An unregistered agreement to sell immovable property is inadmissible in evidence and cannot confer rights unless registered, as per the Registration Act.

Judgment :

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.)

1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2007 passed by District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.8A/2006, dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against respondent/defendants to the extent of registration of sale deed in respect of suit property. However, alternative relief sought for by the plaintiff for refund of advance amount of Rs.40,000/-, has been granted by the trial Court in his favour.

[For sake of convenience , the parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court]

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, the plaintiff filed civil suit against defendants stating inter alia that defendant No.1 entered into agreement to sell suit property, i.e. piece of Khasra No.138 numbered as 138/2, area 0.56 hectare, situated at village Jhuipali, PH No.14, Revenue circle and Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund to him, as ‘Karta’ for sale consideration of Rs.1 lakh per acre. He had also received Rs.40,000/- as advance amount from the plaintiff and executed an agreement to sell on 08.3.2003 in stamp paper. Defendant No.1 had agreed to execute registered sale deed till 31.03.2003 after receiving outstanding sale consideration. He had also handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, since then he is in possession over it. Despite repeated oral request to execute the sale deed, defendant No.1 kept procrastinating and assured the plaintiff that sale deed will be registered in his favour after entering names of defendants 2 & 3 (sons of defendant No.1) in revenue record as major, as their names have been recorded as minor. Subsequently, names of defendants 2 & 3 have been entered in revenue record on 04.01.2004 as major, thereafter the plaintiff again asked defendant No.1 for registration of sale deed, but, he did not do it even after service of legal notice, rather defendants 2 & 3 sold suit property to defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed civil suit for registration of sale deed in his favour by defendants 1 to 3 and he has also prayed that sale deed dated 06.01.2006 executed by defendants 2 & 3 in favour of defendant No.4 be declared null and void. Alternatively, he also sought relief for refund of advance amount with interest of 9%.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte before the trial Court and they have not filed any written statement. Defendant No.4 filed written statement, in which she has denied substantive pleading of the plaintiff. She has denied that defendants 1 to 3 are members of the joint family and defendant No.1 is ‘Karta’ of the family, rather there was mutual partition between defendants 1 to 3, as such, defendant No.1 had no right to sell the suit property owned by defendants 2 & 3 as defendant 2 & 3 were recorded owner of it and they had attained the age of majority. She has further pleaded that she has purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 06.01.2006 after payment of full sale consideration, as such she is bonafide purchaser. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief sought for by him in the plaint.

4. The trial Court on the basis of pleading put forth by the parties, has framed as many as 10 issues, recorded evidence of the parties and after considering the same, partly allowed the suit holding therein that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant 1 to 3 were members of the joint family and defendant