In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 97 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision:August 04, 2009 Ram Avtar and another ---Appellants versus Phul Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain,Advocate, for the appellans Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff –Phul Singh had filed a suit for possession. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2001 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment read as under:- “The plaintiff pleaded that after the purchase, he raised a wall from point C to D and D1 and from point B to B1 and B3 and R.S.A.No. 97 of 2006(O&M) -2- also at point GH by spending amounts from his own pocket, but the defendants without any right, title or interest and taking undue advantage of his absence on 24.1.1996 forcibly and promptly encroached upon the half portion of the suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan and raised a wall from point B1 to E. They also closed the gate at point G by way of bricks and also installed a wooden gate on the south-western corner of the property. The plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over the possession. He also approached the police, but when no action was taken, the necessity of filing the suit arose. The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement, they admitted that the plaintiff earlier used to be in possession of Khasra Nos. 249 and 250 but claimed their own possession over the half portion, situated on the western side, for the last more than 12 years. Since a dispute had arisen between the parties, a written compromise dated 7.4.1987 was executed, which was written by the plaintiff himself and attested by the witnesses. On the basis of this compromise, the defendants claimed their ownership and possession of half portion as shown in red colour. The defendants constructed a wall over their share about 12 years ago. They claimed their adverse possession, where they were residing since long. The suit was also contested on the grounds of maintainability and estoppel. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following R.S.A.No. 97 of 2006(O&M) -3- issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is owner of property marked as ABCDEFGH shown in green and red colour in site plan attached with the plaint? OPP (2)Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (3)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD (4)Relief On 21.11.2000 following additional issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the compromise took place between the parties on 7.4.1987? OPP 2. Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. Defendant on the other hand had based his claim on compromise Ex. DW-1/A dated 7.4.1987 as per which the plaintiff had surrendered the possession of ½ portion of the suit property in favour of the defendant. Admittedly, the plaintiff, was the owner of the suit property. Both the courts below had rightly held that the said document was not admissible in evidence as the same was not a registered document. It is settled proposition of law that where there is a sale or transfer or relinquishment of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/-, then the same has to be effected by way of a registered document. R.S.A.No. 97 of 2006(O&M) -4- Hence, the compromise Ex. DW-1/A could not be taken in consideration. Suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2009 PARAMJIT