Agreements supporting or creating rights in immovable property require compulsory registration under Section 17(I)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. A suit for declaration may not be maintainable without a claim for joint possession.

K.C. Gupta, J. - This regular second appeal has been directed by the plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 29.8.1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Jind, whereby, the appeal filed by the defendants was accepted and the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration was dismissed, but the parties were left to bear their own costs throughout.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Shiv Lal son of Mekha was owner of 1/2 share of land measuring 109 Kanal and 5 Marlas detailed in the heading of the plaint. On 20.9.1973, he executed a will in favour of the respondents (defendants) of his entire share in the above mentioned land.

3. The appellants brought a suit for declaration and challenged the above said will. However, compromise took place between them. Consequently, two agreement Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were executed between the parties and according to these agreements, they would transfer 2/3rd share of the inherited property to the appellants. The said agreements were not produced in the Court, nor any order was passed on the basis of compromise. The appellants got their suit dismissed in default under Order 9 rule 2 C.P.C. on 17.8.1973 vide order Ex.P-9.

4. After the death of Shiv Lal, the mutation of the above mentioned land was sanctioned in favour of the respondents and they did not transfer 2/3rd share of the suit land in favour of the appellants as agreed. Consequently, the appellants filed a suit for declaration that they were owners of 2/3rd share out of 1/2 share of land measuring 109 Kanal-5 Marla, situated in village Inael Kalan, Tehsil and District Jind, as per jamabandi 1970-71 and further, they were entitled to get possession after getting it partitioned.

5. The respondents contested the suit and filed written statement. They stated that they never entered into alleged compromise with the appellants, nor executed agreements Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in their favour. They further stated that the said agreements, if any, are the result of fraud and deceit practised upon them and as such, the same were not binding upon them. They next stated that during the life time of Shiv Lal, they had no right to execute the said agreements. They also stated that the suit was not maintainable in the present form as appellants were not in possession of the suit land and further they had no locus standi to file the suit. They next stated that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction.

6. In view of these pleadings, the following issues were struck by the then Sub Judge, II Class, Jind on 10.2.1976 :-

1. Whether there was any agreement between the parties, as alleged in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint. If so, what are its terms and its effect ? OPP

2. Whether defendant No. 2 is properly described, if not its effect ? OPP

3. Whether plaint is defective for want of description of the land in plaint. if so, its effect ? OPD

4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring the suit in presence e of Chanderpati daughter of Shiv Lal ? OPD

5. Whether defendants had no right to enter into an agreement qua the land of Shiv Lal during the life time ? OPD.

6. Relief.

7. On 3.10.1978, the two following additional issues were also framed:-

5-A. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

5-B. Whether the plaint has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD

8. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on the file, the then Sub Judge II Class, Jind, decreed the suit by holding under issue No. 1 that the respondents had executed the agreements Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in favour of the appellants and according to those agreements, they were bound to get sanctioned mutation of 1/3rd share of the suit land in favour of appellants 1 and 2 and 1/3rd share in favour of appellants 3 to 5. Under issues 2, 3 and 4, it was held that respondent No. 2 is properly described in the plaint and the suit is not defective for want of description of land and further the appel