Ramgarib vs Dwarka Singh - 1977 Supreme(MP) 165

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : S.P. Hafiz
For the Non-applicant : R.K. Srivastava and A.K. Khaskalam

Headnote:(1) Limitation Act, 1963 - Arts. 64 and 65 - possessory title by a person acquiring title by adverse possession - is a valid title even though the possession, as acquired under unregistered sale - deed - proviso of section 53 - A, Transfer of Property Act not applicable.
       (2) Adverse possession - based on unregistered sale - deed - passes valid title.
       Short Note
       1. The plaintiff's suit was for declaration of his title and right to possession in respect of the disputed lands and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the lands from defendants by an unregistered sale deed. Trial Court granted him injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the District Judge vacated the grant of temporary injunction.
       Held : What actually observed the mind of the District Judge were two propositions (i) the unregistered sale deed passed no title and (ii) section 53 - A of the Transfer of Property Act provided a passive remedy, that is a defence in an action for possession rather than claim a right on that basis. But in invoking and applying these two propositions the learned District Judge has evidently misdirected himself. The plaintiff was not claiming title under an invalid document nor was he invoking section 53 - A of the Transfer of Property Act to his advantage. His case is that he has perfected his title by adverse possession of more than 12 years and that his possession could not be disturbed even by the vendors whose rights had been extinguished by the statute of Limitation. This is the basis of suit. In the result, the trial Court was right in granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the District Judge's interference was clearly unjustified. Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, Perry v. Chssold. 1907 AC 75, relied on. Revision allowed.