Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 386
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
B. Rai, J.
Sohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 3034 of 1979.
Decided On : 27 February, 1997
For the Appellant :Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate.
An unregistered sale deed for a tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- is valid if the vendee is already in possession of the property at the time of the sale.
Headnote:
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 54 - SALE OF TANGIBLE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - UNREGISTERED SALE DEED - VALIDITY - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY SOLD TO VENDEE - COMPLETION OF SALE - PASSING OF TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
Sohan Lal, the plaintiff, filed a suit for possession of a plot of land, claiming ownership based on an unregistered sale deed for Rs. 99/- executed in his favor by Mani Ram, the original owner. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the sale was valid despite the lack of registration since the value of the property was less than Rs. 100/- and Sohan Lal was already in possession of the property at the time of the sale. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the unregistered sale deed did not confer any title on Sohan Lal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and restoring that of the trial court. It held that the sale was complete and valid, and title had passed to Sohan Lal, even though the sale deed was unregistered, because Sohan Lal was already in possession of the property at the time of the sale. The court relied on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that a sale of tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- can be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property, and that delivery of possession takes place when the seller places the buyer in possession of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether an unregistered sale deed for a tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- is valid if the vendee is already in possession of the property at the time of the sale? 2. Whether the requirement of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is satisfied if the vendee is already in possession of the property sold?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an unregistered sale deed for a tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- is valid if the vendee is already in possession of the property at the time of the sale. The court reasoned that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that a sale of tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- can be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property, does not require the vendee to vacate the premises and then be put back in possession by the vendor in order to complete the sale. The court further held that all that is necessary is that the vendor should do whatever he can do in the circumstances to indicate definitely and without any ambiguity an intention to pass the title and also possession as owner to the vendee.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and restoring that of the trial court. It held that the sale was complete and valid, and title had passed to Sohan Lal, even though the sale deed was unregistered, because Sohan Lal was already in possession of the property at the time of the sale.
B. Rai, J. - This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a Civil Suit No. 319 of 1976 against the judgment and decree, dated October 11, 1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, reversing the judgment and decree, dated September 27, 1978 of the trial Court.
2. The plot ABCD described in the site plan Exhibit DW1/1 originally belonged to one Mani Ram son of Daya Ram resident of Mohalla Saudagaran, Thanesar. That plot was in possession of Sohan Lal plaintiff-appellant as a tenant under Mani Ram till January 2, 1970. He set up a poultry shed and a Kotha in the plot in question with prior permission of Mani Ram. That Plot was purchased by him along with the poultry shed and Kotha existing thereon vide sale deed, dated January 2, 1970 for a consideration of Rs. 99/-. It was further pleaded that he was in possession of the Plot in question as a tenant under Mani Ram up to January 2, 1970 and from January 2, 1970 to October 20, 1970 as owner. On October 20, 1970, Hari Singh with the help of defendants 2 to 7 took forcible possession of the Plot. It was also averred in Civil Suit No. 435 of 1970, (Exhibit P1) between the parties to this case, the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, Karnal, vide his judgment and decree, dated January 27, 1973, held that the plaintiff (Sohan Lal) was owner of the Plot in question and that the finding regarding the title to the Plot in question has become res judicata between the parties to this case and Sohan Lal filed a suit for possession as owner of the Plot in question claiming continuing damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- with effect from October 20, 1970 till the possession of the Plot in question was delivered to him.
3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 on the ground that suit was barred by the provisions of Order 2, rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure; that the finding about the title to the Plot in question was not res judicata; that the suit was not correctly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction; that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties as defendants 2 to 7 had no interest in the Plot in question; that the plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit as he used to be present at the time defendant No. 1 raised the construction; and that the suit was barred by time as the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest had never been in its possession at any time within twelve years before the filing of the suit. The allegation of defendant No. 1 is that the Plot in question is an evacuee property; that it vested in the Custodian, who sold it to Hans Raj and said Hans Raj later on sold it to defendant No. 1, vide a registered Sale Deed, dated September 1, 1966 for a consideration of Rs. 200/-. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 had constructed certain Kothas on this Plot at his own expenses after getting its plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Thanesar. The allegation that the plaintiff was dispossessed on October 20, 1970 was controverted by defendant No. 1, alleging that he is in possession of the Plot in question as a lawful owner thereof.
4. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following Issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the plot in question ? OPP
2. If Issue No. 1 is proved, in what capacity the defendants are in possession ? If so, the effect of that possession over the property in dispute ? OPD
3. Whether the site plan has not been properly described in the plaint ? If so, its effect ? OPD
4. Whether the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. ? OPD
5. Whether the judgment in the previous litigation between the parties operates as res judicata ? O.P. Parties
6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? If so, what it should have been ? Onus on Parties
7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPD
8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the suit by his own
