GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Dr. A.P. Thaker, J.
Shri Dattatray Ganpatrao Surve – Appellant
versus
Heeraben D/o Deceased
Bhagvanbhai M. Patel – Respondent
R/Second Appeal No.408 of 2019 with Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2019
Decided on 23.12.2022
(A) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – [Section 85 & 85(A) of Gujarat Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948] – Courts below have not committed any error of law in deciding question of illegality of agreement to sell on ground of no evidence as to plaintiff being an agriculturist – Plaintiff was not vigilant enough in regard to verifying legal title of defendant no.1 pertaining to land – Plaintiff has not sought for any alternative relief of requiring defendant no.1 to repay earnest money paid by him to her – Plaintiff has also not made any averment in his plaint regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement to sale – All these facts disentitle him to get any decree of specific performance of contract – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 23, 26, 27 and 28)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Compulsory registration of document – If any person relinquishes his rights in immovable property, in a family arrangement, there is no need of such registration – Family arrangement in shape of partition can also be oral – If there is a oral partition between parties and same is acted upon by all concerned, on that basis, if there is relinquishment of right in property by one of family member in favour of other family member, that relinquishment action does not require and registration. (Para 25)
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
The present Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No.173 of 2018, dismissing the Civil Appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.3852 of 2015 (Old Special Civil Suit No.251 of 2007) on 18.04.2018.
2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants before the trial Court. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per the character assigned to them before the Trial Court i.e. as “Plaintiff” and “Defendants”.
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that the father of the defendant No.1 - deceased Bhagvanbhat Mathurbhai Patel was the owner of agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.113/1 ad-measuring 0-91-05 H.R.A.Sq. Mtr. of old tenure land situated at Village Atladara. That the deceased was cultivating the said land by and it was in the ownership and possession of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 after the death of the father of the defendant No.1. That out of this land, the defendant No.1 decided to sell her share of undivided land ad-measuring H.R.A. 0- 22-76 (Sq. Mtr) to the plaintiff on 17.05.2007 by an Agreement to Sell. That the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the defendant No.1 by installments and also given a cheque bearing No.412422 dated 12.05.2007 for Rs.25,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Raopura Branch and has also given another cheque No. 412423 dated 16.05.2007 for Rs.25,000/- drawn on the same Bank at the time of executing the Agreement to Sell.
3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter, the plaintiff had inquired at the office of Sub Registrar about this land and he came to know that one Sanjay Chimanbhai Patel, who is the power of attorney holder of defendant Nos.2 to 4, had executed a sale deed on 10.09.2004 in favour of the defendant No.5 - Shri Bharatbhai Parsottambhai Patel and therefore the plaintiff had applied for copy of the said sale deed. That thereafter, the plaintiff also made inquiry to the Talati and he came to know that the defendant No.2 to 4 had prepared the Pedigree after the death of deceased Bhagvanbhai Mathurbhai Patel and inserted their names but the name of the defendant No.1 was not been shown in the said Pedigree. Though the defendant No.1 got some portion of the said land by hereditary. That the defendant Nos.2 to 4 and defendant No.5 joined together and completed the procedure of selling the disputed land.
3.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no right to sell the disputed land as the defendant No.1 has share in the disputed land and her share has been sold to the plaintiff by the defendant no.1. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a suit to separate the share of the defendant No.1 from the shares of defendant No.2 to 4 and for execution of Agreement to Sell which was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and for possession of the peace of land thereof to the plaintiff. He has also prayed to direct the office of the Sub Registrar to take a note of the Agreement to Sell executed between him and defendant No.1 with regard to the disputed land and also for permanent injunction. The plaintiff has also prayed to pass an order directing the defendants to accept the remaining amount of sell consideration of the disputed land from the plaintiff and to separate the disputed land between defendant no.1 and defendant nos.2 to 4 and to execute the sale deed in his favour and to handover the possession of a separate land to him. The plaintiff has also prayed to appoint a Commissioner for the said purpose. The plaintiff has also sought for declaration that the defendant nos.2 to 4 have no right or to do anything to deal with the said land
Yellapu Uma Maheshwari & Anr Vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors
Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama
Kale vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Subraya M N Vs. Vittala M N & Ors
Nazir Mohamed Vs J Kamala and Ors
Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. Etc.
Gurnam Sinh (D) by Lrs & Ors. Vs. Lehna Singh (D) By Lrs
Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. Vs. Sonu Kumhar & Ors
Bhikhumiya Gurumiya Vs. Usmankhan Misrikhan Pathan Since Decd
Gundaji Satwaji Shinde Vs. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi
Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula Vs. Motibhai Nagjibhai
Subraya M.N. Vs. Vittala M.N. And Others (2016) 8 SCC 705. (Para 15.2) – Relied
Vishwasrao Satwarao Naik And Others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 580. (Para 15.2) – Relied
Padmakumari And Others Vs. Dasayyan And Others (2015) 8 SCC 695. (Para 15.2) – Relied
SupremeToday
Relinquishment of one’s right in a family partition, does not require any registration under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908.
The question of whether a person is an agriculturist is a substantial question of law that should be referred to the Tenancy Court under Section 85(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act....
An agreement to sell agricultural land without prior permission from the Collector is void and unenforceable under tenancy laws.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must establish rights through proper succession reporting and admissible evidence, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.