The court affirmed that an affidavit acknowledging possession and receipt of consideration can estop a party from claiming ownership, under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

In this regular second appeal, the defendant assails the correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn, has reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court.

2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

3. Sh. Phulla Singh was owner of the suit property. He executed a registered sale deed on 09.03.1976 in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) with respect to land measuring 19 kanals 02 marlas. Subsequently, the same Sh. Phulla Singh executed a registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Lachhman Kaur (defendant) vide sale deed dated 10.05.1977. The plaintiff is defendant's real maternal uncle's son. On 24.06.1977, the plaintiff (respondent herein) received Rs. 11,000/- from the defendant and executed affidavit dated 24.06.1977, acknowledging the plaintiff to be the real owner of the property while cancelling the sale deed. On 27.07.1985, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession claiming that he had to leave the village for personal and domestic reasons and has remained out of village for a long time but he returned and found the defendant to be in possession of the property, which was contested by the defendant. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff has never lived in village Attalan, where the property is situated and in fact he is permanent resident of village Basini, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. He is her maternal uncle's son. At one point of time, he wanted to settle in Attalan and purchased the land but never settled. The defendant has been in cultivating possession of the suit land at the time when Sh. Phulla Singh was cultivating the land for more than 12 years prior to 10.05.1977 and the plaintiff has already relinquished his rights by executing the sale deed. Hence, he is estopped from filing the suit.

4. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, however, the First Appellate Court accepted the appeal while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has found that all three documents namely the sale deed dated 09.03.1976, executed by Sh. Phulla Singh in favour of the plaintiff is proved. It was also held that execution of the sale deed by Sh. Phulla Singh on 10.05.1977, in favour of defendant is also proved. It has also been held that the affidavit dated 24.06.1977, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant upon receipt of Rs. 11,000/- has been proved. The correctness of such finding of fact has not been challenged before this Court.

5. Learned counsel representing the appellant has submitted that the First Appellate Court has overlooked Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the plaintiff's suit for possession is not maintainable because the possession of the defendant is protected as she has already returned the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff. While elaborating, he submits that affidavit dated 26.06.1977 can be treated as an agreement to sell which acknowledges her continuous possession. While referring to the assertions made in the plaint as well as the deposition of plaintiff, he submits that conduct of the plaintiff also supports his arguments.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 relinquishment of the right in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- is mandatorily required to be registered. He submits that in absence thereof the title will not pass to the defendant, hence his suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court has considered the oral submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties and also perused the written notes of submissions filed the learned counsel representing the appellant alongwith the requisitioned record.

8. The relevant extract of the written submissions filed by the learned counsel representing the appellant is extracted as under:-

"Whereas Ld