This is a revision petition directed against the order of the Munsiff Pulwama dated 31-10-62 whereby he has held the so-called agreement of 29-ll-61 executed by one Mst Khatuni in favor of the plaintiffs as inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

The plaintiff-petitioners brought a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents with respect to 2 kanals of land comprising different survey numbers in village Shandharu Tehsil Pulwama. In Para 2 of the plaint they have mentioned that the mother of defendant No. 1 transferred her rights in the Shamilat and Abadi Deh pertaining to 1 kanal and 3 marlas for a consideration of Rs.1500 to the plaintiffs. A further averment in this paragraph was made by the plaintiffs that prior to the execution of this document, the plaintiffs had been in possession of this land for some time. This 1 kanal and 3 marlas is the subject matter of the document in question dated 29-11-61.

The trial court has held that the document in question is a sale deed and by means of this document Mst. Khatuni has transferred her rights in Abadi Deh and Shamilat land. All that could be transferred pertaining to Shamilat land was the possessory rights, at title vested in the State. Therefore, according to the trial court, the sale deed whereby possession had to be transferred not being registered; the document was inadmissible in evidence. The court has further rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that the document could be used for collateral purposes, because according to the Munsiff; the proviso to S. 49 of the Registration Act was not incorporated in the State.

The learned Munsiff has fallen in error when he states that title in Shamilat cannot be transferred by one landholder to another, the title being vested in the State.

Shamilat and rights in Shamilat was the subject-matter of one of the boons which were granted by late His Highness Maharaja Hari Singh at the time of his Raj Tilak in February 1926 and to that effect a proclamation was made on the 25th of that year. The boon pertaining to Shamilat was thus worded: -

"In villages where there is at present no land entered as Shamilat and where the common land in the vicinity of the village-site is not entered as Khalsa, this land shall henceforth be shown as Shamilat Deh and the villagers concerned shall jointly be awarded the same rights therein which they possess in their individual holdings."

There were further clarifications and Ailans with respect to Shamilat land which are not very material for purposes of this case. They pertain to the size of a Shamilat in a village and how and in what circumstances could Nautors and Banjars and other kinds of land be deemed as Shamilat. But the basic right that was granted by this boon was that the landholders in a particular Mahal would be entitled to have a share in the land declared as Shamilat pro-rata their holdings. That means they had proprietory rights in Shamilat land in proportion to the size of their holdings, which they would hold in common with the other landholders. The Shamilat could be got partitioned and each individual landholder get his share of the Shamilat land in proportion to the size of his holding. The trial court was not, therefore, correct in holding that all that could be transferred about Shamilat land was possessory right alone; but the right of ownership, though joint with others, can also be the subject of a Shamilat land.

Now so far as the admissibility of a document is concerned, the Registration Act lays down certain classes of documents which are compulsorily registerable; some documents the registration of which is optional and yet there is a third class of documents which need not at all be registered, and the last class of documents can transfer title without the document evidencing the transfer being registered. S. 17 of the Registration Act lays down the description of documents of which registration is compulsory. S. 49 of the Registration Act is the se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document