Saratul Fatima And Ors. vs Khodaiya Bibi And Ors. on 12 July, 2004
In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Ram Sawari Devi and others (supra) in which it has been observed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court that "unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted into evidence in support of the case of the defendant. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act permits transfer of tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs. 100/- either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Thus according to this section, there are only two modes of transfer by sale, and these are (1) by registered instrument and (2) by delivery of property. The Registration Act does not distinguish between tangible and intangible immovable property and makes registration optional in the case of immovable property of value less than Rs. 100/-. If a sale deed purporting to transfer a tangible immovable property of value less than Rs. 100/- is not registered, the sale would be ineffective unless it is accompanied by delivery of possession of the property. The sale deed can be used only as an evidence of the character of possession." Adverting to the averments made in the written statement it has been contended that the Principal defendant claims to be in possession of the suit land prior to the date of the unregistered sale deed by virtue of the flow of refuge water of his house thereon but it is the settled proposition of law that flow of the refuge water of the house on the suit land does not amount the possession of the defendant over the suit land thereby perfecting his title by adverse possession. It has further been submitted that there is further averment in para 9 of the written stated that Sk. Abdul Latif sold the suit land for valuable consideration of Rs. 48/-and in proof of the sale he also handed over to this defendant a duly executed sale deed dated 3.11.1951 and after this purchase the defendant No. 1 became the owner in possession of the entire 3 decimals of land i.e. northern half portion of plot No. 688 but there is no specific averment therein that Sk. Abdul Latif had delivered possession to the principal defendant over the suit land. Relying upon the ratio of the case of Mst.