MAKSUDAN SINGH Vs. DARBARGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Muksudan Singh, malguzar of Kacharbod, filed this suit on 26th March 1925, against Darbargir who had purchased by means of an unregistered sale-deed dated 2nd October 1922, 8-53 acres of occupancy land for Rs.256 from Mt. Premkuar, the tenant of the land in suit. Darbargir was put in possession in accordance with the sale. Mangal Singh, a nephew of Mt. Premkuar, was made a defendant, because he used to live with Mt. Premkuar, was her heir, had signed the sale-deed and had thus given, his consent to the sale. Mt. Kala applied on 17th July 1925, to be made a defendant, as she alleged that she was the daughter of Mt. Premkuar and was added as a defendant. The. defendant Darbargir stated that he purchased the land for Rs.481, after obtaining the consent of the plaintiff, that he had been in possession since 2nd October 1922, that as plaintiff did not apply under Section 13, C.P. Tenancy Act for setting aside the transfer, his remedy is barred and this Court has no jurisdiction. Mt. Kala put in a written statement in which she stated that she was the heir of Mt. Premkuar and not Mangal Singh, and that plaintiff had no right to bring the suit.

(2.) THE trial Court found that plaintiff had not consented to the sale, that Darbargir was in possession of the land in suit from 2nd October 1922, that Mt. Kala was Mt. Premkuar's daughter, that civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, that the sale-deed was inadmissible for want of registration, that Mangal Singh signed the sale-deed as an attesting witness, that Mt. Kala's claim had become barred and passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court held that the malguzar's consent was not proved, that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that Mt. Kala's claim was not barred against the plaintiff who was not in possession, that the landlord had no right of re-entry unless it was proved that the tenant right had ceased to exist and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) IN this case the sale being for Rs.481 registration was necessary and as the document could not be registered there was no transfer and the vendee is a trespasser and the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.