Back
2001 Supreme(HP) 15
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
SHANKRU - Appellant
Versus
SUHARU DEVI - Respondent
RSA No.280 of 1991
Decided On : 01/12/2001
Mr. B.N. Gupta vice Mr. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The judgment establishes the principles of admissibility of unstamped and unregistered documents, adverse possession, and the legal effect of possession under an invalid transfer.
Headnote:
Mortgage - Possession of Land - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 35 - Transfer of Property Act - Adverse Possession - Registration Act, 1908, Section 17, 49 - Sale Deed - Possession of Immovable Property
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land on the basis of redemption of a mortgage or title. The defendants contested the suit, claiming adverse possession and ownership of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decided against the plaintiffs on some issues and in favor of the defendants on others, ultimately dismissing the suit. The appellate court, however, accepted the appeal, decreed the suit for possession on the basis of title, and set aside the trial court's judgment and decree.
Issues: The issues included the validity of a sale deed, entitlement to redeem the land, adverse possession, time-barred suit, and proper valuation for jurisdiction and court fee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the admissibility of an unstamped and unregistered sale deed, the concept of adverse possession, and the legal effect of possession under an invalid transfer.
Final Decision: The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, decreeing the suit for possession on the basis of title and dismissing the appeal.
M.R. Verma, J.—Defendants-appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 100/1 of 1984 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that Shri Durga the original plaintiff and since deceased and represented by the present respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) instituted a suit for possession of the land bearing khasra Nos. 468 and 473 measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas comprising khata No. 94 min, Khatauni No. 224, situate in Village Sashan, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, H.P. by way of redemption of the mortgage dated 3.9.1969 for securing a sum of Rs. 500. In the alternative it is claimed that in case the transaction of mortgage was not proved, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land on the basis of the title.
3. The suit was contested by Shri Tikhu the Original defendant now deceased and represented by the present appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) and raised the preliminary objections that the suit was time barred and the plaintiff has ceased to be the owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession of the defendants thereon for more than 12 years, that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 30.6.1969 as claimed by him, that the mukhtiar of the plaintiff was not competent to sign the plaint and the contradictory pleas as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint are not permissible. On merits it has been averred that the suit land was sold by Durga the deceased plaintiff to Tikhu deceased defendant on 13.1.1969 for consideration in the sum of Rs. 500 and that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land.
4. The plaintiff filed replication wherein the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement were denied and the claim as made out in the plaint was reiterated.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff mortgaged the land in suit with the defendant on 3.9.1969 as alleged ? O.P.P.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the suit land without payment of mortgage money? O.P.P.
3. If issue No. 1 is not proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the suit land on the basis of Will? O.P.P.
4. Whether the suit is barred by time? O.P.P.
5. Whether the defendant is in adverse possession of the suit land and has become its owner as alleged? O.P.D.
6. Whether the plaintiff sold the land in dispute to defendant through sale deed dated 13.1.1969 for Rs. 500 as alleged? O.P.D.
7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purpose of jurisdiction and court fee? O.P.D.
8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged? O.P.D.
9. Whether the plaint has not been properly signed as alleged, if so, its effect? O.P.D.
10. Relief."
6. By its judgment dated 1.7.1985 the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 against the plaintiffs and issue Nos. 4 to 6 and 8 in favour of the defendants whereas issue Nos. 7 and 9 were held against the defendants. As a consequence the suit was dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge who by the impugned judgment accepted the appeal, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for possession on the basis of title. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the present appeal.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
9. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the document Ext. DW 2/A could be taken into consideration for collateral purposes for seeking the nature of possession of appellant?
2. Whether the suit of the respondent in the fa
