Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6A. The next contention of the learned counsel is that even though Exhibit P. 2 is unregistered, the appellants are entitled to take advantage of the same under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The objection of the respondent's counsel is that the appellants being plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. To meet this objection the appellants' counsel relied upon Ram Chander v. Maharaj Kunwar AIR 1939 All 611. In that case the plaintiff was lessee of a house under registered lease which was defective as it was not signed by both the parties as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the subsequent purchaser of the house for an injunction restraining him from demolishing the house or otherwise interfering with his right as lessee. It was held that although the lease was defective and inoperative, the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act applied to the case and that the plaintiff had a right of suit. The learned Judges observed:--

............... It is the defendants who are seeking to assert rights covered by the contract. The plaintiff seeks merely to debar them from doing so; the plaintiff is seeking to protect the rights. In a sense, in the proceedings he is really a defendant and we see nothing in the terms of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to disentitle him from maintaining the present suit".

This proposition was approved by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Achayya v. Venkata Subba Rao AIR 1957 Andh. Pra 854, and it was held that the plaintiffs who rely upon the defensive quality of statute recognised under section 53A can take benefit of the same.

7. I find myself unable to agree with the proposition of law laid down in these judgments. In the case of Achayya (Supra) the pronouncement of the Privy Council in Probodh Kumar v. Dantmara Tea Co., Air 1940 PC 1, was noticed. In that case the plaintiffs were in possession of an estate under unregistered documents from the previous owners. Subsequently, the defendants got a registered conveyance of the estate in their favour from the same owners. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the defendant had no right or title to the estate and that they were debarred from enforcing any right to the estate. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs could not rely upon Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as they could not ask for the relief of declaration for the obvious reasons that the title did not pass to them. The decision in Probodh Kumar's case (Supra) is clearly relevant to the instant case. In order to give benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the plaintiff it will have to be found that the defendant-Sabha is not the rightful transferee of the temple from the Chandigarh Administration. No such finding can be given as no title had passed in favour of the plaintiffs vide conveyance deed (Exhibit P.2). On the other hand the property in dispute had been allotted to the defendant-Sabha by the competent authority. Thus, it is evident that the plaintiff can take benefit of Section 53A only in a suit in which they are the defendants. They cannot claim to be considered as transferees from the Government on the basis of the conveyance deed Exhibit P-2 in the instant suit. In other words in a conflict between rival transferees it cannot be held that the plaintiffs under Section 53A have preferential right of ownership as against the defendant-Sabha. Such interpretation of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to my mind is not permissible. The case of Achayya (Supra) was noticed in Motilal v. Jaswant Singh, Air 1964 Raj 11, and the view taken was not approved. In this judgment it was held that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act clearly lays down that the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession. The learned Judge observed:--

8. I am of the opinion that the construction put on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in aforesaid Judgments of Orissa High Court and Rajasthan High Court is the correct and sound one. The contrary view expressed in the aforesaid judgments in cases of Ram Chander (AIR 1939 All 611) (Supra) and Achayya (Air 1957 Andh Pra 854) (Supra) has been taken by stretching the plain meaning of the Section in order to uphold the view that a particular plaintiff is really defending his right to the property as against the transferor. I am inclined to approve the following observations in the case of Moti Lal (AIR 1965 Raj 11) (Supra):--