Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI, MEHTA,J.
SH. RAMESHWAR DASS ..... APPELLANT
versus
SH. HAKIM JAVED & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
RFA No. 451/2001
Decided On : 2nd January, 2012
Mr. J.P. Verma, Advocate.
None.
The mandatory registration of documents affecting immovable property and the exceptions under Section 53A for part performance of a contract are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Registration Act - Property Dispute - [Section 17, Section 49, Section 53A of the Registration Act, 1908] - The court discussed the mandatory registration of documents affecting immovable property under Section 17 and the effect of non-registration under Section 49. The court emphasized the requirement of compulsory registration for documents creating rights in immovable property and the exceptions under Section 53A for part performance of a contract. The appellant's failure to prove ownership and possession, along with the strong evidence of the public authority, led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed ownership and possession of a property based on unregistered documents, but the trial court dismissed the suit due to lack of proof of ownership and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove ownership and possession of the property, and the unimpeachable evidence of the public authority weighed strongly against the appellant.
Issues: The issues included ownership, possession, and the validity of unregistered documents affecting the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory registration of documents affecting immovable property and the exceptions under Section 53A for part performance of a contract. The appellant's failure to prove ownership and possession led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 16.8.2001. By the impugned judgment, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession and declaration qua the property, B-1/27, New Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property vide customary documentation being an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and receipt executed in his favour by one Sh. Shaukeen on 3.3.1992. Sh. Shaukeen is stated to have purchased the suit property from Smt. Jereefan by similar documents dated 3.2.1992. Smt. Jereefan was stated to have purchased the property from one Sh. Nabbu Singh by the same type of documents dated 16.5.1986 and Sh. Nabbu Singh had purchased the property from the original owner/Sh. Lachcho Ram by means of the documents on 19.5.1981. The appellant/plaintiff claimed to have received the possession of the suit property on 3.3.1992 when the documents were stated to have been executed in his favour. There were proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) whereupon the property was sealed on 6.4.1992, however, subsequently the property was de-sealed and possession was handed over to the respondents/defendants. The subject suit for possession and declaration thereafter came to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
3. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 contested the suit on the ground that he was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same by means of documents dated 12.2.1986 from one Sh. Radhe Shyam Gupta and who had purchased the same from the earlier owner Sh. Raj Kumar. It was contended that the appellant/plaintiff was claiming the suit property to be 200 sq. yds whereas the suit property was 235 sq. yds. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 also alleged that the appellant claimed the suit property to be situated in khasra No. 393/264, however, the suit property was situated at khasra No. 396/264. The respondent No.1/defendant No. 1, therefore, disputed the ownership of the appellant/plaintiff qua the suit property and prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit being owner? OPP 2. Whether the property is situated in Khasra No. 393/264, Main village Chilla Sharonda Banga Shahdara, Delhi? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as claimed? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of pendency of the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C.? OPD 5. Relief.”
5. The trial Court while dealing with issue Nos. 1 and 2 has observed that though the appellant/plaintiff proved on records the documents dated 3.3.1992 being Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and receipt executed in his favour as Ex. PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E, however, the trial Court held that such documents cannot be looked into as these were not registered documents, because these documents transferred rights in immovable properties and consequently required compulsory registration by virtue of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In the absence of registration as per Section 49 of the Registration Act there was a bar to look into the documents. The trial Court had also noted that the appellant/plaintiff has not based his claim under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 i.e. on the basis of doctrine of part performance. The trial Court has also held that the appellant/plaintiff claimed to have received possession on 3.3.1992, however, it could not be believed that he was dispossessed just after nine days on 12.3.1992 by the respondents/defendants. The defendants, other than defendant No.1/respondent No.1, were the tenants in the property. The most important issue was if and whether the
