VAKIL SINGH Vs. BIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, hence, by both the learned Courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiff's suit, for, rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, and, also for rendition, of, a decree of mandatory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, hence stood decreed.

(2.) This Court, on 3.9.2008, had, admitted the appeal, instituted by the defendants/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered, by the learned first Appellate Court, upon, the hereinafter extracted, substantial question of law, for, its hence making, an adjudication thereon:-

(3.) Vis-A-Vis, one Chinti Devi, a conclusive, and, binding verdict, stood hence recorded, by this Court, judgment whereof, stands, embodied, in Ext. P-8, (a) and wherethrough, after dismissal, of, the defendants' objections, vis-a-vis, the conclusive, and binding judgment, and, decree, pronounced against the defendants, (b) hence, a, pronouncement was made, for issuance, of, warrant(s) of possession, vis-a-vis, the suit property, and, theirs' being executed, vis-a-vis, the afore decree holder one Chinti Devi, (c) and, visibly the afore mandate become complied with, and, besides the vendor, of, the plaintiffs, one Chinti Devi, obviously stood delivered, hence, physical possession, of, the suit property, by, the defendants, (d) thereupon, with the earlier litigation, wherein the afore pronouncement, was recorded, engaging, and, being inter-se the afore Chinti Devi, and, the defendants herein, (e) and, wherein, a conclusive, and, binding besides completely executed decree, hence, rather of possession, was rendered, visa-vis, the afore Chinti Devi, does completely, benumb the defendants espousal, qua, theirs acquiring, through, adverse possession, hence title and interest, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. However, the afore Chinti Devi alone, held, an, indefeasible, vested right, to, through recoursing, the, apposite legal processes, hence seek injunction, against, invalid usumption, vis-a-vis, her valid possession, qua, the suit khasra numbers, and, as, purportedly, made, at the instance, of, the defendants. Significantly, the, afore locus standi remains rather unvested, in, the plaintiffs'. The plaintiffs' also claimed qua their acquiring hencetitle, vis-a-vis, the suit land, through, mutation No. 661, and, mutation No. 662, mutations whereof, were, respectively attested, on 14.7.1986, in sequel to theirs' acquiring title, through, a sale made in their favour, by the said Chinti Devi, (b) and, also therethrough claimed, a, valid facilitatation, to, institute a suit, seeking therethrough, hence, rendition, of, the espoused decree, vis-a-vis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants. Significantly, hence, the validity, of, attestation, of, the afore mutations bearing mutation No. 661, and, mutation No. 662, mutations whereof were attested 14.7.1986, becomes, the, fulcrum wherethrough, an, apt determination would hence ensure, (a) whether the plaintiffs, hold, possession, of, the suit property, (b) whether they are entitled, to, claim rendition, of, the espoused decree against the defendants, and, vis-a-vis, the, suit khasra numbers, (c) however, for, the afore attested mutation(s) becoming validated by this Court, it, was incumbent, upon, the plaintiffs, to, ensure adduction, of, firm evidence, hence meteing satiation, rather with the apposite mandatory statutory provisions, borne both, in, The Transfer of Property Act, and, in, The Registration Act, (d) whereunder(s), vis-a-vis, immovable property hence holding, a, value of more than Rs. 100/-, a, scribed registered deed of conveyance, is, enjoined to be executed, inter-se the vendor, and, the vendee, and, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers. However, the execution, of, the requisite mandatory/statutory registered deed of conveyance, inter-se Chinti Devi, and, the plaintiffs, though, is referred in mutation bearing No. 661, and, also in mutation bearing No. 662, respectively attested, on, 14.7.1986, (d) however, for, the afore reflections cast therein, becoming validated hence by this Court, and, also theirs' becoming concluded to enjoy conclusivity, rather enjoined, the, plaintiffs', to, adduce, the, apposite deed(s), hence into evidence. However, the apt registered deed, of, conveyance executed, purportedly inter-se, the, plaintiffs, and, said Chinti Devi remained unadduced into evidence and, when hence, only, thereafter valid title, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, would become vested, in, the plaintiffs, and only, when in pursuance thereof, a, valid mutation would become attested, (f) whereas, the, afore requisite statutorily enjoined registered deed of conveyance, as purportedly executed inter-se plaintiffs, and, Chinti Devi rather remaining unadduced into evidence, (g) thereupon upon breach, of, the afore requisite mandatory statutory mandate, and, also when hence, for, want thereof, no valid title, is, conveyed, inter-se the suit khasra numbers, by, Chinti Devi, to, the plaintiffs, (h) thereupon the orders hence attesting mutations, and, theirs' therein unfolding qua the apposite deeds becoming executed, is/are, yet, for non adduction(s) thereof, rather void-abinitio, and, consequently, all, the, apposite entries, and, appertaining, to, the suit khasra numbers also do not any legal vigors.