1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Chamber Summons No.775 of 2006 AND Chamber Summons No.1100 of 2007 In Execution Application No.505 of 2004 In Award dated 11 th day of February 2002 As modified on 18 th Feb. 2002 Maladevi Leelanand Anthwal. .. .. Claimant v/s. Sateshwar Prasad Murlidhar Anthwal & & ors. .. .. Respondents And Gautami Laxmi Prasad Anthwal .. Applicant WITH Chamber Summons No.776 of 2006 AND Chamber Summons No.1099 of 2007 In Execution Application No.507 of 2004 In Award dated 11 th day of February 2002 As modified on 18 th Feb. 2002 Maladevi Leelanand Anthwal. .. .. Claimant v/s. Sateshwar Prasad Murlidhar Anthwal & & ors. .. .. Respondents And Gautami Laxmi Prasad Anthwal .. Applicant 2 WITH Chamber Summons No.777 of 2006 AND Chamber Summons No.1101 of 2007 In Execution Application No.506 of 2004 In Award dated 11 th day of February 2002 As modified on 18 th Feb. 2002 Maladevi Leelanand Anthwal. .. .. Claimant v/s. Sateshwar Prasad Murlidhar Anthwal & & ors. .. .. Respondents And Gautami Laxmi Prasad Anthwal .. Applicant Mr.N. Parekh i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal for Applicant. Mr.Raymand i/by Raymond & Co. for Claimant. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 17 th September, 2008 ORDER : 1. The Claimant has sought to execute the Award by attachment of the property of the Respondents. The Claimant has taken out the Chamber Summons for extension of the warrant of sale. 2. The Applicant claims that the property belongs to her and not the Respondents. She is the daughter- in-law of the 1st 3 Respondent. The Applicant has sought to raise the attachment upon a claim of title and possession under a lawful title. 3. The Applicant has tendered an Affidavit dated 1.7.1997 on a stamp paper of Rs.20/- , showing one Lalji M. Pali to whom rights in respect of the attached premises were transferred by one Mrs.Shaikh Jamila Sayed, who was the initial title holder. To show that fact the Applicant has produced one Agreement in favour of Mrs.Shaikh Jamila Sayed dated 10th May 1997. That Agreement is unregistered. The Applicant has also produced an Affidavit dated 21.3.1997 of Mrs.Shaikh Jamila Sayed, stating that she has transferred her zopda to Lalji Pali. The Affidavit is also not registered. The transaction of immovable property by sale of the zopda not being registered, is not a valid sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The Applicant claims to have been put in possession by Lalji Pali and to have been allotted a premises in lieu of the zopda. The very transaction of the immovable property viz. the zopda not being registered, the rights thereunder cannot be legitimately claimed by the Applicant against the attachment of the property. 4 5. The Applicant has relied upon a letter of allotment of flat No.012 in building B-4 to her. That allotment is based upon her title, if any, in the zopda. It is seen that she cannot claim a valid title in the zopda for want of registration of her documents. 6. The Applicant has relied upon various other documents to show her possession with which this Court is not concerned in an application for raising attachment. Possession of the attached premises must be only under lawful title. If title of the attached property is not shown, possession, therefore, is seen to be unlawful. 7. For raising an attachment only the title to the property is required to be seen. If the property lawfully belonging to a person who is not the decree- holder is sought to be attached, the attachment could be raised only upon seeing the title of such other person. Possession follows therefrom. If the title of the person is not shown, attachment cannot be raised. 8. The entire onus of proving possession under a lawful title is on the Applicant. Such onus is not discharged as the Applicant has relied upon unregistered documents purporting to sell the attached premises to her. The Applicant cannot even rely upon such documents. 5 Possession, which is not under lawful title, cannot be protected. The onus is not discharged. 9. Chamber Summons Nos.775 of 2006, 776 of 2006 and 777 of 2006 are dismissed. The Execution Applications shall proceed. Time for executing the warrant of sale is extended for 1 year from today. 10. Chamber Summons Nos.1099 of 2007, 1100 of 2007 and 1101 and 2007 are disposed of accordingly. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.]