Section 33 of the Consolidation Act, 1948, does not override the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for all transfers during the pendency of consolidation proceedings.

, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, dated October 11, 1961, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the suit of the plaintiffs had been dismissed.

2. The facts which have given rise to this litigation are the Santa Singh the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of the land in dispute, which was sold by him along with some other land to Ujagar Singh and Bikar Singh. The plaintiffs filed a suit of possession by pre-emption, which was decreed. The Revenue Officers entered a mutation of gift bearing No. 4657 of the land in dispute in favour of a school situated in Sekha Kalan, which was managed by the defendant and the same was sanctioned on January 16, 1968. According to the plaintiffs, the mutation in favour of the school is illegal, void and ineffective as their father never made a gift of that property in favour of the school. It is further stated that the gift could not be effected orally by their father as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applicable in the State of Punjab and that the consolidation authorities had no right to attest such a mutation. The defendant contested the suit and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit; that the plaintiffs could not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not estopped from filing this suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit in view of the aforesaid findings. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge, who affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. They having felt aggrieved have come up in appeal to this Court.

3. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applicable in the State of Punjab on the date when the oral gift is alleged to have been made by Santa Singh the father of the appellants, and, therefore, it was illegal and void. The learned counsel for the respondent states that under Section 33 of the East Punjab of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act), an oral gift could be made. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties at length and I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has got a great force. Section 33 of the Consolidation Act is as follows:-

-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force:-

- (a) no instrument in writing shall be necessary in order to give effect to a transfer involved in carrying out any scheme of consolidation of holdings, and

(b) no instrument, if executed, shall require registration."

A reading of the said Section shows that the instrument in writing is not necessary in order to give effect to a transfer involved in carrying out any Scheme of Consolidation of Holdings. It does not say that even transfers other than those involved in carrying out any scheme of consolidation do not require instrument. The section overrides the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applicable of the State of Punjab only for a limited purpose, namely that transfers to carry out the scheme of consolidation of holding need not be in writing and it any instrument has been executed that will not require registration. Regarding other transfers the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall remain applicable. The phraseology used the Legislature is very clear and the same cannot be interpreted in any other way. In case the intention of the legislature was that all transfers during the pendency of the Consolidation proceedings did not require an instrument in writing, then the wording of the section should have been different, and the words "involved in carrying out any Scheme" need