Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3785
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Manjit Singh @ Mohini - Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar Goel And Another - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 4971 of 2011, 4993 of 2011
Decided On : 29-08-2018
Ashok Singla, Adv., Ashish Gupta, Adv., Mayank Mathur, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that any right, title, or interest in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 cannot be created by an unregistered document, as mandated by Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.
Headnote:
unregistered document - immovable property - Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - [17(1)(b)]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and possession of a piece of land. The court had to determine whether an unregistered document could create any right, title, or interest in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered document in question did not confer any right, title, or interest in the property, as it was mandatory to register any non-testamentary document that creates, declares, assigns, limits, or extinguishes any right, title, or interest in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.
Issues: The main issue was whether an unregistered document could create rights in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the registration of non-testamentary documents creating rights in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.
Final Decision: The court dismissed one suit and allowed another, based on the finding that the unregistered document did not confer any right, title, or interest in the property.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment, RSA Nos.4971 and 4993 of 2011 shall stand disposed of as both these appeals are arising out of two suits, one filed by the appellant Manjit Kumar Sandhu and another suit filed by Ram Kumar Goel. These two suits were consolidated as the dispute between the parties was inter connected and disposed of by the common judgment by the learned trial court as well as by the first appellate court.
2. In the considered opinion of this Court, question which needs determination is whether any right, title or interest in the immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- can be created by an unregistered document.
3. Although, in the pleadings, complete facts have not been disclosed, however, to the advantage of this Court, a previous judgment inter parties is available as Ex.DW/1 dated 31.1.1979 which provides indepth facts.
4. The dispute is with regard to some part of land comprised in Khasra No.229 (1-9). Originally Gurcharan Singh was owner to the extent of half share, whereas Karnail Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of appellant Manjit Singh Sandhu was owner to the extent of 1/4th share and Smt.Balbir Kaur was owner to the extent of remaining 1/4th share. Out of the land comprised in Khasra No.229, a road was carved out and land measuring 601 sq. yards went in road, which is not the subject matter of dispute in the present case. There was partition between the owners. Smt.Balbir Kaur sold her 1/4th share in favour of Satinder Kumar Aggarwal vide sale-deed dated 8.10.1970, wherein she stated that she has delivered only symbolic possession to her vendee namely Satinder Kumar Aggarwal, who thereafter transferred this piece of land in favour of Smt.Sharbati Devi, mother of the plaintiff in one suit namely Ram Kumar Goel. Smt.Sharbati Devi filed a suit No.4-T of 31.8.1977/12.6.1974, seeking possession of land measuring 34+27/2x26 square feet. She claimed that she is owner pursuant to a sale-deed dated 30.1.1973 executed by Satinder Kumar and defendant has encroached upon the same. In this case, defendant was Karnail Singh, father of appellant Manjit Singh Sandhu. In the aforesaid suit, property was got demarcated and inspected from revenue official. The trial Court framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in disputed?Whether the defendant has encroached upon the suit land as alleged in para 2 of the plaint? OPP.
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(iii) Relief.
5. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence, held that Sharbati Devi is owner of area measuring 350 square yards pursuant to sale deed dated 30.1.1973, however, while deciding issue No.2, the trial court found that Karnail Singh, father of the appellant, is in possession of area measuring 332 square yards, according to his own entitlement, which is part of his residential house for the last more than 20 years and a boundary wall around the residential house has already been constructed 20 years back.
6. The trial court on the basis of local commissioner further found that out of land comprised in Khasra No.229, Smt.Kauri Devi is in possession of area measuring 350 square yards, whereas Smt.Sharbati Devi is in possession of area 220 square yards. Karnail Singh is in possession of 332 square yards area, Mahant Gurmukh Dass is in possession of 265 square yards area and remaining land measuring 601 square yards is under the road laid by Municipal Committee. In the aforesaid proceedings, Gurnam Singh, husband of Smt.Balbir Kaur, a retired revenue official, appeared and admitted partition between the parties and also admitted that Karnail Singh has already constructed his residential house alongwith the boundary wall, covering his entire area of 332 square yards.
7. The court further noticed that since Balbir Kaur was not in possession of 357 square yards which was sold by her, therefore, in her sale-deed executed in favour of Satinder Kumar Agga
