IMPORTANT POINT
Possession transfer does not equate to ownership without statutory compliance; unregistered deeds for properties over Rs. 100 are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

The Appeal

1. These two second appeals arise out of two civil suits and two civil appeals. Original Suit No. 176 of 2012 was filed by plaintiff-appellants challenging the registered sale deed dated 16.12.2011 executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The other original suit being Original Suit No. 318 of 2013 was filed by the purchasers from respondent No. 4, claiming a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. Both the aforesaid suits were decided by separate judgments dated 01.10.2021 and 22.10.2021 respectively. Two civil appeals respectively being Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2022 were filed by the present appellants. Both the civil appeals have been dismissed by separate judgments dated 25.07.2024.

Counsel Heard

2. I have heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel appearing through caveat for respondent No. 5 in Second Appeal No. 717 of 2024 and respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 716 of 2024.

Fact of the case

3. The case of the present appellants is that one Laxmi Devi was bhumidhar of the property in dispute and by executing a document dated 25.04.2006, she delivered possession of the same to the appellants in lieu of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lac) and the appellants raised constructions thereon and are residing therein. The sale deed of 2011 was challenged on the ground that Laxmi Devi, after delivering possession to the appellants, ceased to be owner of the property and, therefore, sale deed executed by her in favour of the vendees was invalid for want of title. It is not in dispute that one of the purchasers from Laxmi Devi also executed a sale deed in favour of contesting-respondent, who is represented before this Court through Shri Sripat and that the said purchaser sought his impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The impleadment was allowed and, consequently, the suit was contested in between the ultimate purchaser as well as the present appellants.

Submissions on behalf of Appellants

4. The precise submission of learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals is that transfer of possession by Laxmi Devi in their favour would be a “deemed sale” as per Section 164 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. In support of his submission, learned counsel for appellants has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Amresh Chandra Pandey vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur Camp. Robertsganj, Sonbhadra and others, 2007 (102) RD 440. Further submission is that Laxmi Devi never appeared in witness box, therefore, the defence of the defendants would be deemed as “not proved” and, hence, the transaction of sale would become invalid.

Submissions on behalf of Respondents

5. Per contra, Shri Sripat submits that except a photostat copy of a document dated 25.04.2006 brought on record as paper No. 12-C, no evidence was led from the appellants side to prove alleged vesting of title in them. He submits that the document 12-C was neither a piece of primary evidence nor secondary evidence as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and, even if it is read, it recites some understanding as regards delivery of possession in between Laxmi Devi and the present appellants, which would not fall in the definition, meaning and import of “deemed sale” even as per Section 164 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that non-appearance of Laxmi Devi in witness box would be of no significance when the transferees filed separate written statements and proved the sale deed executed in their favour. Further submission is that the disputed sale deed has been recognized by mutation courts and names of the purchasers have been recorded in the revenue records, which were dealt with by courts below. Further submission is that the