An unregistered agreement to sell immovable property does not confer ownership rights; registration is mandatory for valid transfer of title.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2015, by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by impugned judgment and decree.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2015 before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the plaintiff before the Trial Court are that plaintiff, Smt. Dhanmoti, is a housewife and she always remain sick, due to which she made her husband Tikaram her power of attorney holder. Plaintiff agreed into purchase of land bearing Plot No. 323/2 measuring 2280 sq. ft. with roof tile house on it for sale consideration of Rs. 45,000 and Plot No. 323/30 measuring 2525 sq.ft. with baadi on it for Rs. 45,000 (suit house and baadi) from Smt. Ramshila, paid Rs. 90,000 cash in presence of witnesses on 02.06.2001 and took possession of the property. Since then either Ramshila (seller) or her legal heirs have not objected or disputed. In the year 2006, Tikaram, Government servant, was posted at Raipur and therefore plaintiff also shifted along with her husband and locked the house and baadi. Plaintiff’s husband time to time visits his house for its supervision. It is further pleaded that when husband of plaintiff came to know that defendant had encroached over the disputed property by breaking open the lock and when defendant was asked to vacate the premises, plaintiff’s husband was threatened. He orally reported the matter to police, where he was advised to approach Court. Case was initially filed in Civil Court bearing Civil Suit No. 15-A/2001, which was returned back to file in the court of competent jurisdiction.

4. Defendant and his brother also filed civil suit for specific performance of contract which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2012. The agreement dated 26.04.2006 was refuted by Chanchala Bai, daughter of Ramshila.

5. Defendant, in his written statement, has denied all adverse pleadings made in the plaint and specifically denied that any transaction or agreement ever took place between the plaintiff and late Smt. Ramshila, widow of Sahadev, regarding the residential house and courtyard situated on Khasra Nos. 323/28 and 323/30 respectively at village Bodapali. It is also pleaded that the alleged agreement dated 02.06.2001 relied upon by the plaintiff is false, fabricated, and legally invalid. No registered sale deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, she does not acquire any title or ownership over the disputed property. The alleged possession claimed by the plaintiff, without ownership or registered document, confers no legal right. The defendant further pleaded that as per the order issued in Revenue Case No. 38A/66 2001-2002 dated 15.05.2002, ownership and possession of the suit land stood recorded in the name of late Smt. Ramshila; hence, the plaintiff’s claim is baseless and contrary to record.

6. The defendant admitted that the husband of plaintiff is a government servant but asserted that the plaintiff resides with him in Saraipali and never possessed the disputed house. The allegation that the plaintiff locked or stored belongings in the suit house is denied. It is pleaded that the defendant is in peaceful possession of the disputed property after acquiring it from Smt. Chanchala Bai, the only daughter of late Sahadev and Ramshila, through deed dated 26.04.2005. The plaintiff, having no valid or registered do