Validity of aggrement.
Ramesh
(Querist) 08 January 2009
This query is : Resolved
A person Mr.'X'( Now Dead) purchases an Ag.land from Mr.'Y'( Now Dead), 50 yrs. back.
But not registered on his name,his name appeared in the column of 'kowle dhar'(Cultivator) for 10 to 15 yrs.
Mr.'X' sold this land to Mr.'Z' through a private sale deed(Registration is not done),He(Mr.'Z') entered in to revenue records as a cultivator of the land for JUST "three years".Mean while Mr.'X',died.
All along these years the name of Mr.'Y' is being reflected as a "pattedhar", and from last 17yrs (till date), even in cultivator column.
As on today Mr.'Z' is in possession of the land( But his Name is not in the Revenue records) and leased to some commercial activity.Now Mr.'Y'( since died), successors wants Take over/sell off the land.
Under above conditions what is the fate of Mr.'Z'.Does he have any Right/s on the land( Is trying to take some Municipal numbers from the municipality),can he fight his case in Court of law?
NEED AN URGENT REPLY PLEASE.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 08 January 2009
Mr. Z will not get title to the land i.e. ownership unless he claims adverse possession. The sale deed between X and Z is not legal. You have not specified whether the X purchased land from Y through regd. sale deed. If it is registered and is legal, then Y will not get any ownership rights. In the given circumstances, Z can protect his possession even against true owner. Please the following case law.
Supreme Court Digest of Recent Cases
(2004) 1 SCC 769
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997
Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. PETITIONER:
Vs.
M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. & Anr. RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2003
BENCH:
R.C. Lahoti, B.N. Srikrishna & G.P. Mathur
Specific Relief Act, 1963
— S. 6 — Occupant in ``settled possession'' cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law — ``Settled possession'' — Meaning and tests for — Tests in Puran Singh case, (1975) 4 SCC 518, 527, para 12, reiterated — Extent to which peaceful possession is protected in Indian law — Settled possession gives right to possession such that even the rightful owner may only recover it by taking recourse to law, (2004) 1 SCC 769-A
Specific Relief Act, 1963
— Ss. 37 and 38 — Claim for injunction — Whether available purely on the basis of prior possession without determination of question of title, (2004) 1 SCC 769-B
J U D G M E N T
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. The defendant is in appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court, upheld by the High Court, restraining him from
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
by the respondent.
2. The plaintiff and the defendant both have expired. Their LRs are
on record. For the sake of convenience we are making reference to the
Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu
original parties i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. The suit property, a piece of land, is situated in Arekempanahally,
36th Division. It appears that the plaintiff and the defendant both claim to
be owning two adjoining pieces of land. There is a dispute as to the exact
dimensions and shapes (triangular or rectangular) of the pieces of land
claimed to be owned and possessed respectively by the two parties. The
real dispute, it seems, is about the demarcation of the boundaries of the two
pieces of land. However, the fact remains, and that is relevant for our
purpose, that the piece of land which forms the subject-matter of the suit is
in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent was
raising construction over the piece of land in his possession, and that was
obstructed by the defendant-appellant claiming that the land formed part of
his property and was owned by him. The plaintiff filed a suit alleging his
title as also his possession over the disputed piece of land. The Trial Court
found that although the plaintiff had failed in proving his title, he had
succeeded in proving his possession over the suit property which he was
entitled to protect unless dispossessed therefrom by due process of law. On
this finding the Trial Court issued an injunction restraining the defendant-
appellant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaintiff-respondent over the suit property.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant
that the suit filed by the plaintiff was based on his title. The suit itself was
defective inasmuch as declaration of title was not sought for though it was
in dispute. Next, it is submitted that if the suit is based on title and if the
plaintiff failed in proving his title, the suit ought to have been dismissed
without regard to the fact that the plaintiff was in possession and whether
the defendant had succeeded in proving his title or not. We find no merit in
both these submissions so made and with force.
5. Salmond states in Jurisprudence (T
Ramesh
(Querist) 08 January 2009
Mr.Palnitkar,
Thank you very much, for your exhaustive reply.
'X' purchased the land from 'Y',is not through Reg.sale deed.
Ramesh
(Querist) 08 January 2009
My friend and my self wants to purchase the
above land from Mr.'Y' successors.Your suggestion please.
sanjeev murthy desai
(Expert) 08 January 2009
Firstly,
Thank you Mr. Palnitkar
Mr. Ramesh
yes you can purchase the said land from Y under the registered Sale Deed and if you can have the all the legal heirs of X and Z as a confirming partis in the executiion of sale deed. It is better way to have the good title.
sanjeev desai
