SUKHDEV RAJ NANDA Vs. P D PAHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application filed by Shri P. D. Ahuja, respondent in R.F.A. 21-D of 1963 under section 114 read with order 47 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, urging that the judgment and decree dated the 30th of July, 1973 made by this Court, be reviewed. It is conceded in paragraph 1 of the application that the appeal was argued at length before us and then disposed of. The ground urged, however, is that the sale certificate issued in favour of the appellants i.e.. Ex. P.1 did not at all confer any title because it was not registered as required by section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

(2.) The counsel for the applicant emphasises that it was a matter in issue as to whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the premises in dispute or not and the sale certificate Ex. P. 1 having not been registered it should have been held by us while disposing of the appeal that the appellants were not the owners of the property and therefore not entitle to the relief which they had sought. In this application it has been repeated that the right of ownership remained unestablished for want of registration and reference has been made in that behalf to the statement of Public Witness 10 Sukhdev Raj at page 42 of the paper book. The submission is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in as much as Ex. P. 1. I the sale certificate being unregistered the plaintiffs of the suit could not have claimed the relief for which they had brought the suit.

(3.) While hearing the application an adjournment was granted on the 24th of September, 1973 to enable the applicant to file an affidavit in order to clarify his stand. An affidavit sworn on the 25th of September, 1973 was filed in paragraph 4 whereof it was stated that according to the information of the dependent grounds Nos. 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6 in the review application were not urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal. Ground No. 1 is that the plaintiffs respondents could not have claimed title in the property as owners on the basis of the unregistered sale certificate Ex. P. 1. Ground No. 2 is that it is apparent on the face of the record that the sale certificate being unregistered was void and ineffective. Grounds 3 and 4 are to the effect that the judgment sought to be reviewed is opposed to the provisions contained in section 11 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 hereafter called " the Act" and the provisions contained in rule 11-E framed under that Act. Ground No. 5 places a general reliance on the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951 and the Indian Registration Act. In ground No. 6 it is stated that the judgment if allowed to stand would be opposed to section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act) 1954 read with Rule 11-E of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951.