An unregistered agreement (Ikrarnama) that does not meet the mandatory registration requirements for conveyance under the Transfer of Property Act cannot function as a deed of title, meaning parties lacking valid legal title cannot subsequently transfer title to third parties.

1. Present is the Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.08.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), CG in Civil Appeal- 46A of 2012 (Annexure A1), whereby, the 1st appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No.6A of 2008 has been affirmed.

2. Present appeal has been admitted on 01.07.2021 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by holding that Exhibit P/3 ‘Ikraarnama’ is a title deed and by way of the said document, title has been transferred by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record?”

3. For the sake of convenience, status of the parties in this appeal is being taken as shown in the plaint.

4. The plaintiff filed a Civil suit against the defendant for declaration of title, and permanent injunction over the suit land, Khasra-162 admeasuring area 5.53 acres, situated at village-Harinchapra, Kawardha, District-Kabirdham (for short, ‘the suit land’), and also for declaring mutation of names of defendant-2 and defendant-3 in the revenue records on the basis of agreement dated 23.11.1981 is null and void, and also the exchange deed dated 23.01.1995, executed by defendant-2 in favour of defendant-1 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that he was title and possession holder of the suit land, which he obtained from the family partition from his father. Defendants-2 and 3 are sons of the plaintiff. In the year 2007, when the plaintiff was cultivating the field, defendant-1 raised objection, saying that he became owner of the suit land and stopped him from doing cultivation of the suit land. When he inquired the revenue documents, he came to know that name of defendant-1 has been mutated in the revenue records on the basis of an exchange deed, allegedly executed by defendants-2, and 3. It is also pleaded that earlier, there was dispute in the house of the plaintiff as he kept one lady as his 2nd wife, and at that time, he executed an agreement in favour of defendants- 2 and 3, and on that basis, their names were mutated in the revenue records. The said agreement was unregistered, and executed under compulsion in view of the family dispute, and it was not binding upon the plaintiff. The mutation of names of defendants-2 and 3 on the basis of said agreement was also illegal, and they do not acquire any right or title over the suit land. Plaintiff also came to know that after mutation of names of defendants- 2 and 3, defendant-1 has got transferred the suit land in his favour by way of a registered exchange deed. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for aforementioned relief.

6. Contesting the suit of the plaintiff, defendant-1 has filed his written statement, and denying the plaint averments, pleaded that defendants- 2 and 3 have got the suit land in family partition from their father, and they, under their rightful ownership, entered into exchange of suit land with the land of D1 and executed registered exchange deed on 23.01.19995. Defendant-1 has acquired his right and title over th