The requirement of a registered instrument for any transfer of property, including surrender of a share, is essential for legal validity.

JUDGMENT :

This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a decree passed by the two Courts below, concurrently dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.

2. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in support of the motion under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.

3. The plaintiff-appellant (for short, 'the plaintiff') instituted O.S. No. 279 of 2010 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Ballia, seeking a declaration to the effect that the entire premises as detailed at the foot of the plaint is the exclusive property of the plaintiff since 1999 and that the defendants have no right in the said property. A permanent injunction was sought to the effect that the defendants be restraining from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop denoted by figures 1, 2, 3, 4 in the plaint map annexed, from transferring any part thereof, without a partition by metes and bounds, and further interfering with the plaintiff's business carried on in the shop, subject matter of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff, Smt. Neelam Devi is that she is a native of Bansdih, Pargana Kharid, District Ballia. The shop, subject matter of the disputed, detailed at the foot of the plaint and also shown in the plaint map, was purchased from its former owner jointly by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.1996 and that from the said date, both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are in joint possession of the said shop. The shop is dimensioned 7-1/2’ x 18’, wherein the plaintiff carries on business along with her husband. The defendants, who are also husband and wife, stay in Delhi, where defendant No. 1 has his business.

5. The short case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 surrendered his share in the shop, subject matter of the suit (for short the suit property) on 05.03.1999 upon receipt of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. On and after 05.03.1999, it is the plaintiff, who is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. It is the plaintiff’s further case that defendant No. 2, who is the first defendant’s wife, without any right or title, threatened the plaintiff with delivering possession of the suit property to a third party and abused the plaintiff. It is emphasized by the plaintiff that after surrender of the defendants’ share, all their rights of co-ownership that they had got through the registered sale deed along with the plaintiff, have ceased.

6. It is the plaintiff’s further case that since the shop was never partitioned between the two co-sharers, no boundary wall was ever put up. It is pleaded rather inconsistently, or, may be, as an alternate case that without effecting a partition of the suit property, the defendants cannot transfer their share to a third party or interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. The case dominantly pleaded nevertheless appears to be that after the surrender of their share on 05.03.1999, the defendants had no right, title or interest surviving in the suit property.

7. A written statement has been filed by defendant No. 2, accepting the fact that the defendants are natives of Ballia and the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the suit property. The other allegations have been denied.

8. It is the second defendant’s case that defendant No. 1 is her husband, who purchased the suit property together with the underlying land jointly with the plaintiff from Radhey Shyam and others through a registered sale deed. Ever since both the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The defendants claimed that they are still in possession and that defendant No. 1 never surrendered his share in favour of the plaintiff through any instrument, registered or unregistered. It is also pleaded by the defendants that the first defendant never surrendered possession of their share to the plaintiff or attempted to induct anyone else. The second defendant's husband, that is to say, defendan