Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Vijay Kumar (R-1), his wife late Smt. Vishambai and Sharad Kumar (R-5) in their separate written statement admitted oral partition of the family and allotment of suit lands to the appellant. However, they claimed that by a settlement/rectification deed the appellant was required to pay Rs. 50,000/- to Vijay Kumar (R-1), his wife late Vishambai and Sharad Kumar (R-5) by Vaishakh Sudi Panchmi Samvat 2026 and then only the lands would have become the property of Nirmal Kumar Jain. It was also claimed that 15.00 acres of land was mortgaged by way of conditional sale and on failure of such payment Vijay Kumar (R-1) shall become entitled to suit lands. As the appellant did not pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- within period stipulated he did not acquire any title to the suit lands. It was also claimed that name of appellant was never mutated to revenue papers. The appellant was never in possession of suit lands and Vijay Kumar (R-1), his wife late Vishambai and son Sharad Kumar (R-5) had full right and title to alienate the lands.

7. The First Appellate Court held that the memo of partition Ex. P-1 and settlement/rectification deed Ex. D-1 are part of the same transaction and had to be read together. They did not require any registration. As the appellant had not paid Rs. 50,000/- he did not acquire any title in the suit lands. Appellant was never in possession of the suit lands and sales of lands by Vijay Kumar (R-1), his wife Smt. Vishambai and son Sharad Kumar (R-5) were good and binding. He concurred with the Trial Court that the appellant has not been able to prove his case.

11. Settlement/rectification deed Ex. D-1 was an unregistered document and could not create any mortgage. A mortgage to be effective has to be by a registered instrument under the provisions of Section 58 of the T.P. Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act. It was not clear when mortgage loan was taken, what was the rate of interest, what were the other terms, who was the mortgagee, who were the mortgagers ? Obviously, this document Ex. D-1 was not sufficient to create any mortgage or charge on the suit lands. There had been no clear plea of mortgage by the appellant. Actually the appellant had kept complete silence on the point. He had led no evidence on the point of mortgage. Mere casual reference of mortgage by way of conditional sale in Ex. D-1 did not change this settlement/rectification deed into a mortgage deed. Thus, this theory of mortgage was also not established nor the appellant could have taken any shelter under this plea.