MADHURANI SINGH Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-9-92 passed in the Title Execution case No. 1/85 filed by the decree-holders Ramni Mohan Das and Rani Devi, whereby and whereunder the petitioner Madhurani Singh has been substituted at the place of decree-holders Ramni Mohan Das, Logan Chandra Das, Smt. Nunumani Devi, Smt. Veena Devi and Sri Anant Prasad Das for their 6-1/4 decimals share in the decree and the O.P. No. 1 Subhash Chandra Ghosh has been substituted at the place of decree-holder Shankar Pd. Das and Smt. Rani Devi for their 8-3/4 decimals share in the decree. The Court below ordered that the instant decree be executed accordingly with convenience of Subhash Chandra Ghosh to select the side of the house according to his choice and convenience after which 6-1/4 decimals of petitioner be delivered in her possession.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that opposite second party obtained a decree against one Roop Narayan Ghosh father of O.P. No. 1 in T.A. No. 9/71. The decree jointly passed in favour of both the decree-holders was for recovery of possession of 15 decimals of land in mouza Bogaria in the district of Banka. On 12-10-87 Rani Devi (decree-holder) executed sale-deed in respect of her interest in the suit land in favour of O.P. No. 1 (son of the judgment debtor) which was registered at Araria. The petitioner claims that on 11-11-87 both Ramni Mohan and Rani Devi executed a registered sale-deed transferring the suit land to her. Having executed the sale-deed both Ramrii Mohan and Rani Devi ceased to take any step in the execution case. Petitioner applied for sub-stitution in the execution case for execution of the entire decree. Subsequently O.P. No. 1 also filed a similar application claiming substitution in place of Rani Devi for execution of the decree in respect of the share of Rani Devi. O.P. No. 1 also raised objection with respect to the claim of the petitioner for execution of the entire decree in her favour. The petitioner also questioned status of O.P. No. 1 as representative of the decree holder. By the impugned order the Court allowed partial execution in favour of both as airealy mentioned above.

(3.) It has been contended by Mr. Chatterji, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the land in question is situated in Mouza Bogaria in the district of Banka, but the alleged sale-deed with respect to it in favour of O.P. No. 1 was fraudulently registered at Araria by including a bit of property lying within the Sub-Treasury of Araria, i.e. plot No. 501 of Khata No. 45. According to him, in the record of right there is no such plot under Khata No. 45 in which one Bibi Serajul had 3 annas interest. Rani Devi, the vendor of O.P. No. 1 claimed interest in the said land under a deed of gift executed by Bibi Serajul. The deed which was produced by O.P. No. 1 shows that the same is un-registered. It is submitted that under Section 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Deed of Gift of whatever value has to be registered. According to Mr. Chatterji, it is true that Muslims can make an oral Hiba. But if a Deed is executed, then it must be registered.