PARMANAND Vs. GEETA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Parmanand filed a Suit for possession of land measuring 4 marlas with a room measuring 12' x 15' constructed thereon, comprised in Khasra No.1184 situated at Daily Excelsior Road, Old Janipur, Jammu against the respondent-Geeta Devi saying that he had purchased occupancy rights in land measuring 18 marlas comprised in Khasra No.1184 from Majid Ahmad son of Ghulam Hussan paying him Rs.81,000/- therefor. An Agreement dated 10.4.1998 was executed between him and Majid Ahmed which was attested by a Notary. He sold 14 marlas therefrom to one Narinder Kumar and rest of the land comprising four marlas over which a room measuring 12' x 15' stood constructed, was agreed to be sold to the respondent for Rs.25,000/-. An Agreement to this effect was executed between his brother and the respondent on 08.12.2004. In terms of the Agreement a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to his brother- Kasturi Lal and rest of the amount was to be paid to him within a period of three months by the respondent. According to the appellant, Rs.15,000/- having not been paid to him by the respondent, the already paid amount stood forfeited. The respondent is stated to have later dispossessed the appellant taking forcible possession of the land. Taking note of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court of Subordinate Judge, Jammu framed three preliminary issues, which read thus:-

(2.) After hearing the parties and perusing the documents placed on records, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the land in question was State Land and the Agreement on the basis whereof the Suit was filed pertained to land comprised in Khasra No.1183 min and not 1184 which was claimed to have been purchased by the appellant. Finding that the Agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was executed by one Kasturi Lal and not the Appellant brother, the appellant s Suit was found non-maintainable based on no cause of action. In view of the findings of the trial Court on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff, the appellant s Suit was dismissed. Upholding the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court that the Agreement to Sell pertained to the land different from the one stated owned by the appellant and that the Agreement relied upon by the appellant was executed by Kasturi Lal and not by the appellant s brother, the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the Ist Appellate Court additionally holding that the Agreement relied upon by the appellant having not been registered, no right in the land would vest in the appellant, in that, conveyance of any immovable property was permissible only by a registered instrument and not otherwise.

(3.) The appellant has filed this Civil Second Appeal questioning the dismissal of his Suit.