The certified copy of the sale deed described the witness as “Baru, resident of Nihandpur Suthari”. However, when the witness testified nearly 40 years later, he described himself as “Baru, son of Nathu, resident of Nasirpur Kalan”.

Small Discrepancies Don’t Matter:

Justice Mishra, writing for the Bench, disagreed with the authorities and the High Court. He observed that the inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony were minor and could not defeat the presumption of validity attached to a registered sale deed. The Court further clarified that this presumption arises from the registration of the sale deed and not from its attestation by witnesses.

Sale Deed Need Not Be Attested

The Court observed: “…attestation is not a statutory requirement for the validity of a sale deed. Unlike instruments such as wills or gifts, a sale deed does not derive its validity from attestation. Consequently, minor discrepancies relating to the particulars of an attesting witness cannot, by themselves, render the execution of a registered sale deed doubtful, particularly where the document otherwise carries the statutory presumption attached to registered instruments.”

The Court emphasized that when the certified sale deed itself described the witness as “Baru resident of Nihandpur Suthari”, a small inconsistency in the witness’s testimony given decades later could not justify doubting the genuineness of the document. This was especially so because a registered sale deed carries a “formidable presumption of validity and genuineness.”

How the Dispute Began:

The dispute arose from a registered sale deed dated June 4, 1957. The appellants claimed possession of the land on the basis of that deed and sought mutation of their names in the revenue records.

Authorities Rejected the Claim:

However, the consolidation authorities refused to recognize the transaction. They held that the execution of the sale deed had not been proved and that the transfer violated Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both findings.

The Court explained that under the law applicable in 1957, a transfer made in violation of Section 154 was not automatically void; it was only voidable. Therefore, although the purchaser could face ejectment proceedings by the Gaon Sabha, the transfer itself remained legally effective unless it was set aside.

Only Void Documents Can Be Ignored:

Relying on Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation and other precedents, the Bench reiterated that consolidation authorities can ignore only a document that is void. A document that is merely voidable continues to remain effective unless it is set aside by a competent civil court.

1981 Changes Not Applicable:

The Court further held that amendments introduced in 1981, which made such transfers void and provided for automatic vesting of the land in the State, could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate a sale deed executed in 1957.

Sale Deed Upheld:

Finding that there were no allegations of forgery, coercion, or fraud, and noting that a heavy burden lies on those seeking to challenge the statutory presumption attached to a registered sale deed, the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the authorities and the High Court.

The Court directed that the appellants’ names be entered in the revenue records.

Case Details: Sarafat Ali (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Ors.