GANGA RAM Vs. RAM LACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by defendant No. 1, who was a respondent in the lower appellate Court. The appeal arises out of a suit brought for declaration of title and for recovery of rent from two tenants occupying a house. The plaintiff's case was that his vendor Ujagir Ram entered into an agreement with the owner of this premises for sale of the same to him on the 8th September, 1947. The original owner was Sarjug Ram. Sarjug Ram in pursuance of that agreement to sell, executed a deed of sale in favour of Ujagir Ram on the 3rd of October, 1947 and received the entire consideration money, a part of which had been taken before that date but the document could not be registered as Sarjug Ram fell ill. He died on the 14th of October, 1947. Ujagir Ram presented the document for registration, but he failed as the execution was not admitted. Ultimately, he filed a suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for a decree directing that document to be registered. But on the 4th of October, 1947, the present appellant (defendant No. 1) took a sale deed executed by Sarjug Ram for the same property, and it was registered on the 6th of October, 1947. The suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act was Title Suit No. 103 of 1949, and Sarjug Ram's widow, brother, the present appellant and the two tenants were defendants; the judgment was passed in favour of the present plaintiff's vendor on the 15th July, 1953. The decree was drawn up and signed on the 23rd July, 1953 and 28th July, 1953, respectively. The decoument was ultimately registered on the 12th March, 1954, having been presented for that purpose by the Court which had passed the decree under Section 77 of the Registration Act. Thereafter, on the 16th October, 1954, UJagir Ram transferred the property to the plaintiff. But, as there was difficulty in his way, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the declaration and the other relief, as I have stated above.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the sale in favour of the plaintiff's vendor as executed by Sarjug Ram was not valid, genuine and for consideration; and, therefore, he had got no title to transfer the same to the plaintiff. Secondly, that Court also held that there was no valid presentation or registration of that sale deed under Section 77 read with Section 75 of the Registration Act. On appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate Court took a different view and held that the sale deed, dated the 3rd October, 1947 was properly and validly executed on that date by Sarjug Ram in favour of Ujagir Ram and that it was for consideration and also that it was validly registered after the decree was passed in Tile Suit No. 103 of 1949. Defendant No. 1 has felt aggrieved by that judgment and decree and has come in appeal to this Court.

(3.) The main point canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that the sale deed of the 3rd October, 1947 executed by Sarjug Ram in favour of Ujagir Ram has not been registered according to law as it was not presented within thirty days of the making of the decree in Title Suit No. 103 of 1949. Learned counsel pointed out that the judgment in that suit was passed on the 15th July, 1953 and the date of the decree should be taken to be that date, although it was signed on the 28th July, 1953. Even assuming that the computation of thirty days as provided under Section 77 read with Section 75 will begin from the 28th July, 1953, the document was not presented within thirty days therefrom and, therefore, the registration accorded by the registering officer was without jurisdiction and, therefore, invalid. From the facts brought out by him, it is clear that after the decree was signed on the 28th July 1953, the defendant in that suit filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree and also applied for stay of the operation of the decree, on the 18th August, 1953. In response to it, an order of stay was passed by that Court on the 28th August, 1953; and the case under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was disposed of by dismissing that application on the 13th February, 1954. As the defendant, who was directed under the decree of the title suit to get the document registered within thirty days of the passing of the decree, failed to carry out that order, the plaintiff made an application to the Court on the 8th March, 1954 praying that the document may be sent by the Court to the Registrar for registration, following which it was presented at the instance of that Court and was registered on the 12th March, 1954. It also appears and that is admitted on both sides that the document was first sent by the Munsif to the Sub-Registrar but was returned with a query about the date of the decree and then it was re-sent on the 12th March, 1954, on which date it was also registered. The decree passed in that title suit has not been brought on the record at the instance of either of the parties. We were referred to the ordersheet in that case (Ex. 4); one of the entries under the date "15-7-1953", shows that a compromise petition was filed between the plaintiff and one of the defendants. The order reads like this: