The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday ordered action against a trial judge for deliberately ignoring a death certificate while deciding a case related to a disputed property [Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Another v Indra Mohan Sachdev]

High Court Justice Sandeep Jain said that Civil (Senior Division) at Ghaziabad, Jasveer Singh Yadav, in order to cause illegal gain to a party had purposely ignored the document. The reason for ignoring the death certificate is shocking, perverse and tainted with extraneous consideration, the Court observed. 

“The conduct of the trial Judge is not above board, who has either due to extraneous reasons or due to lack of competence, has passed the impugned decree, which cannot be legally justified in any manner whatsoever. It is a case of deliberate judicial misconduct, which renders the integrity of the Judge doubtful.This is a case which shocks the conscience of this Court that how could a Judge act in this manner, in order to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff. The facts of the case speak for themselves, the blatant manner in which law has been flouted and justice has been denied. It is a case of daylight judicial murder,” the Court added.

In light of the above, Justice Jain directed that the matter be placed before the High Court Chief Justice for taking appropriate action on the administrative side against the trial judge for “passing such blatant, dishonest and illegal order”.

The controversy stemmed from the death certificate of one Sushila Mehra, who was stated to be the owner of a property in Anand Industrial Area.

In 2022, one Indra Mohan Sachdev, whose father was a tenant of Mehra’s alleged property, was declared to be the owner of the plot in an ex-parte decree by an Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).

In 2044, Sachdev filed another suit before the Ghaziabad court for a direction to the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam for entering his name as the owner of the property. Considering the 2022 decree as well as deposits of property tax, the civil judge last year ruled in favour of Sachdev.

However, the Ghaziabad local body said it was not party to the suit in which Sachdev was declared owner of the property. Further, it said that Mehra, the woman stated to be the property’s original owner, had died in 1996 in Hyderabad. Thus, it alleged that Sachdev had obtained the decree declaring him to be the property owner by concealing true facts. 

It was argued that since the 2022 decree had been obtained against a dead defendant, it was a nullity and thus not binding on anyone.

The civil judge, who granted relief to Sachdev last year on the basis of the 2022 decree, overlooked the fact deliberately and even rejected the death certificate, it was submitted. Nagar Nigam also said that the evidence revealed that even Mehra was not the registered owner of the property – it was registered as a Muraga Khana.

The municipal body also contended that a tenant could not have acquired ownership of the property on the basis of adverse possession. This was also overlooked by the trial court, it was submitted.

Considering the submissions and the records, the High Court noted that the trial judge had rejected a photocopy of Mehra’s death certificate on the ground that it was inadmissible in evidence. However, the Court found it was already on record before Delhi High Court in another case.

It also noted that Nagar Nigam was not going to benefit by bringing on record the certificate as it was not seeking ownership of the property in question.

“It is pertinent to mention here that death and birth certificates are never filed in the original because they always remain with the person concerned or his/her legal heirs, and in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, only a true copy of them is filed. It is further pertinent to mention here that the defendants [Nagar Nigam] being the 3rd parties, could never have benefitted from filing the false death certificate of Sushila Mehra. In view of this, there was no justifiable reason for the trial court to ignore the copy of the death certificate of Sushila Mehra,” the High Court said.

The Court added that legal heirs of Mehra have already challenged the ex-parte decree by which Sachdev was declared owner of the property on the ground that she had died in 1996 much before filing of the suit. 

Further, the Court opined that Sachdev’s name could have been entered in the property register only if Mehra had been the previous owner. However, the property was recorded as a Muraga Khana in property records of Nagar Nigam, it noted.

“The extract of the property ledger as well as, the house tax/water tax/Sewer tax bill only disclose that the disputed property is Muraga Khana. Who is the owner of Muraga Khana is not mentioned in the above documents, as such, even on the basis of the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.no. 1126 of 2019, plaintiffs name could not have been entered as the owner in possession of the above property, but the trial court has deliberately overlooked this fact,” the High Court said.

It further said that merely on the basis of payment of house tax of the disputed property, neither any one acquires its ownership nor can proclaim to be its owner. The Court also noted that a tenant could not have claimed ownership of the disputed property. 

The Court thus allowed the Nagar Nigam’s appeal and set aside the decree passed by the civil judge last year. 

“It is apparent that the trial court has in total disregard of the legal provisions and evidence on record, has decreed the plaintiff 's suit by impugned judgment , merely on the basis of earlier decree dated 31.5.2022 passed in O.S. no.1126 of 2019, which was a nullity, which conferred no right title or interest in the plaintiff regarding the disputed property, but still the trial court has relied on this void decree, to grant relief to the plaintiff, which is inexplicable and legally unsustainable,” it reasoned.

Advocate Shreya Gupta represented Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad.

Advocate Shivam Yadav represented the respondent. 

[Read Judgment]