Possession obtained through a registered agreement is protected against third-party claims under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, reinforcing the doctrine of part performance.

1. Heard
As per the pleading of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in possession of lands bearing Kh.No.161 admeasuring 18.10 acres and Kh.No.167 admeasuring 1.88 acres which is a pond known as Raja Talab, which is completely a Nistari Pond. According to plaintiff, he acquired the said lands by sale agreement executed by original owners Brij Bhushanlal, Chandravanshi Lal and Harivanshi Lal Agrawal. Thereafter, the plaintiff was doing his business of fish - culture. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant in collusion with the Revenue Officers illegally got the part of the land recorded in his name on the basis of a sale deed and tried to sell out the same which is sought to be stayed by permanent injunction. It was stated that the suit property is a pond, which cannot lawfully be sold out for any residential purpose. Therefore, the sale deed dated 18.10.2005 executed in favour of the defendant and the subsequent mutation of the name in revenue records be annulled.

2. Per contra, the defendants / respondents denied the averments of the plaint allegations and stated that they have purchased the part of Kh.No.161/2 ad - measuring 0.405 hectares by registered sale deed dated 05.10.2005 from one Parmanand and 8 others. It was further pleaded that after the purchase, the name of defendant was recorded in the revenue records and the land also got diverted for residential purpose and in order to save the property from encroachment, a boundary wall was raised over the land.

3. According to the defendant, the land purchased by him is neither a Nistari pond nor is a part of pond. It is pleaded that the said land is an open land. The defendant also contended that the land purchased by him got legally demarcated and he is not in illegal possession of the same and he denied the allegation that the suit land is being illegally encroached by him. The defendant further contended that the suit which was brought by the plaintiff shows that the identity of the said land purchased by the defendant is entirely different from that of suit land. Further the defendant pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed for the reason that the State was not impleaded as necessary party / respondent and claim for dismissal of the suit was made.

4. The learned trial Court had framed 10 issues including the primary issue as to whether the plaintiff was owner and possessor of the land of Kh.No.161 ad - measuring 18.10 acres and owner of Kh.No.167 ad - measuring 1.88 acres total 19.88 acres. The court answered it in negative that "it is not proved". As against the respondent defendant, the issue was framed as to whether the name of defendant was recorded in the revenue record and whether he is in possession of the land of Kh.No.161/1 ad - measuring 0.405 hectares. The finding was given that in respect of land of Kh.No.161/2 ad - measuring 0.405 hectares, though the name of defendant was recorded in revenue record but he was not held to be in possession of the subject land.

5. In respect of issue No.6 which pertains to non - joinder of the State as necessary party, the learned Court held that since the issue pertains to dispute over a pond and certain ceiling cases were referred as such the State Government was necessary party. Eventually, the suit was dismissed in its entirety with such finding