A compulsorily registrable document that is not registered cannot be admitted in evidence to affect immovable property or confer any power to adopt, but it may be admissible as evidence of a collateral transaction to show the nature and character of possession.

JUDGMENT :- This is a plaintiffs second appeal and is directed against a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur districts dismissing the suit filed by the appellants.

2. Shri Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh and his sister Smt. Devi Dev Lata minor through her next friend Smt. Vidyawati filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of possession of land measuring 78 bighas 18 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 331 Khata No. 22 Khatauni No. 27 situate in village Mihana, of Rs. 500/- as damages for use and occupation of the said land during the period from Kharif 1955 to Rabi 1957 and of future mesne profits.

3. The respondent contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between appellant No. 1 and himself and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This plea found favour with the learned trial Court and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper revenue Court. Against the aforesaid decision an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants and while the learned District Judge upheld the finding recorded by the trial Court on the question of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant he reached the conclusion that in view of that finding the suit deserved to be dismissed and accordingly the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree the present appeal has been filed.

4. The main allegations on which the suit was founded were that appellant No. 1 was the owner of the disputed land, that he conferred upon appellant No. 2 occupancy rights in the aforesaid land, that in the month of October, 1955, the respondent entered into possession of the disputed land forcibly without any right and did not give up possession thereof when asked to do so. It was further pleaded that at the time when the respondent dispossessed the appellants they came to know that Shri Kanshi Ram the brother of the respondent who was previously in the employ of appellant No. 1 got the name of the respondent entered in the revenue papers in collusion with the Patwari.

5. The pleas urged in defence were that a lease in respect of the disputed land was executed by Smt. Vidyawati the mother of appellant No. 1 as his next friend and guardian in August 1951, in favour of the respondent and his brother Kanshi Ram, that in pursuance of the aforesaid lease they entered into possession of the disputed land and have continued to be in possession thereof since then. It was further alleged that the rent payable in respect of the demised land has been paid to the parents and Mukhtars of the plaintiff No. 1. The statement made on oath by the respondent was to the effect that Rs.1200/-due to the respondents brother Kanshi Ram as his salary were set off towards rent for 15 years, a sum of Rs. 200/- was paid by him in cash and 2 years after the execution of the lease 5½ tolas of gold and a sum of Rs. 350/- were delivered and paid by him to Smt. Parvati the senior Rani Sahiba. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, as has already been noticed, was challenged on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the respondent and appellant No. 1. It was lastly urged that appellant No. 1 was not competent to confer occupancy rights in the disputed land upon appellant No. 2 and that recourse was had to the device of conferring occupancy rights to defeat the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act 1953, and the rights of the respondent.

6. The main conclusions reached by the learned trial Court were that the lease relied upon by the respondent was compulsorily registrable inasmuch as it was for a period of 15 years, that by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act it was only admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose of seeing the nature and character of the possession of the respondent, that the respondent was in possession of the dispute

Click Here to Read the rest of this document