RSA No.648 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.648 of 1985 Date of Decision: 22.07.2009 Raghunath through LRs ...Appellant V E R S U S Daulat Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court and thereby not accepting the claim of the appellant that apart from the 1/12th share of land he had also become owner of another 1/3rd share on account of gift deed exhibited. It deserves to be mentioned here that the factum gift deed was admitted by respondent No.1 viz., the defendant No.5. Learned counsel has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. “Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court holding that document Ex.P.1 was required to be compulsorily register-able under Section 17(1)(a) of the Indian Registration Act can legally be sustained when admittedly as per document Ex.P.1, the value of RSA No.648 of 1985 -2- the property was less than Rs.100/-? 2. Whether Ex.P.1 gift deed could be taken into consideration for collateral purposes in terms of proviso to Section 49 of the Act, to prove that the possession of the property so gifted had been delivered under the said document? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of present case, judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, can legally be sustained more particularly when finding under issue no.4 has been recorded by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff holding that no partition had taken place during the lifetime of Daulat Ram, as pleaded by the defendant/respondent? 4. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court can legally be sustained which is based on mis-reading and mis-construing and non- consideration of the evidence on record?” It would be required to answer questions No.2 and 3 only if questions No.1 and 4 are answered against the appellant. As regards questions No.1 and 4, learned counsel has taken me through the document Ex.P.I. This document categorically records that the value of the property is Rs.99. This fact has not been disputed. In fact, despite being apprised of the hearing of this case Mr. Adeesh Gupta, Advocate who had appeared on behalf of only contesting respondent No.1 has not come present today to argue this matter. In the circumstances, I am constraint to accept that the value of RSA No.648 of 1985 -3- the house was indeed Rs.99. That being so the said document was not compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1)(a) of the Indian Registration Act. Once it is held that the said document was not compulsorily registerable there could be no bar of reading it in evidence. A perusal of this document as well as the fact that nothing contrary has been produced on the record makes it clear that the appellant, in addition to be owner of 1/12th share had also become owner of another 1/3rd share on account of gift from Ram Lal, his uncle. These questions are thus answered in favour of the appellant. Having held in favour of the appellant in the focal questions No.1 and 4 there is no necessity for me to opine on the peripheral questions No. 2 and 3. In this view of the matter this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial court is affirmed. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2009 JUDGE ashish