Budhi Ram v. 2Nd Addl.DisTrict Judge, Sultanpur And Others

K.C. Bhargava, J.— The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 4-2-1992 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Sultanpur dismissing the appeal against the order of the Munsif. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved against that order the plaintiff-petitioner has now come up in writ petition and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the appellate court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts below have rejected the sale-deed executed in the year 1967 for Rs. 95 as the same was not registered According to him the sale-deed for the amount below Rs. 100 does not require compulsory registration. In support of his case he has placed reliance on Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act which runs as under: --

"17(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property;"

A perusal of the above sub-clause shows that the documents mentioned therein are required to be compulsorily registered. The above sub-clause deals with those documents which require compulsory registration and this sub-section deals with all the immovable properties except the property below Rs. 100. It does not speak anything about the property the value of which is below Rs. 100. Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act deals with those documents the registration of which is optional. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on sub-clause (a) of Section 18 of the Act which reads as under: --

"(a) instruments (other than instruments of gift and wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, of a value less than one hundred rupees, to or in immovable property."

A perusal of this sub-clause goes to show that if the value of the property is less than 100 rupees then the registration is optional. But the matter does not end here. 2. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines the sale and provides how the sale is to be made. Para 2 of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is as under: --

"In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property."

This section provides that the transfer of immovable property can be made either by registered instrument or by delivery of the Property, of a value less than one hundred rupees. No other mode is prescribed in this section. It does not say that the sale-deed of a property below Rs. 100 which has been reduced in writing does not require registration. If a document in respect of the immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees is reduced in writing then its registration is compulsory under the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act will not apply because the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act will exclude the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act. Therefore in view of this matter the sale of the property in dispute which has been made by an instrument in writing other than a registered document missed the legal character of the transfer. If the transfer is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act then it can be acted upon by the court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has also taken a plea of adverse possession. That question is not being decided at the moment. The trial court shall decide the question after recording the evidence of the parties. 4. The application moved by the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC has been rejected by the trial court after a detailed reasoning and the same reasoning has been confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. This Court does not see any reason to differ from the courts below because there is a concurrent finding on the question and this court cannot reappraise the evidence. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. (Petition dismissed.) _____________