GOVIND RAM Vs. CHITTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner purchased the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 2 Min. measuring 26 bighas 9 biswas situate in village Hathnapur from Chittar and Kalu sons of Chhagna Meena resident of Hathnapur vide registered sale deed dated March 24, 1969 for valuable consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. This fact has been mentioned by the petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition. He has further submitted that the land was purchased on Chait Badi 4, Samvat 2010 from Chhagna, the father of Kalu and Chittar by way of sale for a sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. THE petitioner has produced Annexure-2 the document which is on a plain paper and there is a reference that the sale was made for the sum of Rs. 4,000 -. ft has also been shown that it bears the thumb impression of Chhagna. THE sale-deed dated March 24, 1969 was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments In the sale deed dated March 24, 1969, there is no reference of the previous sale alleged to have taken place on Chait Badi 4, Samvat 2010. A bare perusal of the document Annexure-2 and the sale deed dt March 24, 1969 shown that vide Annexure-2 it is alleged that Chhagna has sold the land in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- but vide the registered sale deed dated March 24, 1969, it is alleged that Chittar and Kalu sons of Chhagna have sold the land for a valuable consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. Thus, there is inconsistency in the amount as well as about the persons who sold the land. It is also very relevant fact that there is no reference in the sale deed dated March 24, 1969 about the alleged sale effected on Chait Badi 4, Samvat 2010.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the writ petition, Annexures thereof and the sale deed dated March 24, 1969.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the transaction may be considered as the delivery of the property has been effected. LEARNED counsel further submits that if there is an oral transaction accompany with the delivery of the property, s 53 A will come into operation. The transaction of oral sale, requiring compulsory registration under s. 54 is not saved by the doctrine of part performance. Further more, in a case like this where the provisions of s 42 (b) of the Act admittedly applies, there cannot be any transfer of the interest of a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribes in favour of the persons of the other communities. For this reason also, the transfer is nonest and the question of applicability of s. 53a of the T. P. Act does not apply.