Ram Sarup v Munshi

Facts

• Ram Sarup executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent transferring immovable property
• Subsequently, Ram Sarup claimed that the sale deed was a sham transaction and did not reflect the true intent of the parties
• Ram Sarup relied primarily on oral testimony to establish that the document was nominal
• The respondent relied on the registered deed and claimed full ownership

Issue

1. Whether a registered sale deed can be challenged as nominal or fictitious on the basis of oral evidence, and what standard of proof applies to such a challenge.

Held

• A registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity under Sections 68 and 90 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
• The presumption is rebuttable but the burden of proof is heavy on the party challenging it
• Oral evidence alone, without strong documentary corroboration, is insufficient to displace the presumption
• The registration process itself (attestation, execution before Sub-Registrar) adds to the evidentiary weight
• Courts must not lightly discard registered documents based on self-serving oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

A registered document of title carries a strong statutory presumption of genuineness and proper execution. The party alleging that the registered deed is a sham, nominal, or does not represent the true transaction bears the heavy burden of proving so by clear and convincing evidence, preferably documentary. Mere oral assertions are inadequate to displace this presumption.