An unregistered possessory agreement does not confer rights to the property and cannot be enforced for possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/third defendant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 04.08.2006, in O.S. No.105 of 2001 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein is the plaintiffs and other defendants in the said Suit.

2. The respondents1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the Suit for (i) directing the defendants 1 and 2 to deposit a sum of Rs.3,84,838. 64 paise together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.2,08,970/- from the date of suit till the date of deposit into a Nationalized Bank in the name of the first plaintiff for her benefit; (ii) directing the third defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,78,625.50 paise together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,27,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization in the name of the first plaintiff for her benefit; (iii) ejecting the defendants 1 and 2 from the plaint C schedule land and put the same in possession of the maternal grand parent of the first plaintiff and to grant future profits on a separate application filed in that behalf and the second plaintiff claims the recovery of possession of plaint A schedule land from the third defendant together with future profits from the date of plaint and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.105 of 2001, are as under:

The second plaintiff is the wife of Sri Yalamanchili Gopala Krishna, who is the maternal grand father and next friend of the minor first plaintiff Sobhanamjali. Aruna Kumari is the mother of Sobhanamjali. The first defendant is the father of the said Sobhanamjali. Aruna Kumari was the daughter of the second plaintiff and wife of first defendant.

An extent of Ac.2.80 cents of wet land situated in Bommanampadu village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District together with 31 coconut trees and 6 Palmyrah trees, all fruit bearing trees, therein was given by the second plaintiff to her daughter Aruma Kumari as Pasupukumkuma and Sthreedhana at the time of her marriage with the first defendant. The said Aruna Kumari was in possession and enjoyment of the said land along with trees therein and she was also in possession and enjoyment of another extent of Ac.0.30 cents got from her paternal grand mother. It was also situated in Bommanampadu village. Out of said extent of Ac.0.30 cents, an extent of Ac.0.20 cents was on the immediate North and the remaining extent of Ac.0.10 cents was on the immediate South of the said Ac.2.80 cents. The said Ac.2.80 cents is shown in the plaint A schedule property.

The said Aruna Kumari paid cist in the name of her mother for the said Ac.2.80 cents through her husband on 24.04.1994 for faslis 1400, 1401 and 1402. The defendants 1 and 2 wanted to sell away the said Ac.2.80 cents together with the said trees therein and wanted to purchase land with the sale proceeds that may be realized in the name of said Aruna Kumari for her benefit. The said Aruna Kumari and her parents made it clear to the third defendant that the said land together with trees therein will be sold and a registered sale deed will be executed only if the entire sale proceeds are utilized for the purchase of the land for the benefit of the said Aruna Kumari and the registered sale deed will be executed in respect of the plaint A schedule land only after a sale deed is obtained in the name of the said Aruna Kumari. The third defendant agreed for the said conditions and wanted to purchase the plaint A schedule land and the said trees therein. As there was no registered gift deed in favour of the said Aruna Kumari in respect of the said land, and the said trees, the third defendant wanted to obtain an agreement of sale initially and a registered sale deed afterwards from the second plaintiff, who already made over the s