Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Bhag Singh And Ors.
Versus
Gulab Kaur
Regular Second Appeal No. 441 of 1980,
Decided On : OCTOBER 28, 1999
ADVERSE POSSESSION - ORAL SALE DEED - REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 17, 49 - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES - POSSESSION UNDER ORAL SALE DEED - PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTION - ADVERSE POSSESSION AGAINST OWNER - SELF-DESTRUCTIVE PLEA.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of 6 biswas of Abadi land, claiming to have purchased it from Mehma Singh through an unregistered sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had proved possession for more than 12 years and had acquired title by adverse possession. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the unregistered sale deed was inadmissible and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove adverse possession. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the unregistered sale deed was inadmissible to convey title but could be considered for collateral purposes. It found that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land since the date of the alleged sale and that their possession was permissive and established on the date of the institution of the suit. The court held that the plaintiffs could not be evicted except in due course of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the unregistered sale deed was admissible to convey title. 2. Whether the plaintiffs had proved adverse possession. 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing them from the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the sale of immovable property above Rs. 100/- could only be made by a registered instrument. The unregistered sale deed in this case was, therefore, inadmissible to convey title. 2. The plaintiffs had been in possession of the land since the date of the alleged sale, but their possession was permissive and not hostile to the owner. They could not, therefore, claim title by adverse possession. 3. The plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing them from the suit property, as they were in established possession on the date of the institution of the suit.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modified the judgments of the lower courts, and granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant from dispossessing them from the suit property except in due course of law.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. Unsuccessful plaintiffs S/Shri Bhag Singh, Gurcharan Singh alias Charan Singh, Pritam Singh, Jaswant Singh alias Bant Singh, Hari Singh and Hardyal Singh, have filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.1980, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, who allowed the appeal of Smt. Gulab Kaur defendant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1978, passed by the Court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Nabha who decreed the suit of the aforesaid plaintiffs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners and in possession of the Abadi land measuring 6 Biswas situated in village Kansuha Kalan bearing Khasra No. 459 as per copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Smt. Gulab Kaur from interfering with their possession in any manner or alienating the same to any person. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that one Mehma Singh son of Hardit Singh was the absolute owner of the Abadi land measuring 6 biswas bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 6-30 and Khasra No. 459, situated in village Kansuha Kalan and on 25.10.2015, B.K. He sold one biswa for a sum of Rs. 99/- each, to each of the plaintiffs and executed a private sale deed written in the Bahi in the presence of the witnesses and delivered actual possession of the suit land to them. Since then the plaintiffs are in continuous occupation thereof. It is further pleaded that besides this, the plaintiffs have become absolute owners of the site in dispute by way of adverse possession and defendant Smt. Gulab Kaur had no right therein. After the death of Mehma Singh, which took place about one year back, before the institution of the suit, defendant Smt. Gulab Kaur got the mutation in respect of the suit land mutated in her favour besides other property of the deceased intentionally though the plaintiffs were the owners and in possession. It is Alleged by the plaintiffs that they came to know about the act on the part of the defendant on 24.3.1975 when they obtained the copy of the Jamabandi from the Patwari. The defendant was asked to admit the title of the plaintiffs and not to alienate the suit property but to no effect. Hence the suit which was instituted on 29.3.1975 for declaration and injunction.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who admitted that her father Mehma Singh was the owner of the suit property. She denied that her father sold out the suit land to the plaintiffs or executed any writing in this behalf. The defendant also raised some legal objections; that suit was not within time, that plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether Mehma Singh deceased sold the land in dispute with possession one biswa to each of the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 99/- each and executed the sale deed dated 25.10.2015 BK? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land for the last more than 12 years ? OPP
3. Whether the defendant got the mutation sanctioned in her name of the land by misrepresentation? OPP
4. Whether the suit is within time? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPD
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
8. Whether the alleged sale deed requires registration under the Indian Registration Act? OPD
9. Relief.
5. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the trial the trial Court decreed the suit mainly for the reasons as contained in paras No. 8, 9, 10 and 13 of its judgment:-
"8. Bhag Singh plaintiff entered the witness box to state their case as PW5. he stated that he had 5 brothers, and all of the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
