Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravendra Pratap Singh vs Ramjivan Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 14 November, 2013

                Second Appeal No. 673/2013
14/11/2013                                                           
     Shri   Pranay   Verma,   learned   counsel   for   the 
appellant.
      Shri   K.P.   Kushwaha,   learned   counsel   for   the 
respondents.

Heard on the question of admission. This   second   appeal   by   appellant/defendant   is  against   the   judgment   dated   25.6.2013   passed   in   Civil  Appeal   No.122­A/2011   by   the   Additional   District  Judge,   Amarpatan,   district   Satna   arising   out   of   the  judgment   and   decree   dated   12.9.2011   passed   in   Civil  Suit   No.3­A/2009   by   the   Second   Civil   Judge,   Class   II,  Satna.

It is  contended  that  by  sale deed  dated  2.9.1959  (Ex.D/3)   the   appellant   has  acquired   the   title   over   the  land   in   suit   from   the   predecessor   of   the  respondents/plaintiffs   and   by   virtue   of   such   a   sale  deed he was entitled to remain in possession. The suit  filed   by   the   respondents   was   liable   to   be   dismissed  only   on   this   count.   However,   ignoring   the   sale   deed,  since   the   suit   has   been   decreed,   the   appeal   preferred  against   the   said   judgment   and   decree   has   been  dismissed, therefore,  this second appeal is  required  to  be filed.

It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   sale   deed   (Ex.D/3)  was an unregistered document, which was executed for  transfer   of   property,   which   was   valued   for   more   than  Rs.100/­.   The   registration   of   such   a   sale   deed   under  the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration  Act was mandatory. Even otherwise, such unregistered  document could not be impounded and could not have  been   admitted   in   evidence,   as   the   same   was   not  permissible   under   the   law.   On   the   basis   of   these  findings,   such   a   defence   taken   by   the   appellant   has  been   rejected   and   the   claim   of   the  respondents/plaintiffs has been granted. 

In   view   of   the   aforesaid,   no   error   of   law   is  committed by the courts below in granting the claim of  the   respondents/plaintiffs.   No   substantial   question   of  law arises in this appeal for consideration. The appeal  fails and is hereby dismissed. 

                                                      (K.K. Trivedi)                Judge shukla­