CMPMO No. 617 of 2008 12.8.2009 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. CMPMO No. 617 of 2008 The plaintiff is aggrieved against the operative portion of the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 50/1 of 2006, titled as Lekh Ram and another versus Garja Ram and others as also the order dated 31.7.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Review Application filed by the plaintiff. The operative portion of the decree reads as under: “6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiffs is partially decreed and they are declared owners in possession of the suit land. This decree shall become operational after due registration as per the Registration Act. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to the record room.” In the State of Himachal Pradesh, prior to the issuance of the notification dated 7.12.1970 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh Revenue Department the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act were not applicable. The notification reads as under: “ GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH REVENUE DEPARTMENT No. 17-13/66-Rev-1 Dated Shimla-2 the 7/12/70 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Section I of the Transfer of Proprietary Act, 1882 (IV -2- of 1882) read with Govt of India, Ministry of States Notification No. 104-J dated 24.8.50 as amended by notification No. 29-J dated 7/2/52 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf the Administrator (Lieut Governor) Himachal Pradesh is please to extend the provisions of Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the said Act with effect from the date of issue of this Notification to the Districts of Chamba, Sirmaur, Mahasu Kinnaur, Mandi and Bilaspur of Himachal Pradesh. The Government of India Notification No. 262-1 dated the 26th November, (SIC) is hereby cancelled. By order Under Secretary to the Govt of Himachal Pradesh.” The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit after trial holding that the plaintiff had bought the suit land from Sh. Kaila Ram in the year 1966 when possession thereof was also handed over to him. It was a case of oral sale. The same having been sufficiently proved by the plaintiffs the suit was decreed. Hence in view of the notification the sale was not required to be registered in terms of the Registration Act. The operative portion of the judgment to the extent that it makes decree operational after registration as per the Registration Act is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned decree is modified to the aforesaid extent. The order dated 31.7.2008 is also set aside. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 12, 2009 (PK)