R.S.A. No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.03.2010 Anta and another ....Appellants versus Pala and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants, for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in their possession, has been partly decreed, by granting the relief of injunction, while declining that of declaration. The plaintiff/appellants filed a suit on the pleadings, that they were owner in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of oral sale deed for consideration of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), from predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. In pursuance to oral sale, appellants were in possession of the suit property for the last 40 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.11.1961. In view of the long uninterrupted possession, the plaintiffs also claimed the right of ownership by way of adverse possession in the suit property. R.S.A. No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The suit was contested. Besides, taking preliminary objections, on merits stand of the defendant/respondents was, that no sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff/appellants. It was further the stand of the defendant/respondents that plaintiffs, on the basis of revenue entries had, in fact, threatened the defendants to dispossess from the suit land forcibly and illegally. All other averments made in the suit were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land by virtue of the sale as alleged? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved then whether the plaintiffs have become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession if so to what effect? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi nor the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Relief. 2-A. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP” On appreciation of evidence, the learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the plaintiff/appellants were not owners of the property by virtue of the sale as alleged. That plea of ownership was not pressed before the learned Courts below. However, they were found to be in possession of the property. Issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiff/appellants, and it was held that plaintiff/appellants had failed to prove, that they had R.S.A. No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) -3- perfected their title by way of adverse possession, by proving open and hostile possession for more than 12 years. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellants. It was held that the plaintiffs had the cause of action, to maintain the suit. Issue No.4 was decided against the defendant/respondents. In view of proved possession of the plaintiff/appellants, issue No.2-A, was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellants, and a decree for permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellants, except in due process of law. Mr. Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether in the State of Punjab whereof property Act was not in force, an oral sale was valid in all cases? 2. Whether the rights of the plaintiffs are protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act? 3. Whether in oral sale coupled with delivery of possession indicates the intention as true test amounting to ownership in possession? 4. Whether the plaintiffs acquire title in the property by possession as equitable owner for over 12 years in pursuance to the oral sale dated 15.11.1961?” In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended, that once the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable to the State of Punjab, the oral sale, could not be said to be invalid. Furthermore, once it was proved, that in pursuance to the oral R.S.A. No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) -4- sale, plaintiff/appellants were in possession of the property in dispute, plaintiff/appellants were entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, as their possession was to be treated to be taken as if it was in pursuance to part performance of the contract. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that oral agreement qua sale, coupled with possession, leads to the equitable conclusion, that the plaintiff/appellants had become owners by adverse possession. This important aspect has been ignored by the learned Courts below. Finally, it was contended, that once it was proved that the plaintiff/appellants were in possession for over 12 years, under the oral sale, they had equitable right, to claim ownership and possession. On consideration, I find that the substantial questions of law raised are totally mis-conceived. Irrespective of the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act is applicable to the State of Punjab. No transfer of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) can take place without a registered document. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff/appellants had become owner under oral sale, of property worth Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only). Once, the plaintiff/appellants had specifically given up this plea of purchase, they cannot claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The substantial question of law raised to claim protection under Section 53-A, is again mis-conceived, and does not arise on the facts of this case. As already observed above, once oral sale of immovable property is not permissible in law, the plea that plaintiff/appellants had R.S.A. No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) -5- become registered owners of the property in dispute, cannot be accepted nor the plaintiffs can claim to have perfected their title merely by proving possession for more than 12 years. The plea of adverse possession is not open to the plaintiff/appellants in affirmative. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 09, 2010 R.S.