Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Mehrotra, J.
MEHDI HASAN - Appellant
Versus
RAM KER - Respondents
Second Appeal 1700 Of 1974
Decided On : 09/16/1981
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SALE DEED - COMPROMISE - REGISTRATION - BONA FIDE PURCHASER - Where a compromise is entered into between parties during consolidation proceedings, and the Consolidation Officer directs the entry of the name of one party as Bhumidhar over a certain share, the compromise is valid and binding on the parties. The compromise does not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, as it is exempted under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. A subsequent sale deed executed by the party who had no right to transfer the property is illegal and void.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Mehdi Hasan filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed by Smt. Khatibunnisa, widow of his brother Abbas, in favor of defendant Ram Ker. The plaintiff claimed that Smt. Khatibunnisa had no right to transfer the property as she had agreed in a compromise during consolidation proceedings to have only a life interest in the property and no right to alienate it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and Smt. Khatibunnisa during consolidation proceedings was valid and binding on the parties. The court also found that the compromise did not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, as it was exempted under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. The court further found that Smt. Khatibunnisa had no right to transfer the property as she had agreed in the compromise to have only a life interest in the property and no right to alienate it. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Smt. Khatibunnisa in favor of the defendant was illegal and void.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise entered into between the plaintiff and Smt. Khatibunnisa during consolidation proceedings was valid and binding on the parties. 2. Whether the compromise required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. 3. Whether Smt. Khatibunnisa had the right to transfer the property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A compromise entered into between parties during consolidation proceedings, and the Consolidation Officer directs the entry of the name of one party as Bhumidhar over a certain share, the compromise is valid and binding on the parties. 2. A compromise does not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, as it is exempted under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. 3. A party who has agreed in a compromise to have only a life interest in the property and no right to alienate it, has no right to transfer the property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and declared that the impugned sale deed dated May 13, 1966 is illegal and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff to the property in suit.
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal who has lost in both the courts below.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Mehdi Hasan brought a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated May 13, 1966 by which one Smt. Khatibunnisa transferred plots Nos. 226-Ka and 226-Kha with a total area of 1. 451 acres to defendant-respondent Ram Ker for a sum of Rs. 2500/ -. The case of the plaintiff was that Khatibunnisa was the widow of his brother Abbas. The share of Abbas in the property was inherited by the widow. The widow brought a suit in the year 1960 (being suit No. 183 of 1960) against the plaintiff for an injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession in the share in the plots inherited by her as a widow. On July, 18, 1960 according to the plaintiff, a compromise was entered into between the widow and himself under which the widow accepted the stipulation of having life interest alone in the share inherited by her in lieu of payment of some amount. This compromise is Exhibit 2 on the record. Later, during proceedings under the u. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. the parties again entered into a copromise on February 13, 1962 while the matter was pending before the Consolidation Officer. Under this compromise (Ext. 3 on the record) it was agreed between them that Khatibunnisa would have only 1/4th share (instead of 1/2) in the property which was hitherto owned by the plaintiff and his brother: It was also agreed that she would be entitled to be maintained by the plaintiff from out of the income of the property but she would have no right to transfer it. It was alleged that in spite of the agreement contained in the aforesaid compromise on the basis whereof final orders were passed in consolidation proceedings. Khatibunnisa executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondent on May 13, 1966 which is Exhibit A. I. By this deed, as noticed earlier, she purported to transfer to the defendant the two plots for a sum of Rs. 2500/ -. These two plots represented half share in the entire property.
( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant respondent mainly on the ground that after the death of her husband, Khatibunnisa inherited his share as bhumidhar of one plot and as sirdar of the other. Bhumidhari Sanad was obtained for the plot of which Khatibunnisa was the sirdar. Thereafter, the impugned sale deed was executed for consideration. The name of Khatibunnisa had been recorded as the tenure-holder in the relevant revenue records. The plaintiff had no right in the share inherited by Khatibunnisa and was not, therefore entitled to seek the cancellation of the sale deed.
( 4 ) THE trial court framed as many as six issues on the pleadings of the parties. It permitted the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. Parties filed documentary evidence and produced witnesses. On consideration of this evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion, in the first instance, that the compromise which was set up by the plaintiff did not relate to the plots in suit. It also concluded that Khatibunnisa had inherited the share of her husband in the property and has become bhumidhar of both the plots. She was, therefore, competent to execute the impugned sale deed. The trial court took the view that since Smt. Khatibunnisa was the real owner of the property in suit, the provisions of Section 41 of the transfer of Property Act which had been put forward on behalf of the defendant-respondent, were inapplicable to the facts of the case. On these principal findings, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed.
( 5 ) THE lower appellate court, on reappraisal of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the compromise (Ext. 3) arrived at between the parties during consolidation proceedings undoubtedly related to the plots in suit, yet the same having not been accepted by the consolidation Officer, could not deprive Smt. Khatibunnisa of her rights to deal with the property as its owner. In the opinion of
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
