A transfer of immovable property exceeding Rs. 100/- is legally valid only through a registered instrument as mandated by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; an unregistered agreement to sell does not convey title or proprietary rights.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Judgment On Board

24-11-2025

1) Plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Fourth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/2003 dated 23.8.2004, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 174-A/1990 dated 3.2.1992 was affirmed.

2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 26.9.2005 on following substantial questions of law :-

“ Whether valid transfer of immovable properties can be made in absence of registered sale deed and the Courts below holding transfer without any registered sale deed valid acted, perversely? ”

3) Plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 belong to one and same family. Defendant No. 5, namely, Ranjeet Singh was the purchaser of suit property mentioned in Schedule B bearing Khasra No. 476/2 ad-measuring 0.040 hectare situated at Village Shivnandanpur, Tehsil and District Surajpur by virtue of an agreement to sale dated 31.5.1982. Ranjeet Singh died during pendency of the first appeal and his legal representatives were brought on record. In this second appeal notices were issued to the legal heirs of Late Ranjeet Singh. After service of notice a counsel was engaged and Vakalatnama was filed but there is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 5A to 5F in two rounds.

4) The plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession in relation to the properties described in Schedules A and B. The Schedule A properties are situated at Ambikapur and Schedule B property is situated at Village, Shivnandanpur, Tehsil Surajpur. The property mentioned in Schedule B was alienated by defendants No. 1 to 4 in favor of defendant No. 5 by virtue of an agreement to sale dated 31.5.1982. Plaintiffs pleaded that they have equal right over the properties mentioned in Schedules A and B as those properties are ancestral property; there was no partition between the members of the family; defendants No. 1 to 4 executed an agreement to sale pertaining to property mentioned in Schedule B in favor of defendant No. 5 without obtaining consent of other family members/co-sharers. It was further pleaded that initially, suit property was recorded in the name of Devi Singh. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 are sons of Devi Singh; after death of Devi Singh, they inherited the suit property and there was no bonafide need for defendants No. 1 to 4 to enter into an agreement to sale with defendant No. 5. It was also pleaded that no registered instrument was executed according to law, therefore possession and ownership of defendant No. 5 over the suit property is illegal.

5) Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. They pleaded that properties mentioned in Schedule A and B are not self acquired properties of Devi Singh, rather these properties were acquired by their grandfather; suit property described in Schedule B was purchased by Devi Singh from one Vishwanath for sale consideration of Rs. 300/- through registered sale-deed dated 8.6.1963 and it was included in joint family property. They admitted that properties mentioned in Schedule A and B are joint family property and there was no partition. They also pleaded that the suit property mentioned in Schedule B was sold by them for sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- to defendant No. 5 on 31.5.1982 and p