9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproximately 0.56 acres of Khasra No. 526 located in Khurai Tehsil, District Sagar. It was claimed that the land in dispute was leased to the plaintiff by the lambardar and the deed executed on 5-12-1949 which was registered on 3-4-1950. It was alleged that the appellant was an agent of the respondent who was permitted to set up a brick-kiln in the area in dispute in the year 1960-61. The appellant, however, who had a house in the adjoining Khasra No. 527 trespassed initially on 0.14 acre and made further encroachments on 0.42 acre. The claim was contested by the appellant and it was claimed that the deed having been registered on 3-4- 1950, it was void under Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 (in brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of its registration. It is well established that a document so long it is not registered is not valid yet once it is registered it takes effect from the date of its execution. (See Ram Saran Lall v. Mst Domini Kuer AIR 1961 SC 1747: (1962) 2 SCR 474 and Nanda Ballabh Gururani v. Smt Maqbool Begum(1980) 3 SCC 346: 1980 UJ (SC) 597 Since, admittedly, the lease deed was executed on 5-12-1949, the plaintiff after registration of it on 3-4-1950 became owner by operation of law on the date when the deed was executed. Therefore, the land did not vest in the State. And the courts below did not commit any error in negativing the claim of appellant. 4.It is then urged that the lease was not signed by the respondent and it being a unilatera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt has gone into detail and after considering the evidence on record found it as a fact that the possession of the appellant was not adverse. The learned counsel, despite strenuous argument, could not demolish the finding of adverse possession. Attempt was made to rely on the evidence led on behalf of the parties and the evidence of the Commissioner who prepared the map. We are afraid that such an exercise is not permissible even in second appeal, what to say of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Further, we do not find that the appellant has suffered any injustice which requires to be remedied by this Court. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
