that the orders passed by Rent
Control Officer were null and void and sought an injunction
restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession. The
Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that (i) the sale deed in favour of
respondent was invalid and (ii) the recitals in sale deed executed by C
B were conclusive. ·

On appeal the District Judge relying on the evidence of Kanungo,
who had gone to demarcate the area on spot, tax receipts and report of
Commissioner allowed the appeal holding that since C sold only 4
biswas of Khasra No. 613 and no corrigendum was issued the sale of
C remaining 3 biswas, which had separate Khasra No. 491, by his sons in
favour of respondent was valid. This order was upheld by the High
Court.

In appeal to this Court on the question whether what was
transferred by C under the sale was the entire building owned by the
D vendor or only 4 biswas:

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the First
Appellate Court and the High Court, this Court

HELD: 1. In construing a sale deed the words used by the vendor
E cannot be ignored on any supposition or presumption. Where the
property has been specifically identified in a deed any ambiguity or
inconsistency arising out of it has to be disregarded. (589 BJ

2. The circumstances and above all the sale deed executed by C are
so transparent that it leaves no doubt that the order of the two Courts
p below are manifestly erroneous. No amount of evidence, oral or
documentary, could demolish the sanctity of the sale deed e~ecuted by
C. The recital in the sale deed is clear and unequivocal. The vendor
· intended without any reservations to transfer the two storeyed building
in favour of the appellant. This could not be diluted merely because the
area was mentioned as 4 biswas. The appellant became owner of the
G entire building and the entire area stood vested in her. The erroneous
recital in the sale deed that the building was situated in 4 biswas would
not in any manner affect the title of the appellant. [588 E, 589 C]

3. The entry in the Jamabandi record in 1980-81 was purposive. It
is surprising that conscience of none of the Courts below was stirred by
H such entry and the District Judge or the High Court did not care to
ISHWARI DEVI v. SARLA DEVI [R.M. SARAI, J.] 585

ascertain as to how such entries came to be made in the revenue record. A
It was the duty of the Court to have attempted to find out the truth by
sending for the original revenue records. [587 F, 589 F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9227 of
1994.
B
From the Judgment and order dated 27.6.94 of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in R.S.A. No. 70 of 1994.

Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the Appellant.

Ashok Kumar, Ms. Gargi Khanna and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for C
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.M. SAHAI, J. The dispute in this appeal relates to interpretation of a
sale deed. It is not disputed that one Churu Ram was the owner of the D
property in dispute. He executed a sale deed on 28th December 1976 in·
favour of the appellant the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

"And whereas the vendor is the owner and in possession of a
two story building called 'Anand Bhavan' built in four sets
which are old and in dilapidated conditions over a land E
Khewat No.32, Khatauni No. 48, Khasra No. 613 ad
measuring 4 Biswas, Gair Mwnkin, situated in Kethu No. 7,
Teh. and Distt. Shimla and entered into revenue records as
per Jamabandi for the year 1970-71;

NOW THIS SALE DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER: F
That the V~ndor, as per the above sale agreement, has
transferred his land admeasuring 4 Biswas, Khewat No. 32,
Khatauni No. 48, Khasra No. 613 over which a two storey
building called 'Anand Bhavan' is built situated in Village
Kethu, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla for Rs.13,000 (Rupees G
Thirteen Thousand Only) with all its title, ownership, road
water, airlight, including other amenities, fittings, fixtures,
drains and other rights whatsoever the vendor has in respect
of the said land and the house, in favour of the vandee
completely and permanently.
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A The possession of the property and the land sold has been
handed over to the vendee today. The possession of one set is
with the husband of the vendee and the possession of rest of
the property is given through the tenants. The tenants living
in the above property are- (1) Sant Ram, (2) Salig Ram, (3)
Bali Ram and (4) Amogh Chand."
B
Prior to construing the sale deed and finding out whether what was
transferred was entire Anand Bhavan owned by Churu Ram or only 4
Biswas of Khasra no. 613 it is necessary to mention few facts not with a
view to decide title of appellant but to emphasis that things were not as they
have been made out by the District Judge which has resulted in not only in
c grave error of law but even gross miscarriage of Justice. The appellant is
the wife of Amo~ Chand who was tenant of one of the sets and was
mentioned in the sale deed at no. 4. The respondent is the daughter-in-law
of Sant Ram who was also tenant of one set and was mentioned as no. I. In
1979 the appellant filed a petition for eviction of Sant Ram. It was
contested by him. He denied ownership of the appellant. Therefore, the
D
appellant to prove her title filed the sale deed and jamabandi, that is the
revenue extract of 1970-71. The entry in it is as under:

"Khewat Khautani Name of Name of Khasra Posse- Revenue
No. No. owner culti- No. ssion
with vator
E
address with
address

32 48 Churu Self in 613 0-4 0-5
Ram s/o possession
Ramdinu with the
F Mall permission Lehri
s/o of owner Bhavan
In 0-1
Possession Bungalow
owner 0-3
G Ganga Ram ..-
Manderja
Khewat
No.29
Sucessor
Shyamlal Deb."
H
ISHWARI DEVI v. SARLA DEVI [R.M. SAHAI, J.] 587

On this entry Sant Ram claimed that the area of Anand Bhavan was 7 A
biswas out of which 4 biswas was transferred in favour of tht( appellant.
The Reht Control Officer held that the claim was based on misapprehension
as the details of 4 biswas mentioned in the Khasra was added up to submit
that total area was 7 biswas. What is necessary to be mentioned that Sant
Ram never claimed that only a part of Anand Bhavan was sold and the
portion in his occupation continued to be with Churu Ram or his successor. B
In 1981 the application for eviction was allowed, only, to the extent that
Sant Ram was found in arrears from 28.12.1976 to 31.8.1979 at the rate of
Rs.86 P.M. But Sant Ram was probably aware that the total area over which
the building was standing was 7 biswas. Therefore, in the same year, that is
1980-81 something unexplainable happened. Apart from one extract repeat-
ing the entry of jamabandi as it was in 1970-71 another entry was made in C
name of Churu Ram over Khasra no. 491. The exact entry is reproduced
below:

"Khautani Name of Name of Khasra No. Posse- Revenue Remarks
No. owner culti- ssion
with vator D
address with
address

239 Churu Owner 491 0-3 468
Ram in Unauthorised
s/o posse- Bungalow E
Ram, ssion
RituMal
Wasi Deb"

If Churu Ram was owner how could he be in unauthorised occupation.
The two do not go together. That is why to put at the mildest the entry was F
purposive. It is surprising that conscience of none of the Courts below was
stirred by such entry and the District Jlidge or the High Court did not care
to ascertain as to how such entries came to be made in the revenue record
and did not consider it appropriate to take action against the officials
concerned. All this is being said not because anything turns on it so far title
of the appellant is concerned but only to emphasise that the Courts below G
should have been more vigilant.

Reverting to the narration of facts Sant Ram being anned with entry of
1980-81, procured probably at his instance, obtained power of attorney
from the two sons of Churu Ram who of course had nothing to loose and
within one month as holder of power of attorney he sold 3 biswas in favour H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A of his daughter-in-law, the respondent. In 1987 the appellant filed another
eviction petition against Sant Ram which was contested and now ownership
of the flat was claimed with respondent. The Rent Control Officer allowed
the application and commended adversely against Sant Ram. Then the
respondent filed the present suit for de~laration that the two orders passed
by Rent Control Officer were null and void and sought an injunction
B restraining appellant from interfering in her possession. The suit was
dismissed by the Trial Court. It was held that the sale deed in favour of
respondent was invalid. The oral and documentary evidence was rejected
and recitals in sale deed of 1976 were held to be conclusive. The Trial
Court further noticed that when eviction proceedings were started by the
appellant against another tenant he went to the length of denying title of
C appellant and claim~d that entire right and title of Anand Bhavan vested in
respondent. In appeal the District Judge relying on evidence of Kanungo
who had gone to demarcate the area on spot, tax receipts and report of
Commissioner allowed the appeal. It was held that since Churu Rani sold
only four biswas ofKhasra No. 613 and no corrigendum was issued the sale
of remaining area of three biswas of Anand Bhavan which had separate
D Khasra No. 491 by his sons in favour of respondent was valid. The order
was maintained by the High Court.

If the revenue extracts, particularly, of 1980-81 recording Churu Ram
as owner in unauthorised occupation of the bungalow over 0.3 in Khasra
no. 491 would have inspired any confidence or there would have been some
E doubt if it was a correct and true depiction of the state of affairs as it existed
on spot we would have sent the case back to the District Judge. But the
circumstances and above all the sale deed executed in 1976 are so
transparent that it leaves no doubt that the order of the two Courts below
are manifestly erroneous. No amount of evidence, oral or documentary,
could demolish the sanctity of the sale deed executed by Churu Ram. The
F vendor after disclosing his title mentioned not only the details of property
but gave out in detail the extent which he was transferring. It was
mentioned that Anand Bhavan with four flats which were in occupation of

G
(1) Sant Ram, (2) Salig Ram, (3) Bali Ram and (4) Amogh Chand were
being sold and possession was delivered. The recital is clear and unambigu-
ous. The identity was established by giving Khasra numbers, name of
village and area as mentioned in Jamabandi. Since entire Anand Bhavan
-
with two storeyed building and four flats were sold and handed over to the
appellant the description of four biswas was an error which crept in due to
its wrong recording in Jamabandi. When the Anand Bhavan was situated in
seven biswas as it now transpires to be the mention of four biswas in
Jamabandi and its repetition in sale deed was· obviously mistake which
H
ISHWARI DEVI v. SARLA DEVI [R.M. SARAI, J.] 589

could not recoil against. It is not the claim of respondent that Churu Ram A
was possessed of any other property.

In construing a sale deed the words used by the vendor cannot be
ignored on any supposition or presumption. Where the property has been
specifically identified in a deed any ambiguity or inconsistency arising out
of it has to be disregarded. As explained earlier the recital in the sale deed is B
clear and unequivocal. The vendor who was the owner of Anand Bhawan
intended without any reservations to transfer the two storeyed building
called Anand Bhawan in favour of the appellant. This could not be diluted
merely because the area was mentioned as four biswas. The appellant
became owner of the entire Anand Bhawan and the entire area stood vested C
in her. The erroneous recital in the sale deed that Anand Bhawan was
situated in 4 biswas would not in any manner affect the title of the
appellant. The learned counsel for respondent attempted to support the
order by placing reliance on the report of the Commissioner and the
undertaking given by the appellant before District Judge that .if the building
was found situated in any other Khasra than Khasra No. 613 then she would D
not claim any right over it. But what was lost sight of was that the appellant
was so sure due to description of the area in the Jamabandi that it must not
have crossed her mind that there was a mistake or error in it. Nor she could
have been aware of the planning of Sant Ram who after advancing a
preposterous argument on the description of the property in jamabandi of E
1970-71 in column No. 5 proceeded to give it shape by getting 3 biswas
entered in name of Churu Ram in the same year and then got an ex-parte
report from the Kanungo that Anand Bhawan was situated in two plots. The
appellant was•not aware of all this and, therefore, she appears to have
agreed for the appointment of a commissioner who when went to the spot
and having found that the area being 7 biswas and 4 being entered in F
Khasra No. 613 and 3 in Khasra No. 491 had no option except to submit the
report in favour of the respondent. But it was the duty of the court to have
attempted to find out the truth by sending for the original revenue records
and find out if actually there was any Khasra No.491before1980-81. Same
was with the ex-parte report of Kanungo. The tax receipts too mentioned G
appellant as owner of entire Anand Bhawan. In any case even assuming that
3 biswas of Anand Bhawan fall in Khasra No. 491 Churu Ram who
undisputedly was the owner of entire Anand Bhawan having transferred the
entire property in favour of the appellant the title passed to her over the
entire area whether it fell under Khasra No. 613 or 491. The submission of
the respondent, therefore, is liable to be rejected. H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by
the High Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside. The plaintiff suit
filed for declaration and injunction is dismissed. The appellant shall be
entitled to her costs throughout.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

•