Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"and also in the interest of sub-partners/co-members [i.e. Vishram & Others who are entitled in plots 1 to 7 as per Indenture 11.12.74 and 31.12.78, Similarly Jains executed in the interest of Kanhaya & Other who are entitled in plots 8 to 12 as per deed 29.7.64],"

The words which we have put in brackets are found handwritten in the rectification deed as appears from a registration copy of the rectification deed. According to the respondents-defendants, these words written in hand were not in the original rectification deed dated 18.6.92, on the other band according to the plaintiffs-appellants and the Sankhalas, these handwritten words were there in the original before the rectification deed was registered. We may state that the certified copy of the rectification deed was produced an annexure to the affidavit of appellant Mrs, Shivdasani daughter of Murlidhar dated 123.1999.

According to the appellants, the above words added by hand in para 12 in the bottom of page 3 of the rectification deed shown that in the rectification deed between Sankhalas and Jains dated 18.6.92, the Sankhalas and Jams jointly admitted and recognised the right of Kanhaya & others (i.e. Lokram group) in the corpus of the property allocated to Jain group as distinct from a mere right to profits on dissolution of the sub-firm. If this be so, a question would arise whether the plaintiffs in the Lokram group being heirs of Murlidhar who was one of the partners of the unregistered sub-firm alongwith the Jains were entitled not merely to profits on dissolution of the Jain Lokram sub-firm but to a right in immovable property and whether such a right was accepted by both Sankhalas and Jains jointly under the rectification deed.

Now the learned senior counsel for the Builder, Shri R.F. Nariman vehemently contended that the Words in brackets were not there or were surreptitiously introduced into the rectification deed. We therefore called for a certified copy of the original rectification deed and we found that the words in brackets in 4 lines were very much there in the certified copy also, one line in type and 3 lines in hand in the 3rd page at the bottom. After all, the registered certified copy shows what is in the original rectification deed. The Sankhalas in their counter affidavit dated 13.3.1999 (attested by notary on 30.3.1999) filed before us (sworn to by Sri Devshi Manju Sankhala who is a signatory to this rectification deed) clearly supported the plaintiffs case in regard to these three handwritten lines and stated that :

Now the rectification deed is a registered document. The agreement by Sankhalas with the builder dated 16.7.94 and it specifically refers to the deed of rectification (dated 18.6:92). The Jains agreement of sale dated 19.8.94 with the builder no doubt omits to refer to the rectification deed and says that there are only some `claims' of the Lokrams. But the Sankhalas were obviously more truthful. Now if the agreement of Sankhalas had put the builder on notice of the rectification deed specifically, as stated earlier, it is prima facie clear that the builder had actual notice and was obliged to inquire into its details.Thus there is actual notice. There is also constructive notice inasmuch as the rectification deed is a registered deed and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into play, Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, "a person is deemed to have notice:" of a fact when he actually know that fact or when, but for wifful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. The Explanation I thereto says ; "where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of it, or shares or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration..."