AMAR NATH Vs. RAJANI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment dated 22nd June, 2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.5-14 of 2011, whereby the appeal has been allowed and the interim order dated 10th June, 2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, in C.M.A. No.86/6 of 2010 in Civil Suit No.74/1 of 2011 in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, has been quashed.

(2.) The subject matter of dispute in the present lis is the land entered in Khata/Khatauni No.46/46, comprised in Khasra No.7, measuring 0.16 bighas, which is 1/10th share of the total land measuring 8.4 bighas, situated in village Soi, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The petitioner-plaintiff claims that respondent-defendant No.1 Rattan Lal agreed to sell the same for a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- in his favour. The agreement was also executed in this regard on 1st April, 2008 and on part payment of sale consideration he was put in possession of the suit land. Respondentdefendant No.3 Ram Chand allegedly claims himself to be the General Power of Attorney of respondent-defendant No.1, subsequently sold the suit land to respondentdefendant No.2 Smt. Soma Devi none else but his own wife, fraudulently. The sale of the suit land by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 has, therefore, been sought to be declared as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) In an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CMA No.86/6 of 2010] filed alongwith the suit, learned trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record, directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land with a further direction not to alienate the same during the pendency of the suit. Learned lower appellate Court on consideration of the provisions contained under the Registration Act and other related laws (amendment Act 2001) vide which provisions of Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act and Indian Stamp Act were amended and also law laid down by the Apex Court, has held that the agreement dated 1st April, 2008 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff being unregistered creates no right, title or interest qua the suit land in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and as such no interim relief could have been granted. The order passed by learned trial Court has, therefore, been quashed and set aside.