By the Court—This reference has been made to the full Bench in a mutation case, in the following words:—

"Whether it is necessary to have a deed in writing duly registered before the mutation can be effected in the name of the vendee (a) when the sale is disputed, (b) when it is not disputed."

2. The plots in dispute were owned by Chiranji and two others. Chiranji alone is alleged to have sold them orally for Rs. 2,000/- to the appellants, whose application for mutation was rejected by the lower courts on the ground that no sale of immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be effected without a registered instrument, according to sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and sec. 17 of the Registration Act and that in the absence of a registered deed, the transaction between the parties did not amount to a sale.

3. "Sale" is defined in sec, 54 of the transfer of property Act as under : —

"Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, can be made only by a registered instrument.

In the case of tangible immovable property of a value of of less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property."

4. There are thus only two modes of transfer by sale, firstly, by means of a registered instrument; and secondly, by delivery of possession in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of less than Rs, 100/-. Thus it is clear that in all the cases, in which a registered instrument is compulsory under the statute, transfer cannot be effected in any other way.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants has invited our attention to sec. 29 of the Alwar Revenue Code stressing the point that according to its provisions transfer by sale need not be in writing whatever may be the value of the immovable property and that the general law cannot over ride the provisions of specific law.

6. The Indian Registration Act and the Indian Transfer of Property Act were made applicable to the Alwar State by the Alwar State Registration Act of 1944, and the Alwar State Transfer of Property Act of 1944. Under clause (2) of the schedule appended to the Alwar Transfer of Property Act, 1944, a1l Hidayats, and other provisions of law hitherto in force, regarding Transfer of Property, by act of the parties were repealed. Since the alleged oral sale is said to have taken place in 1945, after the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Transfer of Property Act were made applicable to the Alwar State in 1944 the contention of the learned counsel loses all its force.

7. In our opinion, where the immovable property is worth Rs. 100/- or more, ownership is not transferred untill the sale is by a registered instrument, as required by the statute; In other words there could be no oral sale of such property. The applicants, even if they have taken possession of the property, are not its owners and the property still vests in the non-applicants.

8. For reasons given above, the reference is answered in the affirmative.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document