9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owners had refused to accept. A conveyance deed (Exhibit P.2) was executed between the parties on December 17, 1956 which was not registered. The residents of erstwhile village Kailar brought the instant suit in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the defendant Santan Dharam Sabha, Chandigarh, for permanent injunction restraining the latter from interfering with the plaintiffs' management, administration, control and possession of the temple on the allegation that the defendant Sabha had started threatening to take forcible possession of the temple. 3. The defendant Sabha resisted the suit on the ground that the Chandigarh Administration has allotted the temple in their favour vide order dated September 15, 1971 (Exhibit D. 1) and possession has also been delivered to them in pursuance of this allotment. Ownership rights of the plaintiffs were denied. 4. The trial Court held that the conveyance deed (Exhibit P. 2) required compulsory registration and being admittedly unregistered it cannot convey title to the plaintiffs. It was found that the temple has been allotted by the Chandigarh Administration to the defendant-Sabha Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty which is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose being purpose of the State. Section 7 of the Act provides that where any property is subject to requisition the State Government may acquire the property if it is of opinion that it is necessary to do so for a public purpose. Thus, the property is requisitioned under section 3 and acquired under section 7 of the Act. Section 6(2) relates to the release from requisitioning and it does not apply to any property which is acquired for a public purpose. Hence, the provisions of Section 6(2) of the said Act are entirely inapplicable to the present case. After the acquisition of the temples their title vested in the Government and it could be transferred to the plaintiffs only by means of a conveyance deed. There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that the Government had de-requisitioned the temples making the execution of the conveyance deed redundant. 6A. The next contention of the learned counsel is that even though Exhibit P. 2 is unregistered, the appellants are entitled to take advantage of the same under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The objection of the respondent's counsel is that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticed. In that case the plaintiffs were in possession of an estate under unregistered documents from the previous owners. Subsequently, the defendants got a registered conveyance of the estate in their favour from the same owners. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the defendant had no right or title to the estate and that they were debarred from enforcing any right to the estate. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs could not rely upon Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act as they could not ask for the relief of declaration for the obvious reasons that the title did not pass to them. The decision in Probodh Kumar's case (Supra) is clearly relevant to the instant case. In order to give benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to the plaintiff it will have to be found that the defendant-Sabha is not the rightful transferee of the temple from the Chandigarh Administration. No such finding can be given as no title had passed in favour of the plaintiffs vide conveyance deed (Exhibit P.2). On the other hand the property in dispute had been allotted to the defendant-Sabha by the competent authority. Thus, it is evident that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able only when the defendant transferee seeks to debar the transferor plaintiff from enforcing his right against the defendant-transferee in the property which he has transferred with consideration and has parted with possession but has not executed a registered document . Taking this view of the matter I am unable to agree with the learned appellants' counsel that in the present case the appellants even in the capacity of plaintiffs are entitled to take benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. It was lastly contended by the appellants' counsel that the appellants being in possession of the temple cannot be ousted by the defendant-Sabha otherwise than in due course of law. A decree for injunction in these terms was claimed. The counsel drew my attention in this respect to Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab 1971 PLJ 3338 in which the Supreme Court held that under our jurisprudence even an unauthorised occupant can be evicted only in the manner authorised by law. This is the essence of the rule of law . One can have no quarrel with this proposition of law. Obviously, the defendant-Sabha cannot forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs who are admittedly held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
