GADADHAR SAHANI Vs. NABAKISHORE DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Defendant against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack, affirming a decision of the learned Munsif of Athgarh. The Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession of a house consisting of five rooms standing on two plots of land Nos. 1256 and 1257, with an area of O. 16 acres. He also prayed for recovery of Rs. 15/ - as arrears of rent. His case was that one Ramkrishna Pattnaik was the original owner of the suit land. He sold it by a registered sale -deed to one Ratnakala on 5.9.24. This Ratnakala was originally a Defendant but was subsequently expunged by an order of the Appellate Court when the suit was pending before him before remand. The plot nos in the sale -deed of Ratnakala were 1260 and 1261 having an area of O. 13 acres, and it is common Case that these plots did not belong to Ramkrishna Pattanaik, and that there was a misdescription of the property in the registered sale -deed dated 5 -9.24 executed by Ramkrishna in favour of Ratnakala. On 8 -2.35, the Plaintiff purchased the disputed property from Ratnakala and her husband by an unregistered sale deed for Rs. 40/ -and obtained possession. Thereafter he inducted certain tenants, for example, P.W. 1 who continued for some time in possession. In 1940, the Defendant was inducted as a tenant. He paid rent for three years but defaulted in payment of rent for the next three years. Accordingly the present suit was filed in the year 1946.

(2.) ORIGINALLY a joint written statement was filed by Ratnakala D. 1, and the Defendant No. 2 alleging that in the year 1933, Ratnakala's husband Bidyadhar had delivered possession to the present Defendant and in 1936, he actually sold it to the Defendant. The Defendants pleaded adverse possession and they also challenged the validity of the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff on the ground that under the Rules prevalent in the State, no sale could take place without a registered document.

(3.) MR . S.K. Ray, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that under the Land Transfer Rules prevalent is the State of Athgarh, the sale deed Ext. 1 is invalid in as much as Rule 12 of those Rules provides that all sorts of documents of transfer should be effected by means of registered documents and as admittedly the sale deed in question in favour of the Plaintiff is not registered, the Plaintiff has not been able to make out his title. I have gone through the land transfer Rules which are marked in the case as Ex. D/7 and which are in print in oriya. They provide that the transferee is liable to pay the mutation fee and all sorts of transfers should be effected by means of registered documents. The transferor shall realise the mutation fee from the transferee and deposit it in the Treasury before filing the sale deed for registration. Various other conditions have been prescribed -in the said rules with which we are not concerned. Rule 30 of the rules however provides that "if any sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or any other transfer takes place contrary to the rules prescribed therein, then an opportunity shall be given to both parties to such illegal transfer so that they may get their pattas corrected in accordance with Law." If, however, they do not get their pattas corrected in accordance with the law" then the State shall forfeit their lands. Then certain other conditions are laid down. Reading these two, it is perfectly clear that as between the transferee and the transferor the passing of the title is not postponed till the registration of the document. Even if a transfer is effected by an unregistered document, the state shall give a chance to both the parties to get the benefit of Rule 12 by depositing the mutation fee and by getting their pattas corrected through the state Office. It does not say that the transferor, shall be again given an opportunity to register the document. Mere correction of the patta will be sufficient to validate the transfer. That shows that the intention of the rules was that as between the transferor and the transferee, the passing of title will not be postponed merely because that the document has not been registered. In my opinion the Courts below have correctly interpreted the rules and have come to the correct conclusion that the Plaintiff has been able to establish his title by virtue of his purchase.