ORDER

Date : 08-11-2023 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Mr. Zoramchhana, learned Amicus Curiae is present. No one appears on behalf of Sh. V. Liandawla.

2. This case has been taken up as Suo Moto under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 54/2021.

3. The facts of the case is that one Sh. V. Liandawla had prayed for declaring him as the legal and rightful owner of suit land covered by House Pass No.

1106/2005 in Declaratory Suit No. 54/2021. In the plaint submitted by Sh. V. Liandawla, there is no defendant. The same was filed before the Court on 20.04.2021. No notice was issued to anyone as there was no defendant. The document shows that the case was listed before the learned Trial Court only once i.e. on 20.09.2021, i.e., after 5 (five) months. The case was disposed of on the very first day the case was listed before the concerned Court, vide Order dated 20.09.2021, by declaring Sh. V. Liandawla as the legal and rightful owner of the land covered by House Pass No. 1106/2005.

4. The suit filed by Sh. V. Liandawla shows that he had bought the said land from one Sh. Sangthanmawia in the year 2005 for a sum of Rs. 5500/-. There is no sale deed made and neither is the letter made by the alleged Sh. Sangthanmawia, showing that he had sold the land to Sh. V. Liandawla, registered under the Indian Registration Act. No evidence was recorded by the learned Trial Court and no issues were framed. There being no defendant in the suit, there could be no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the plaint filed by Sh. V. Liandawla does not show that there is any dispute that needed to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court in terms of Order 2 Rule 1 CPC. Further, there is no defendant in terms of Order 1 CPC, which would have required the learned Trial Court adjudicate upon and settle questions involved in the suit. He further submits that though Sh. V. Liandawla has stated that he had bought the land covered by House Pass No. 1106/2005 from one Sh. Sangthanmawia, there is no registered Sale Deed to prove the same, despite the alleged letter written by Sh. Sangthanmawia stating that he had sold his land to Sh. V. Liandawla for Rs. 5,500/-.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that no issues were framed and no evidence was taken by the learned Trial Court before the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Order dated 20.09.2021. He submits that the impugned order, being an illegal order and in violation of the procedure laid down in the CPC, the same needs to be set aside.

7. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and have seen the Lower Court Record.

8. The stand of Sh. V. Liandawla is that he had bought the land from Sh. Sangthanmawia and in this regard, he has annexed a letter written by Sh. Sangthanmawia dated 15.12.2005, which states that Sh. Sangthanmawia had sold his House Pass No. 1106/2005 to Sh. V. Liandawla for Rs. 5,500/-. However, there is no Sale Deed annexed to the plaint submitted by Sh. V. Liandawla before the learned Trial Court.

9. In the case of Bondar Singh and Others –vs- Nihal Singh & Others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161, the Apex Court has held that under the law, a Sale Deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. In the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Ltd. (2) Through Director –vs- State of Haryana & Another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Apex Court has held that transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be made by a deed of conveyance, which is duly stamped and registered as required by law. In the absence of the above, no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred.

10. In the present case, as there is no Sale Deed, no transfer of right, title or interest over the land covered by House Pass No. 1106/2005 could have been made