Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

rather unvested, in, the plaintiffs'. The plaintiffs' also claimed qua their acquiring hencetitle, vis­a­vis, the suit land, through, mutation No. 661, and, mutation No. 662, mutations whereof, were, respectively attested, on 14.7.1986, in sequel to theirs' acquiring title, through, a sale made in their favour, by the said Chinti Devi, (b) and, also therethrough claimed, a, valid facilitatation, to, institute a suit, seeking therethrough, hence, rendition, of, the espoused decree, vis­a­vis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants. Significantly, hence, the validity, of, attestation, of, the afore mutations bearing mutation No. 661, and, mutation No. 662, mutations whereof were attested 14.7.1986, becomes, the, fulcrum wherethrough, an, apt determination would hence ensure, (a) whether the plaintiffs, hold, possession, of, the suit property, (b) whether they are entitled, to, claim rendition, of, the espoused decree against the defendants, and, vis­a­vis, the, suit khasra numbers, (c) however, for, the afore attested mutation(s) becoming validated by this Court, it, was incumbent, upon, the .

plaintiffs, to, ensure adduction, of, firm evidence, hence meteing satiation, rather with the apposite mandatory statutory provisions, borne both, in, The Transfer of Property Act, and, in, The Registration Act, (d) whereunder(s), vis­a­vis, immovable property hence holding, a, value of more than Rs. 100/­, a, scribed registered deed of conveyance, is, enjoined to be executed, inter­se the vendor, r and, the vendee, and, vis­a­vis, the suit khasra numbers. However, the execution, of, the requisite mandatory/statutory registered deed of conveyance, inter­se Chinti Devi, and, the plaintiffs, though, is referred in mutation bearing No. 661, and, also in mutation bearing No. 662, respectively attested, on, 14.7.1986, (d) however, for, the afore reflections cast therein, becoming validated hence by this Court, and, also theirs' becoming concluded to enjoy conclusivity, rather enjoined, the, plaintiffs', to, adduce, the, apposite deed(s), hence into evidence. However, the apt registered deed, of, conveyance executed, purportedly inter­se, the, plaintiffs, and, said Chinti Devi remained unadduced into .

evidence and, when hence, only, thereafter valid title, vis­a­vis, the suit khasra numbers, would become vested, in, the plaintiffs, and only, when in pursuance thereof, a, valid mutation would become attested, (f) whereas, the, afore requisite statutorily enjoined registered deed of conveyance, as purportedly executed inter­se plaintiffs, and, Chinti Devi rather remaining unadduced into evidence, (g) thereupon upon breach, of, the afore requisite mandatory statutory mandate, and, also when hence, for, want thereof, no valid title, is, conveyed, inter­se the suit khasra numbers, by, Chinti Devi, to, the plaintiffs, (h) thereupon the orders hence attesting mutations, and, theirs' therein unfolding qua the apposite deeds becoming executed, is/are, yet, for non adduction(s) thereof, rather void­abinitio, and, consequently, all, the, apposite entries, and, appertaining, to, the suit khasra numbers also do not any legal vigors.