1984 (3) TMI 429 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compulsory Registration of Conveyance Deed
2. Applicability of Section 6(2) of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1948
3. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
4. Right to Injunction Based on Possession

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compulsory Registration of Conveyance Deed:
The core issue was whether the conveyance deed (Exhibit P.2) required compulsory registration. The trial court and the lower appellate court both held that the conveyance deed required compulsory registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the deed was unregistered, it could not convey title to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the deed did not require registration, relying on Section 90(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, which exempts certain government grants from registration. However, the court found this contention "manifestly misconceived" as the property in question was not land or an interest in land but two temples. Therefore, the conveyance deed could not be received as evidence of the transaction and was not competent to convey title.

2. Applicability of Section 6(2) of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1948:
The plaintiffs argued that the execution of the conveyance deed was redundant because the government had decided to release the temple under Section 6(2) of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1948. The court found this contention untenable, clarifying that Section 6(2) relates to the release of requisitioned property, not acquired property. Since the temple was acquired under Section 7 of the Act, its title vested in the government, and it could only be transferred to the plaintiffs through a conveyance deed. Thus, the provisions of Section 6(2) were inapplicable.

3. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The plaintiffs sought to invoke Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to defend their possession. The court noted that Section 53A could only be invoked by a defendant transferee to debar the transferor from enforcing any right against them. The plaintiffs, being in the position of plaintiffs, could not claim the benefit of Section 53A. The court referred to the Privy Council's decision in Probodh Kumar v. Dantmara Tea Co., which held that Section 53A does not apply to plaintiffs seeking to establish their title. The court also referred to judgments from the Orissa High Court and Rajasthan High Court, which supported this interpretation. Consequently, the plaintiffs could not rely on Section 53A to claim ownership.

4. Right to Injunction Based on Possession:
The plaintiffs argued that they could not be ousted from the temple by the defendant-Sabha except through due process of law, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab. The court acknowledged this legal principle but clarified that a decree for injunction could only be issued in favor of a plaintiff in possession against persons with no better title. In this case, the defendant-Sabha had a better title as the property was allotted to them by the Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction based solely on their possession.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the decisions of the trial court and the lower appellate court. The conveyance deed required compulsory registration, Section 6(2) of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act was inapplicable, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be invoked by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction based on their possession.