RATTAN CHAND Vs. L BHAGIRATH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that requires determination in this second appeal is one pertaining to the interpretation of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. There has been and is a conflict of judicial opinion as to the ambit and scope of this section and in view of this I have thought it proper to refer this matter for decision to a larger Bench.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this second appeal ate that on the 26th of February, 194g, defendants 1 and 3 Bhagirath and Jagan Nath orally sold 43 Kanals 19 marlas of land to plaintiff Rattan Chand for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -. A document exhibit P. 5, evidencing the sale of the property, the price settled and how it was to be paid was executed. It is recited in this document that a sum of Rs. 200/-had been paid in cash and the remaining sum Of Rs. 2,800/-would be paid at the time when the mutation of sale is sanctioned. It appears that later on the vendors found a better purchaser in the person of another Rattan Chand, to whom they sold the property on the 20th March, 1946, for a sum of Rs. 4,500/ -. The plaintiff who is the previous vendee having come to know of the second sale gave notice to his vendors and the subsequent vendee on the 29th of March, 1946, informing that the property had already been sold to him and, therefore, could not be transferred a second time, but in view of the fact that the sale had already taken place on the 20th of March, 1946, the present suit was filed for specific performance of the contract of sale end in the alternative for damages and return of part of the purchase price paid under Exhibit P-5, in all for Rs. 1,200/-on the 1st of March, 1948. The defence of the subsequent vendee was that he was a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the previous sale and, therefore, was protected. The vendors raised the defence that there was no sale in favour of the plaintiff and in any case the sale had not been completed. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit in the alternative, that is, for Rs. 1,200/- --Rs. 1,000/as damages and RS. 200/- as part of the purchase price paid on the 26th of february, 1946.

(3.) ON appeal, the learned Sessions Judge hoshisrpur came to the conclusion that exhibit P-5 required registration and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence. He dismissed the suit for damages but maintained the decree for return of the purchase price relying on a decision of Shri Jai Lal J. in Bahawal v. Amrik Singh, air 1932 Lah 655. The plaintiff who is dissatisfied with this decision has come up in second appeal to this Court.