Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
Balraj Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Pritam Singh - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 2238 of 2006.
Decided On : 09 October, 2006
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. - Possession and Agreement to Sell - The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. based on the terms of the agreement to sell and the possession handed over to the respondent. The court emphasized the significance of the agreement as evidence of possession and the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. was rejected based on the terms of the agreement to sell and the possession handed over to the respondent. The petitioner's plea regarding possession was not accepted by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no force in the petitioner's contentions and upheld the rejection of the application. It emphasized the significance of the agreement as evidence of possession and the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also highlighted the relevance of Section 49 of the Registration Act in using the agreement as evidence of possession.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the properties in dispute, the significance of the agreement to sell, and the protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the terms of the agreement to sell, the acknowledgment of possession in the agreement, and the legal provisions under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C.
Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.12.205 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nawanshshar vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. was rejected keeping in view the terms of the agreement to sell on receipt of Rs. 14,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner had handed over the possession to the respondent and this fact was duly incorporated in the agreement to sell. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Courts below on the plea that latest Khasra-Girdawaries i.e. for the year 2005-06 shows that the petitioner to be in possession of the properties in dispute. He has further stated that he is in possession of J form issued by the Grewal and Co. showing the sale of the agricultural produce by the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recital in the agreement is very weak type of evidence on which no prima facie reliance has been placed.
3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner and find no force in the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has admitted that the agreement was executed between the parties which does have a recital of possession having been handed over to the respondent. Even if the said agreement to sell is not registered it would not debar the respondent from protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act (for short the Act). However, in view of the provision under Section 49 of the Registration Act the same can be used as evidence of possession, once the document is not in dispute. It is not open to the petitioner to say that actual physical possession was not given and only symbolic possession was given.
There is no error or illegality in the order which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
Revision dismissed.
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
