RAMESH CHANDER Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for declaration to the effect that he has become owner of the suit property on the basis of writing dated 17.10.1990 and in the alternative on the plea of adverse possession, has been dismissed. It could not be disputed before this Court that a plea of adverse possession is not available to the plaintiff as held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and others, 2012 AIR(SC) 559 At this stage, it may further be noticed that counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has become owner of the suit properly on the basis of agreement in question. It is equally well settled that the agreement to sell will not confer title on a person in whose favor such an agreement has been executed. Such an agreement/writing dated 17.10.1990 would not transfer the title in immovable property in favor of such a person being an unregistered document, though such an agreement to sell may be enforceable under law.

(2.) Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant has further argued that vide order dated 20.11.2009, the trial Court has converted the suit for declaration into a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 17.10.1990. He also argued that vide order dated 01.12.2004, the trial Court after converting the suit filed by the appellant into a suit for specific performance directed the appellant to affix the ad valorem Court fee, and accordingly such Court fee was affixed. Thus, the Courts below have erred at law while still deciding the suit as declaration suit. According to him, the appellant has also proved the execution of the agreement to sell.

(3.) There is nothing on record to suggest that the said suit was ever treated for specific performance of agreement to sell. No such issue has been framed in the instant suit. If vide order dated 01.12.2004, the suit of the appellant was converted into a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for the appellant to explain as to why he has kept quiet and never raised an objection of framing of proper issues before the trial Court and even before the First Appellate Court.