The case of Kumar Harish Chandra Singh Deo v. Bansidhar Mohanty, AIR 1965 SC 1738 | BareLaw
A pronouncement of a court on the question of attestation of documents under Section 3 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Facts:
- Execution of Mortgage Deed: In April 1945 Sri Harish Chandra Kumar Deo executed a mortgage deed in favour of Sri Jagannath Debata for Rs.15,000/- payable within one year but he did not pay it back.
- Legal Suit: A case was filed by Banshidhar Mohanty challenging the stand taken by Jagannath Debata who claimed himself as the real lender. The trial court found that Banshidhar Mohanty’s case had been established as true.
- Subsequent Appeals: Having failed to have his decision reversed at the High Court level, Deo went to appeal before the Supreme Court where he started.
Issues:
- Whether or not there was valid attestation in respect of the mortgage deed
- Whether Respondent No.1 (Banshidhar Mohanty) is entitled to maintain this suit.
Observations and Judgment:
- Validity of Attestation: It was held by the Apex court that there has been proper attestation here. Explaining that it protects executants from coercion/ fraud / undue influence, Supreme Court said attestation could be done even by a person unconnected with any transaction though no concern might exist between him and any party thereto.
- Right to Sue: It was also observed by the Court that whenever one confers value upon someone else during a transaction such person is conferred with right to sue which arises out of such transaction. Therefore, since in mortgage suits, there is an actual lender and whoever lends money on mortgage has legal right to sue so Bansidhar Mohanti could file this suit.
- Dismissal of Appeal: The supreme court dismissed Deo’s appeal and upheld high courts decree.
This instance demonstrates how several courts have interpreted this provision over time in order to determine whether or not certification gives an individual any right of action. The above case is significant in understanding the intricacies of attestation in Transfer Property Act as held by Supreme Court that attestation protects executant against duress and even a person who is not party to a deed may attest it provided he has some interest in its subject matter. Moreover, this judgment reaffirms the basic principle that the actual lender of money in a mortgage transaction has locus standi which forms part of property law and loan transactions. This ruling resolved the dispute between the parties but also set precedent in relation to such issues pertaining attestation and rights of parties involved in mortgage transactions.
