Malaram vs Sukhram
2026 Latest Caselaw 1708 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Malaram vs Sukhram on 16 April, 2026

                                                     1
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                                                        NAFR



                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  Judgment reserved on 02.02.2026
                                  Judgment delivered on 16.04.2026

                                            FA No. 16 of 2020

          1 - Malaram S/o Shri Shaitanaram Vishnoi Aged About 38 Years R/o Village -
          Malaidabari, P.S. Dongergaon, Tahsil - Dongergaon, District - Rajnandgaon
          Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                                               --- Petitioner(s)


                                                 versus


          1 - Sukhram S/o Bagtaram Vishnoi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pilwa, P.S. -
          Lohavat, Tahsil - Falodi, District - Jodhpur(Rajasthan), District : Jodhpur, Rajasthan


          2 - Kaluram S/o Shri Ratturam Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village -
          Malaidabari, P.S. - Dongergaon, Post - Tappa, Tahsil - Dongergaon, District -
          Rajnandgaon       Chhattisgarh,      District   :     Rajnandgaon,       Chhattisgarh


          3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,
          District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                                      --- Respondent(s)

1 - Malaram S/o Shri Shaitanaram Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajasthani Dhaba Village Tappa, P. S. Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - Sukhram S/o Bagtaram Vishnoi Aged About 45 Years R/o Rajasthani Dhaba Village Devari, Post Devari, District Gondia M. H., District : Gondiya *, Maharashtra

2 - Kaluram S/o Shri Ratturam Vishnoi Aged About 40 Years R/o Rajasthani Dhaba Village Tappa, P. S. Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

1 - Kaluram Bishnoi S/o Ratturam Bishnoi Aged About 46 Years R/o Rajasthani Dhaba, Village Tappa, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon,chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus 1 - Sukhram S/o Bagatram Bishnoi R/o Rajasthani Dhaba, Deori, Post Deori, District Gondia(Maharashtra), District : Gondiya *, Maharashtra

2 - Malaram S/o Saitanaram Bishnoi R/o Rajasthani Dhaba, Village Tappa, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

For Appellant/s in FA Nos.16 of 2020 & 17 of 2020 : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For Appellant in FA No.41 of 2020 : Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.

For Respondent/ State : Shri Anil S. Pandey, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey CAV ORDER

1. Civil Suit No. 131A of 2011 was filed by Malaram against Sukhram and

Kaluram claiming therein declaration of exclusive ownership and

possession, alongwith a decree of permanent injunction over lands

comprising Survey Nos. 108/1, 108/2, 109/2, 110/1, 110/2, 108/3,

109/3 & 110/3 admeasuring 3.48 acres situated at Village Tedesara.

The suit was filed, interalia on the ground that Sukhram and Kaluram

have no right over the property though their names are mentioned in

the sale-deeds dated 15.12.2008 (two sale deeds) and 16.2.2009. It

was further pleaded that the entire sale consideration was paid by

plaintiff - Malaram alone and same is evident from an agreement

entered into between the parties. The civil suit was dismissed.

2. Civil Suit No.47B of 2013 was filed by Sukhram against Malaram and

Kaluram for the recovery of Rs.19,50,000/- as well as for ownership

and possession of 1/3rd share of the suit property admeasuring 3.69

acres. It was further alleged that the parties were jointly running a

Dhaba on the said land, but the defendants failed to pay him his share

of profit amounting to Rs.50,000/- per month for a period of 39 months.

Sukhram Bisnoi further pleaded that the suit property was purchased

through registered sale-deed, which were executed in their names.

This civil suit was partly allowed. The learned Trial Court allowed

plaintiff's claim of joint ownership but dismissed the claim of mesne

profit.

3. The two first appeals bearing registration Nos.17 of 2020 and 41 of

2020 have been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in

Civil Suit No.47B of 2013, whereby the suit filed by Malaram was

partly decreed and Sukhram, Malaram and Kaluram Bisnoi have been

held entitled to get 1/3rd share each in the suit property. They were

further held entitled to possession of their respective 1/3rd shares.

First Appeal No.41 of 2020 has been filed by Sukhram challenging the

judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.47B of 2013.

4. The facts of both the civil suits are almost similar. Kaluram is brother-

in-law of Malaram. Daughter of Kaluram is married to son of Sukhram.

Plaintiff - Malaram pleaded that he had been running five Tractors

since 2001 and in the year 2007, he started a Dhaba near Arora Petrol

Pump, Village Tedesara on a rented premises, where Kaluram was a

an employee. Sukhram was later engaged as an employee in the said

Dhaba by Kaluram. It is further case of Malaram and Sukhram that

they jointly purchased the suit property in the year 2009 through

registered sale deeds. An application for diversion was moved and

after obtaining the necessary permission a structure was constructed

to run a Dhaba styled as "Rajasthani Dhaba". There was some

dispute between them and attempts were made to settle the dispute. It

is pleaded that a meeting was convened in Rajasthan where a

decision was taken that Sukhram will pay Rs.4,50,000/- to Malaram

and Kaluram and subsequently, the said amount was paid and

possession of Dhaba was handed over to Sukhram. Another meeting

was convened on 25.1.2013 where a decision was taken that the

Dhaba will remain in possession of Sukhram and he will pay a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/- to Malaram and Kaluram and the suit property will be

divided in three equal parts. Sukhram claimed mesne profit

Rs.50,000/- per month for a period of 39 months from Malaram and

Kaluram and also claimed 1/3rd share in the suit property. In both the

civil suits, the defendants filed their written statement and denied the

plaint averments.

5. In First Appeal No.16 of 2020, Shri Rakesh Thakur Advocate would

submit that the entire suit property was purchased by Malaram alone

and this fact could not be rebutted by the defendants. He would refer

Ex.P/4 an agreement executed by Kaluram, which states that Malaram

alone paid the entire sale consideration and Sukhram and Kaluram

would only be entitled to claim their rights after payment of their

respective shares. He would further submit that the learned trial Court

failed to consider this document. He further argued that the learned

Trial Court erroneously invoked the provisions of Benami Transactions

(Prohibition) Act, 1988. Consequently, he would pray to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019.

In First Appeal No.17 of 2020, Shri Rakesh Thakur would argue

that the learned trial Court erred in deciding the Issue No.1, wherein it

is held that Sukhram succeeded to establish that the suit property was

jointly purchased. He would submit that Kaluram (DW-2) categorically

stated in his testimony that the sale consideration was paid solely by

defendant No.1 Malaram and this piece of evidence has not been

considered by the learned Trial Court.

In First Appeal No.41 of 2022, Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocate

would argue that the decree passed by the learned trial Court whereby

Malaram, Kaluram and Sukhram have been held entitled to a 1/3rd

share of the suit property is contrary to the facts and evidence on

record.

6. On the other hand, Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel

appearing for Sukhram would submit that three separate registered

sale-deeds dated 15.12.2008 and 16.2.2009 were executed between

Piyush Jain and Gyan Chand Jain on one side and Malaram, Sukhram

and Kaluram on the other. He would submit that a consent letter

(Ex.P/15) was given by Sukhram and Kaluram in favour of Malaram to

obtain an electricity connection and it does not confer any ownership

rights upon Malaram. He would contend that the said agreement does

not contain the signature of Malaram and it is not a registered

document. He would further submit that there is no stipulation in the

sale-deeds granting exclusive right over the property to Malaram. He

would submit that the appeals deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents present on record.

8. These three appeals revolve around the sale-deeds dated 15.12.2008

and 16.2.2009. The above-stated sale-deeds have been exhibited in

both the civil suits. The first sale-deed was executed by Piyush Jain in

favour of Malaram, Sukhram and Kaluram regarding a portion of

Survey No.108/2 admeasuring 1.79 acres. On 15.12.2008 second

sale-deed was executed by Gyan Chand Jain in favour of Sukhram,

Malaram and Kaluram pertaining to Survey Nos. 108/3, 109/3 and

110/3, total admeasuring 0.69 acres. The last sale-deed was executed

by Piyush Kumar Jain on 16.2.2009 in favour of Malaram, Sukhram

and Kaluram pertaining to Survey Nos. 108/1, 108/2, 109/2, 110/1 &

110/2. A perusal of recitals of these sale-deeds would clearly reveal

that the suit properties were purchased by Malaram, Sukhram and

Kaluram jointly and the sale consideration was paid. It is nowhere

stated that the sale consideration was paid by Malaram alone.

9. The revenue documents demonstrate that pursuant to execution of the

sale-deeds, the suit properties were recorded in the joint names of

Malaram, Sukhram and Kaluram.

10. The unregistered agreement or consent letter is not admissible in

evidence in absence of registration. Furthermore, pursuant to

meetings held in Rajasthan it cannot be presumed that the property

was purchased by Malaram alone.

11. With regard to joint ownership of Malaram, Sukhram and Kaluram as

the suit properties were purchased through a registered sale-deeds

and those sale-deeds have not been challenged in either civil suits it

can be held that the suit properties were purchased in the joint names

of Malaram, Sukhram and Kaluram.

12. With regard to the claim for mesne profits, the plaintiff is required to

establish that the defendants were in unlawful possession.

Furthermore, the plaintiff must quantify the profits by leading cogent

oral and documentary evidence. The evidence required includes proof

of illegal occupation, the prevailing market rate and the income

generated from the property.

13. In the present case, Sukhram failed to adduce documentary evidence

to quantify the profits. Additionally, it was not proved that the

possession held by Malaram and Kaluram was unauthorized;

therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of

Sukhram with regard to mesne profits.

14. With respect to the joint ownership of Malaram, Sukhram, and

Kaluram, as the suit properties were purchased through registered

sale deeds that have not been challenged in either civil suit, it can be

held that the suit properties were purchased in the joint names of all

three parties.

15. Now coming to the issue of validity and genuineness of the sale-deeds.

It is a settled position of law that a registered sale-deed carries a

formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is

not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high

degree of sanctity to the document. A person alleging that sale-deed

as a sham document must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by

making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material

particulars within their pleadings and evidence.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hemalatha (D) by Lrs.

vs. Tukaram (D) by Lrs. and Ors., reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC)

79, held that there must be clear pleadings and convincing averments

to establish the factum of a sham transaction. It is also held that the

mere usage of words like fraud is not sufficient. Paragraphs 31, 34 &

35 are reproduced herein below:

"31. It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham". Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353 1, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs. and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727 2, and Rattan

Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300 3, this Court "27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption......" "16. Sale deed dated 21-12-1970 in favour of Jamila Begum is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law......" " 33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered......" reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.

34. The person alleging that a registered Deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. This Court is of the view that the test akin to a test under Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable to such a pleading and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action would not be permitted and a clear right to sue would have to be shown in the plaint.

35. As pointed out by this Court in I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 70, the ritual of repeating a word like 'fraud' or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unraveled and exposed by the Court at the nascent stage of litigation without waiting for a full trial.

Mere suspicion or nebulous averments without material particulars would not be sufficient to dislodge the presumption under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

17. Although Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'the

Act, 1882') is not directly relevant for the adjudication of these

appeals, but the said provision required consideration to resolve the

dispute with regard to rights of the parties. This is necessary because

Malaram pleaded that he alone paid the sale consideration and

therefore holds exclusive rights over the suit property. According to

proviso appended to Section 58(c) of the Act, 1882, no transaction

should be deemed to be a mortgage by conditional sale unless the

condition is embodied in the document which operates or purports to

effect the sale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the

Section 58(c) of the Act, 1882 in the matter of Sopan (Dead) Through

His LR vs. Syed Nabi, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 635, held that no

transaction should be deemed to be a mortgage by conditional sale

unless the condition is embodied in the document which operates or

purports to effect the sale. It is further held that any recital relating to a

mortgage or the transaction being in the nature of a conditional sale,

must be an intrinsic part of the very sale deed which will be the subject

matter. Para 5 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:

"5. From a perusal of the proviso to Section 58(c) as emphasised, it indicates that no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. Therefore, any recital relating to mortgage or the transaction being in the nature of a conditional sale

should be an intrinsic part of the very sale deed which will be the subject matter...."

18. A perusal of the sale-deeds would reveal that there are no conditions

embodied in the sale-deeds conferring exclusive right upon Malaram

over the suit properties and therefore, the learned trial Court in Civil

Suit No.47B of 2020 rightly held that Malaram, Sukhram and Kaluram

are entitled to get 1/3rd share each.

19. As the sale-deeds are registered documents, they carry presumption of

validity and genuineness. Since this validity and genuineness could

not be shaken by the plaintiff - Malaram, the learned trial Court rightly

dismissed the suit filed by him.

20. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi