P.C. KAUL Vs. KRISHNA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1998 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, who granted a decree for possession in favour of Smt. Krishna Wati against the present appellants pertaining to the basement, front hall over the basement on the ground floor and open space 6'x10' of 28/1 Industrial Area, Phase-II Chandigarh, fully described in the head note of the plaint.

(2.) TWO fold contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. First that Smt. Krishna Wati had no locus standi to file the suit for possession against the appellants because she had not become the full fledged owner. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for one valid reason. The other which has been adopted by the trial Court may not be as sound as it looks to be. Admittedly, no sale deed was executed in favour of smt. Krishna Wati. She had paid the entire consideration to her vendor and got the possession of the property which was agreed to be sold to her. It is a basic law that agreement of sale does not create any right, title or interest in the vendee. Even if she had given the entire sale consideration to her vendor, the fact is that her title was not complete so long a regular sale-deed is not executed in her favour. The argument if the learned counsel for the appellants stands repelled for the reason that the client of Mr. Sharma had attorned in favour of Smt. Krishna Wati and in view of the bar created under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellants could not challenge the title of respondent without surrendering the possession to the respondent. On the strength of her attornment Smt. Krishna Wati had the locus standi to file the suit for possession and as such the frame of the suit is correct. If any support is required, it can be derived from Bokka Steera Mulu v. Kalipatnapu Venkateswar Rao and another, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 92, where it was held as follows :-

(3.) I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not proved on the record that after the carvation of Union Territory, Chandigarh there was any notification either issued by the State Government of by the Union Territory through which it has been stated that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act would be applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh. By implication we cannot stretch the operation of Transfer of Property Act to the Union Territory, Chandigarh. If this part of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected, then the general principles of Transfer of Property Act as applicable to the State of Punjab can be made applicable independently. Notice in this case was admittedly given to the defendants-appellants before filing of the suit. The defference of one day here or there will not make much difference in this case. The defendants were given six-months time in this case to vacate the demised premises. Through the notice the tenancy of the defendants was terminated. Both the Courts below had rightly dealt with this issue. No merit, Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.