An agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights unless formal transfer occurs per the Transfer of Property Act; procedural integrity is essential in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, HP dated 08.04.2022, whereby the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC for dismissing the suit has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit under Section 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act for declaration and injunction to the effect that the plaintiff having been a tenant to the extent of ½ half share of the land comprised in Khata No.1, Khatauni No.8, Khasra No. 293 min, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 484/321, 489/433 min, and 303 area measuring 29 kanal, 10 marlas situated in tika Dhyal, Mauza and Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. has become owner by operation of the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act.

3. It was stated in the plaint that the defendants are very powerful and influential persons and they are manipulating the transfer of very valuable piece of land, in connivance with the revenue officials and during the jamabandi for the year 1985-1986 got the plaintiff deleted from the possessory column with respect to the Khasra Nos. 852, 859, 862, 863, 877, 878, 880, 881, 882, 884, 886 and 888 and showed the same in joint possession of all the co-owners, without any rhyme or reason and without any order from a competent officer or authority. However, the plaintiff continued to exclusively possess the above land on the spot. It was further averred that the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. An attempt was also made by the defendant No.1 to forcibly occupy and fence the suit land, though he is unaware about the location of the spot allegedly purchased by him.

4. The said suit was contested by defendant No.1 by raising various preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, limitation, jurisdiction, estoppel etc. The averments as made in the plaint were specifically refuted. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff cannot be a tenant and co-sharer simultaneously in the same Khata. The plaintiff has not challenged the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.23 and the entry of the plaintiff in the earlier revenue record showing him to be tenant, is just a mere paper entry. In case the plaintiff is held to be a tenant over any part of the suit land, in that case, the plaintiff has relinquished his tenancy prior to the enforcement of H.P Tenancy & Land Reforms Act and has become a co-sharer in the suit land by way of purchase. All the averments as made in the plaint were refuted by the defendants and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff filed the suit on 21.05.2012 and the written statement was filed by defendant No.1 on 29.08.2012. On 30.04.2022, the defendants filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissing the suit in accordance with the compromise/agreement dated 10.05.2013, 07.08.2013 and 28.01.2014. It was averred in the application that the plaintiff entered into compromise with the defendant No.1 vide agreement dated 10.05.2013, 07.08.2013 and 28.01.2014 with respect to the suit land and same is within the knowledge of the plaintiff, who are the legal representatives of Sh. Jai Dev. Plaintiff No.1(a) Sh. Subhash Kumar is also signatory to the said agreement and the same is evident from the signatures as appended on the compromise/agreement. Further, it has been averred that compromise dated 28.01.2014 is counter signed by Sh. Vijay Kumar, who is the son in law of Sh. Jai Dev. It has been averred that the plaintiff accepted and received the said amount towards the agreement and the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw th