Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2168 (PNJ)

Sunil v. Siri Chand

2008-12-19

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2008
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain J. (Oral):-The defendants are in Second Appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession has been decreed. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for possession alleging that an agricultural land measuring 17 kanals 18 marlas comprised in Khewat No.202 min Khatoni No.374 Khasra No.106//20/1 (1-0), 118//6(6-18), 140//25/1(2-0) and 142//5(8-0) situated in village Badesra, Tehsil and District Bhiwani was allotted to him by the State of Haryana against the sale consideration of Rs.9508/-. It is alleged that he has deposited the whole price of the land in question and a certificate of allotment has been issued in his favour by the allotment authority. On the strength of the letter of allotment, Mutation No.2705 has already been sanctioned by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhiwani exercising the powers of the prescribed authority on 10.4.1995 3. On notice, defendants appeared and contested the suit. It is alleged by the defendants that suit land is the Harijan Colony and they are in possession since long as owners by virtue of purchase of the suit land from one big land owner named Ganeshi s/o Udey Ram. It was further alleged that defendants have got installed electricity metre. The Gram Panchayat has already constructed pucca street with Govt. expenses. The plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land as such entries in the revenue record are of no importance. 4. Plaintiff filed replication, denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. The plaintiff produced on record allotment letter Ex.P1 on the basis of which he became the owner in possession of the suit property. In this regard plaintiff relied upon Exs. P2, P3 & P4. As per these documents the suit property has been allotted by the State of Haryana to the plaintiff which is also proved by Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 (Ex.P5). As against this the defendants relied upon documentary evidence Ex.DW4/B, mark A, C & E which are unregistered copies of the Bahi entries from the record of Ganeshi s/o Udey Ram, according to which the defendants claimed that they have purchased the immoveable property of the value more than Rs.100 and become the owner of the land in question. 5. As against this the defendants relied upon documentary evidence Ex.DW4/B, mark A, C & E which are unregistered copies of the Bahi entries from the record of Ganeshi s/o Udey Ram, according to which the defendants claimed that they have purchased the immoveable property of the value more than Rs.100 and become the owner of the land in question. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants. 6. Sh.Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the defendants are Harijans who are in possession of the constructed house and have got installed their electricity metre in the said premises. It is also contended that the Gram Panchayat had already constructed a pucca street with the Govt. expenses in the village and the property in dispute has been transferred by way of Bahi entries instead of the sale deeds. It is further contended that on the basis of the Bahi entries the defendants are the owners and are entitled to retain possession. It is also argued that the Bahi entries can be looked into for the collateral purposes. In this regard, counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Labh Kaur Vs. Harbans Singh” 1999(1) PLR 737. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance. 8. It is an admitted fact on record that property in question has been alloted to the plaintiff by State of Haryana vide allotment letter Ex.P1. It is also an admitted fact that the mutation on the basis of the allotment letter Ex.P1 have already been entered in favour for the plaintiff which are Exs.P2, P3 and P4. It is also an admitted fact that there is no sale deed in favour of the defendants except for Bahi entries which are alleged to have been carried out in his record by one Ganeshi s/o Udey Ram who is alleged to be the owner of the property and had sold the disputed property to the defendants against Bahi entries. It is also an admitted fact that the value of the immoveable property in dispute is more than Rs.100/-. 9. It is also an admitted fact that the value of the immoveable property in dispute is more than Rs.100/-. 9. In the present case, the question thus arises whether sale of immoveable property can be effected without a registered instrument if the value of the property sold is more than Rs.100/- in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short ‘the Act’). Section 54 of the Act provides the definition of sale and is reproduced as under: - “54. “Sale” defined.- “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made – Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract of Sale – A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take placed on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” 10. The language of the above provision is categoric that in case of the transfer of tangible immoveable property of the value of more than one hundred rupees registered documentary instruments is to be executed in order to confer title to the person in whose favour the property is transferred. In the present case, there is no evidence that the property in question which is admittedly of more than Rs.100/- and is admittedly immoveable property has been transferred by vendor (Ganeshi s/o Udey Ram) to the defendants by way of registered instrument. The bahi entries, in this regard, does not confer any title. Judgment in the case of Lab Kaur (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no relevance at all. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. ------------------