§§mg se¢ona Aiapeal Ne..§7¢ 0£ 2.33 ( Memarandum af sacend Apyeal U/s 190 C P.C. ) APPEWTS : Legal Heirs 0f deqgased Ram ‘ DEFENDANTS P :35 ado /'1a. Ramayan La]; Rathore s/o Ram Prasad aged Q5 yearso /ah. Ram Pal Rathere s/a Ram Pxaadmged 32 yeazyse k2 1 aadri aged 52 years s/o a 1 6 IN TEE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASP wwgth aged 52 years s/@ mm Pa§um o Baignath aged 57 years s/a Paéum o All resident ai Village ; DhurkatJehsil: Janjgir Disyrict Janjgir chamisa.‘ <33>Vw 7w ag” gmi§5 ‘ a.f '0 V.‘ “a Ve r5 US ' FONDENTs t $1,;o‘ Ananda aged 31‘ years NTEFF$ 1 ite 2 s: ”.2. Bhondal aged 29 years. / 4 , DEFENDANT$ z 3. Bhola aged 27 years. a 3w 11. 4.,» sander aged 25 years. 5. Mahan aged 1: years / / 6, Mohanmati agea 19 years ‘ all sons of Chainu . ,7. Chaim: aged 57 years s/e / Sakharam . %é%s§is&§g§%ig£ Pirkota Bistrict Janjgir Champa. PWNTIFFS ' $84; MstoBudhwara aged 42 years N/e Dharam Ina]. . Ayodhya aged 17 yeaEas/é Cheat): minar through Ghedudaeth r/o ‘I‘usma.,Distriet. Janjgir chamaa. ‘ Kumari Mela Bai aged 15 years D/a Bhulahu, minor natural guardian mcther tw\ Fhul Bai r/e Rachapoai Tehsil f Janjgix Distt Janjgir Champa; The state of Chhattlsgarh Threugh the eallectar ‘ Jahggir Champa (CG). nawmnm'rs 3, Ito: 8’1“ :3 02 :z ; MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEM UNDER SECTION 190 C. PoCe \/ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A&’RSPUR é g g Sin le Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prasha nt Kumar Mishra Second Aggeai No.599 of 2003 Ram Prasad (Dead) through Legal Heirs Ramayan Lal Rathore and others verSUS Ananda and others ORDER Postfor 12-3-2010 4W {M} Sd/- gwa‘L j J PrashantKumarMishra V r r r fxxw Judge fax} J 71.32010‘ - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Siligle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Agpeal No.599 of 2003 ‘3 Ram Prasad (Dead) through Legal Heirs Ramayan Lal Rathore and others I AQQeIFants versus Ananda and others Resgondents ‘ Shr wdh Trithi, counsel for the apellants. Shri if Kn, oune r reponden No.1. Shri \inod ekam, Panel Lawyer f he terspondent No.1 . asd on [144 , 0) (Pse ‘ March 210 t C w b e g j The wo ourts belo, y th impuned udgment and decree, hav lowed the plaitiffs’ suit for declaration and possession. The suitwas ased on sa—deed ted 24—978 executed b defenants N? 8 na Poi, Bua lL e e (paif o7 ati l he b t n 4 d e s h me, 97 ean ri d Sc l _ Coe of Criminal Proedur, d ce giate, Janjr. possession to th , property. The plaintiffs further stated tha ot) to , mely, holba widow of Bhulau, dhWar, Ayodhya andilabai, respectivly, in favour of Phoolbai, wif of Chainu lntif N.). The plinffs are the lega irs of Phoolai. According o the plaitiffs, defendants No.1 to starte interfring with their posession fror Novebr 18 ldig to poceedngs uner et 1973 before e Su—Divisil The sd Su-Divisional agistrate livered e defendants though they have no title on the suit t the subsequent sale—deed io 145 of th n e th bona ai b M de Present:- i Aa pa p $a ha csl fo st ;/ T or t Sta/e 1 i \ v Second AQQeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ORDER e al n ‘l b le da 6—1 y d Mastr gi i ' executed by their vendors in favour of the defendants on 8—1 1—1978 is illega1 and not binding on thern. 2. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and stated that they -, ‘7; had Eentered into an agreement to sell with their vendor Phoolbai, widow of Bhulau on 4-4-1978 and the subsequent sale—deed dated 8- 11-1978 was executed in their favour as a consequence of the agreement to sell. lt was stated that even after execution of the sale— deed in favour of the plaintiffs, possession remained with the . \ ‘ a defendants, which they had obtained on 4—4—1978, i‘.e., at the time of exedution of the agreement to sell. a I 3. Bth the pties led evidence before the tril Court and on the basi of evidece, t rial our concludd that posssion s, in act, delivered to Phoolbai the plaintiffs’ predecesor in interest, in whoe fou e sal eed dted 2 198 was xeuted and that ' poss f he su property was never deered to th defendant Thtl Court fd that the agreement to sell daed 78 ree as Mehandanama n the t Cor udgment, susus dm and appers t have been uequentl prepad an also that esion was n dered to the defendants on -197. The first appllat ourt ha also disssed the enre evidence 4. I ee C s cu ti n cord and while airming the findins rordd y h tri Court, s signed it own reaons to hold tat the laintiffs’ suit has rhtly n e o re ff g ece b te al ha as s s h p ig bee dcreed. i cn e t of 5. Learned ousel for the appllants has argued hat in view the l/agréement to sell dated 4-4-1978, a right was created in favour of the , o ar a s n he t Ct e se wa fi s s avr th e d a 4 6 7 ec sesron o t it liv e s elria oun t 44 19 feqrd i rial ut s J Is a prcro l ocdent a o sbsy re d posss ot live 4-48 -3r 4é appenénts/defendants and, therefore, me sale-deed dated 24—6-1978 could rjot have been executed in favour of Phoolbai, the predecessor in I intereét or the plaintiffs. 6. :Having perused the record, this Court is not convinced with the argurrient raised by iearned counsei for the appeliants. It is trite iaw that titie With respect to a landed property, having valued more than Rs 100/— can only be transferred by a registered instrument Mere execution of an agreement does not transfer the title in favour of the prospective purchaser unless a sale deed is registered in his favour ln the l present case' the first sale-deed dated 24—6-1978 is in favour of Phoolbai the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs On the date of execution of the second sale deed on 8 11 1978 in favour of the defendants, the vendors of the plaintiffs had no title to transfer, l do H ”i therefore, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that in view of the provisions contained in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act! 1882 the defendants are entitled to protect possessmn. This argument of learned counsel for the appellants also does not appear to be convmcmg Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would operate wherein action is initiated by the transferor ln the present case the plaintiffs are not the persons who have entered into ‘ any agreement With the defendants The plaintiffs cannot be said to be {persons who are debarred from enforcmg any right against the transferee. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 has, thus, no application in the present case. #4!— 1 8. VThere‘ being no substantial question of law involved in this i i appeai for determination, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/— - ip‘i ' Prashant Kumar Mishra i i Judge z i ‘1‘”