In R.S.A.No.386 of 1989(O&M)-PUNJ HC- Immovable property worth more than Rs 100 cannot be transferred without registered sale deed in terms of Sec.54 of TPA r/w Sec.17 of Registration Act: P&H HC Justice Anil Kshetarpal [22-07-2022]

Read Order: Jetha Nand and others v. Balbir Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 2, 2022: Recently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has reaffirmed that immovable property worth more than Rs 100 cannot be transferred without a registered sale deed in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 17 of the Registration Act. 

Essentially, here, the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against the defendants claiming that the parties were in the relationship of landlords and tenants, respectively. It was claimed in the plaint that the defendants were inducted as tenants on payment of 1/3rd share of the crop, however, they have stopped paying the rent from the Kharif Crop 1978, and thus, their relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end, as a result of which, the plaintiffs were entitled to possession.

While contesting the suit, the defendants claimed that they were never inducted as tenants and in fact, they purchased the land as well as the house through an oral sale on payment of Rs.11,000/- in the year 1964. 

In the alternative, it was asserted that the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession because they were openly proclaiming themselves to be owners of the suit land since 1964.

The trial court dismissed the suit whereas the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Both the courts concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case with regard to any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The trial court held that the defendants purchased the property through an oral sale, however, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding.

At the very outset, after considering the above-stated, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal opined that it is well settled that immovable property worth more than Rs.100 cannot be transferred without registered sale deed in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r/w section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Further, the Court went on to examine an important issue which was that the First Appellate Court, on the one hand, recorded a finding that there was no oral sale, but, at the same time, it declined to examine the acquisition of the ownership by way of adverse possession on the ground that the possession of the defendants was permissive on account of oral sale. 

“The First Appellate Court was required to return a definite finding on that fact. The court could have observed that there was an oral sale which was not permissible while proceeding with the case or the court could have observed that there was no oral sale and then the nature of possession of the defendants should have been examined”, asserted Justice Kshetarpal, while adding that  this has to be considered in the context that the plaintiffs admitted that their family shifted out of the village somewhere in 1940s.

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the matter was remitted back to the First Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh and the Court was directed to independently decide the appeal without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court.