9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of contention between the parties was land measuring 34 kanals situated at village Bare Ke, Tehsil and Distt. Ferozepur fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. The said land was owned by Narain Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) who during his lifetime had allegedly entered into an agreement to sell dated 27.6.2001 agreeing to sell out the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre after receiving a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 15.5.2002 but he did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the stipulated date which resulted into filing of the present suit by the plaintiff-respondent. 3. Upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produce any evidence to show that possession of the dispute land was actually delivered and thus, observed that the argument of the appellants was misconceived. 7. Still not satisfied, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below. 8. Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below cannot be sustained as there was a specific recital in the impugned agreement to sell according to which the possession of the land in dispute was stated to have been delivered to the vendee i.e the plaintiff-respondent and thus, in view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported as Prag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff-respondent and the impugned agreement to sell required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Nor any such issue was claimed by the appellants before the trial Court. Issue No. 4 was framed by the trial Court as under: Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 14. However, neither any evidence was led to prove this issue nor any argument was raised by the appellants to substantiate the aforesaid issue and the aforesaid issue was decided against the defendant-appellants by the trial Court. 15. Before the Lower Appellate Court, the argument regarding maintainability of the suit was raised by the appellants on the basis of the recital in the agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said agreement does not require registration and the suit filed on the basis thereof is very much maintainable. The learned trial Court has rightly held so. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellants could not challenge the correctness of the above findings of the Lower Appellate Court. Since the possession was proved not to have been delivered to the plaintiff-respondent at the time of execution of the impugned agreement to sell, the: Lower Appellate Court rightly held that agreement to sell did not require registration. Moreover, this Court in Mohan Singh v. Nirmal Singh and Ors. 1971 P.L.J. 27, has held that merely on the basis of recital in the document, possession cannot be said to be proved to be delivered. Even before this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
