Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh
CR No.796 of 2002 (O&M)
Sukhwinder Singh
v.
Harbans Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 28/08/2015}
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.23 R.1--Withdrawal of Suit--Dismissal of the suit unconditionally qua the petitioner was neither on account of any compromise nor any permission was sought by the plaintiff of the suit for filing fresh suit on the same cause of action, therefore, subsequent cause in respect of interest of the petitioner is barred by Order 23 Rule 1 (4) CPC. (Para 13)
(B) Registration Act, 1908, S.47--Sale Deed--Date of Validity--A document so long it is not registered is not valid, yet once it is registered, it takes effect from the date of its execution--Transfer of Property Act, 1882
(C) Registration Act, 1908, S.47--Subsequent Registration--Date of Validity--A fine distinction has been sought to be made that a document which is required to be compulsorily registered in law has to be given effect from the date of its registration, whereas in case of Will, lease and other instruments, which are not required to be compulsorily registered, the subsequent registration would take effect from the date of its execution. (Para 20)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.102--Execution of Decree--Suit was withdrawn unconditionally against the petitioner and no objection was taken by respondent at that time--Once there was no his qua the petitioner, no knowledge or applicability of O.21 R.102 CPC can be pressed into service--No lis pendens can be presumed qua the petitioner--Objections raised by petitioner accepted--Revision petition allowed. (Para 23)
Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Vide this common judgment, three revision petitions i.e. Cr Nos.796 of 2002, 3210 of 1996 and 3873 of 1996 are being disposed of . Facts are being taken from CR No.796 of 2002.
2. This revision petition has arisen from the order dated 19.1.2002 dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner.
3. Chanan Singh was owner of 41 kanals 8 marlas of land comprised in khasra No. 34//4/2 (2-4), 5 (7-4), 6 (8-0), 8 Min (4-0)and khasra No.34//8 Min (4-0), 7(8-0), 9(8-0).
4. On 16.1.1986 Raghubir Singh entered into an agreement to sell with aforesaid Chanan Singh in respect of 21 kanals 8 marlas of land comprised in khasra No.34//4/2 (2-4), 5 (7-4), 6(8-0), 8 Min (4-0) situated in village Jhungian Maha Singh Tehsil Phillaur.
5. Raghubir Singh entered into another agreement to sell with Chanan Singh in respect of 20 kanals of land comprised in khasra No.34//8 Min (4-0), 7(8-0), 9(8-0) situated in the same village.
6. In respect of first agreement to sell, a sale deed was executed on 2.4.1986 in favour of petitioner and one Madhujit Singh in respect of land mentioned in first agreement i.e. 21 kanals 8 marlas.
7. In respect of second agreement, sale deed was executed on 19.5.1986 in respect of khasra No.34//8 Min (4-0), 7(8-0), 9(8-0). The said sale deed was presented before Sub Registrar on 12.1.1987, but the same was registered on 25.5.1987. On 7.5.1987, a suit for specific performance was filed by respondent No.1. In the suit, relief was sought to the effect that the land comprised in all the khasra numbers was the subject matter of agreement to sell with respondent No.1. Apparently, in respect of second agreement, sale deed was written prior to filing of the suit. It was presented before the Sub Registrar on 12.1.1987 i.e. before filing of the suit, but the same was registered only on 25.5.1987 i.e. after filing of the civil suit on 7.5.1987 by respondent No.1.
8. On 5.8.1987, petitioner was impleaded as defendant by respondent No.1 in the suit filed by him against respondent No.2. Petitioner filed his written statement on 17.1.1990.
9. On 23.1.1990 counsel for respondent No.1 made a statement before the Court that he does not want to proceed with the suit against the petitioner. Accordingly, name of the petitioner was deleted from the array of the defendants in the suit.
10. Suit of defendant No.1 was decreed by the trial Court on 7.2.1990. Judgment debtor/ respondent No.2 filed objections and those were dismissed by the trial Court on 25.3.1996. Civil Revision No.3210 of 1996 is pending adjudication against the order dated 10.6.1996 passed by the Executing Court to appoint the Local Commissioner for executing the sale deed. Civil Revision No.3873 of 1996 filed by respondent No.2 is also pending, which was ordered to be heard along with Civil Revision No.3210 of 1996.
11. Petitioner also filed objections through his attorney Raghubir Singh. On 19.1.2002 the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Executing Court. The present revision petition No. 796 of 2002 has arisen from the order dated 19.1.2002 and the same was ordered to be heard along with Civil Revision No. 3210 of 1996.
12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the suit was withdrawn qua the petitioner on 23.1.1990, the decree in question is not executable qua the petitioner. Secondly, the sale deed dated 2.4.1986 was admittedly prior to filing of the suit for specific performance. The land involved in said sale deed was 21 kanals 8 marlas comprised in khasra No.34//4/2 (2-4), 5 (7-4), 6(8-0), 8Min (4-0). The said land could not have been made subject matter of suit, nor any decree could have been passed in respect thereof. After executing the aforesaid sale deed, Chanan Singh was having no saleable interest in the land. The decree dated 7.2.1990 involving the aforesaid land is wholly inexecutable. Thirdly, even in respect of second agreement of the petitioner, sale deed was duly scribed and
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
