Valid property transfers require registration, especially when rights are extinguished, and failure to comply renders transactions void.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Vanlalmalasawma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 6 / 2017. The eviction suit i.e., Eviction Suit No.6 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents against the appellant-defendant. The plaintiffs submitted in the plaint inter alia that the land and building covered under the LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 were mortgaged by the defendant to Smt. RS Lalsangzuali by way of mortgage by deposit of title deed for availing a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) on 29.9.2007. That, as per their agreement, the defendant would return the principal amount and interest within six months from the date on which the defendant deposited the said LSC to Smti. RS Lalsangzuali. That, the said LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 was handed over to Smti. RS Lalsangzuali and the defendant took a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. That, the defendant also agreed that if she failed to repay Rs. 2,00,000/- with an interest within the stipulated time, the defendant would lose the said property.

3. That, as the defendant could not repay the loan with interest, the defendant signed all the necessary papers for transfer of the said LSC in the name of Smti. RS Lalsangzuali. That, in pursuance to the application submitted by the defendant side, the Revenue authorities had transferred the said LSC in the name of Smti. RS Lalsangzuali. That, thereafter, the said plot of land was sold to the plaintiff No. 1 by Smti. RS Lalsangzuali for Rs. 4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) and the plaintiff No. 2 paid the said sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- to the plaintiff No. 1.That, without mutating the said LSC in the name of the plaintiff No. 1, the said LSC was directly mutated in the name of the plaintiff No. 2 from the name of Smti. RS Lalsangzuali on 3.6.2011 - That, when the said LSC was transferred in the name of the plaintiff No. 2, there was no suit pending Involving the suit land covered under LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980.

4. That, the defendant filed Declaratory Suit No. 8 of 2010 against Smti. RS Lalsangzuali and five others for declaration of title, ownership over the land covered under LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 and for declaring the agreement dated 29.9.2007 as null and void. That, however, it was dismissed as per Order IX Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 vide Order Dated 11.4.2011. That, thereafter, the defendant filed Declaratory Suit No. 5 of 2013 against Smti. RS Lalsangzuali and five others. That, the suit was withdrawn by the defendant with the permission to file afresh on 26.4.2013. That, the defendant once again filed Declaratory Suit No. 25 of 2013 against the plaintiffs and 7 other persons wherein the plaintiffs in the present case along with Smti. RS Lalsangzuali responded with a joint written statement. The said suit was also dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl on 8.9.2016.

5. That, as stated previously, the land covered under LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 was registered in the name of the plaintiff No. 2 on 3.6.2011. That, as per the land records, the plaintiff No. 2 was the legal and rightful owner of the land and building covered under the LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980. That, the defendant and her family members were staying within the land and building covered under LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 without any authority and without paying any rent. That, the plaintiff No. 2 was entitled to take vacant possession of the said land and building covered under LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 based on title. That, having the said land covered under LSC No. AZL-3 of 1980 mutated in the name of the plaintiff No. 2, he requested the defendant to give vacant possession of the land