Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Maheshi Lal Verma – Appellant
Versus
Darshnu Devi and others – Respondent
RSA No.190/2025
For the Appellant:Mr. Armit Singh Chandel, Advocate
For the Respondent: Nemo
An unregistered agreement executed by a co-owner lacking title is void, reinforcing the principle that no one can transfer more rights than they possess.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Property Law - Dispute regarding ownership and possession of ancestral land - Agreement executed by co-owner alleged to be void for lack of registration and title - Appeals dismissed upholding lower court's findings. (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Property Rights - Principle of nemo dat quod non habet applicable where purported transferor lacked title - Evidence insufficient to establish ancestral nature of property - Appellant has no rights under unregistered document. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The respondents sought declarations regarding the validity of an agreement executed in their favor by a co-owner, claiming they possessed ancestral land against the appellant's unlawful dispossession; legal proceedings ensued after an FIR was lodged.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed lower courts' declarations regarding the void nature of the agreement, maintaining that the executed document lacked registration and title.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the execution of the agreement and ownership rights over the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the executed document void for non-registration and held that a co-owner could not confer rights not held personally, dismissing arguments for appeal due to lack of merit.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs seek declaration and injunction based on alleged ownership. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. dispute regarding possession and ancestral claim remains largely unproven. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court finds the agreement void due to lack of registration and proper title. (Para 8 , 12) |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) .
The pCresent appellant has filed this appeal under section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), whereby he has assailed the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2025 passed gby the learned Additional District Judge (C.B.I. Court), M.A.C.T/Special Judge C.B.I. Shimla, H.P. in case No. 75/2024, whereby the appeal of appellant/respondent has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 90982/2011 title Smt. Darshnu Devi vs. Karam Chand and others has been upheld.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that an agreement dated 15.03.2011, executed by respondent No. 4, Karam Chand, in favor of the appellant (defendant No. 2), was void. They further sought
mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against the appellant. The plaintiffs' case was that they, along with respondents No. 3 and 4, were in possession of ancestral abadi-deh land .situated in Mauza Gharyana, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., since the time of their ancestors. After the death of Shri Rewa Dass, they constructed two small RCC houses on the suit land after demolishing an old, unsafe structure. They claimed that respondent No. 4, being a habitual drunkard who had divorced his wife and deserted his children, had long ago sold his entire share in the ancestral property and had no right, title, or interest in the suit land, nor was he in possession thereof. It was alleged that the appellant, taking advantage of respondent No. 4's weaknesses, connived with him to execute the impugned agreement for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaintiffs contended the agreement was void as it was not signed by the appellant (the purchaser), was not registered, was prepared on a misused non-judicial stamp paper, and was executed by a person with no ownership or possessory rights. The appellant, based on this agreement, allegedly tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs and even put a lock on the property, leading to the registration of an FIR. The plaintiffs, facing hardship, sought restoration of possession through mandatory injunction.
3. The respondent No. 4, though a family member, was impleaded as a proforma defendant and did not appear. The appellant (defendant No. 2) contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' claims. He asserted that respondent No. 4 was a joint owner of the suit land, having inherited it from his father, and had constructed two rooms on it from his own inco.me. The appellant claimed that he purchased this specific structure from respondent No. 4 for lawful consideration, received vacant possession, and was residing there. He denied all allegations of wrongdoing and challenged the maintainability of the suit, the plaintiffs' locus standi, and the valuation of the court fee.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Learned Trial Court framed following eleven issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Cdeclaration to the effect that the agreement dated
15.03.2011 is null and void, since the defendant No.1 is neither the owner of the suit land nor in possession of the same for the reasons that he has sold his share from the ancestral property; and the agreement dated 15.03.2011 has not been signed by the defendant No.2 and the same has also not been registered with the competent authority and further non judicial stamp has been misused as the same has not been purchased by the defendant in accordance with law, as
